1 
 
 /.<?.// 
 
 { t^ ^^oiogrrfr/ 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. <y 
 
 Division. 
 Section .. 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/lettersontnnityOOstua 
 
LETTERS ON THE TRINITY, 
 
 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST; 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE REV. WILLIAM E. CHANNIXG, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO HIS SERMON 
 "ON THE DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY;" 
 
 Preached and Published at Baltim&c&V*' 6* ^UfCr^ 
 
 * JAN 9 1911 * 
 By MOSES STUART, — 
 
 Associate Prof, of Sac. Lit. in Theol. Sem., Andover, 
 
 DUNDEE. 
 PUBLISHED BY JAMES ADAM; 
 
 AKD SOLD BY GUTHRIE Sf TAIT, WAUGH 8f INNES, W. OLIPHANT, D. LIZAR*, 
 AND J. LINDSAY, EDINBURGH ; GEORGE GALLIE, GLASGOW ; GEORGE 
 CLARK, ABERDEEN J JAMES DEWAR, PERTH ; P. 'WILSON, ARBROATH ; 
 ALEXANDER BLACK, BRECHIN ; AND J. N1COLL, MONTROSE. 
 
 MDCCCXXIX. 
 
Printed at the Advertiser Office, Dundee. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Our religious literature has been indebted to America fur 
 many valuable contributions. The works of Edwards and 
 Dwight justly occupy a distinguished place among Theo- 
 logical writings ; and the author of the following Letters is 
 already known for his accurate and extensive researches 
 in the field of Biblical criticism. These Letters will be 
 found not only to maintain the high reputation of their 
 author, but to supply what has long been regarded as a 
 desideratum in religious libraries, and to exhibit, in a con- 
 densed and an accessible form, the evidences of the divi- 
 nity of Christ, and the fallacy of the arguments by which 
 that doctrine has been assailed. It is far from our intention to 
 utter any thing in disparagement of the valuable works which 
 previously existed on the subject : But it cannot be denied 
 that these are in general either too voluminous, or too tech- 
 nical in their structure and expression for the majority of 
 readers ; while it must be admitted that the advocates of 
 Unitarian and Socinian doctrines have endeavoured more 
 successfully to adapt the form and style of their productions 
 to the prevailing taste. Such doctrines are no doubt in 
 themselves more agreeable to the natural man, because they 
 are addressed exclusively to his reasoning faculties, and thus 
 administer to the gratification of that pride which is unwil- 
 ling to bow to the authority of God : But it is just the more 
 necessary to exhibit in a proper light the great Scriptural 
 doctrine of Christ's divinity, — such it appears to us, — and 
 the strength and conclusiveness of those arguments by 
 which it is supported. We mean not to speak disrespect- 
 fully of the writers whose opinions it is the object of our 
 author to controvert. We deny not the existence of ta- 
 lent and learning and eloquence in many of them ; but we 
 only express our firm conviction when we say, that a dispas- 
 sionate and candid consideration of the important question 
 which is discussed in the following work, will lead to the 
 conclusion that the doctrines maintained by the Fathers of 
 
IV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the Protestant Reformation, and still cherished by the great 
 body of British Christians, are supported by the authority of 
 Scripture, and are in strict accordance with the dictates of 
 sound and enlightened reason. As the argument pursued in 
 the following pages necessarily assumes a philological and 
 critical form, and as special reference is made to the circum- 
 stances out of which the correspondence arose, we are in- 
 duced to offer a few observations of a general nature, on the 
 principles which should regulate our inquiries into the sub- 
 ject under consideration, and the important place which the 
 doctrine of the divinity of Christ holds in the system of reveal- 
 ed truth. 
 
 I. In these inquiries, then, we ought ever to keep steadily 
 in view the limits which define the province of human reason 
 with respect to the subjects of divine revelation. As we are 
 now addressing ourselves to those who admit the neces- 
 sity and existence of such a revelation, it were needless to 
 show, that human reason is unable of itself to lead the mind 
 to correct views of the character of God and the nature of 
 his government — of the relation in which we stand to him 
 as subjects of that government — of the connexion betwixt 
 this state of existence, and that " life and immortality " which 
 are clearly brought to light only "through thegospel." It is no 
 doubt prober, that, when a communication is addressed to us 
 which claims to be a divine revelation, we should exercise 
 our reason in examining the evidences on which its claim 
 rests ; but, after we have examined these evidences, and 
 found that they are conclusive as to the genuineness and au- 
 thenticity of the communication in support of which they are 
 adduced, we are bound to acquiesce in the statements which it 
 contains, and to submit our judgment to its decisions. It is 
 manifestly absurd first to admit the claims of any given do- 
 cument or body of documents to the character of a divine 
 revelation, and then virtually to deny these claims, by erect- 
 ing our reason into a tribunal, before which a revelation from 
 Heaven is to be arraigned, and its subject matter examined 
 and decided upon. 
 
 The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament have 
 been subjected to the ordeal of examination ; and their 
 claims to be received as genuine and authentic have been 
 fully substantiated. They have been scrutinized with the 
 utmost rigour ; and the ingenuity of sceptics has been em- 
 ployed to destroy their authority : But the attempt has fail- 
 
INTRODUCTION. V 
 
 ed; and we have the satisfaction to know, that the foundation 
 of our faith standeth sure alike against the attacks of the in- 
 fidel and the cavils of the sceptic. It must be admitted that 
 the message which the Sacred Volume conveys is revolting 
 to the natural pride and natural reason of man : It is ad- 
 dressed to him as a being whose moral powers are depraved, 
 whose affections are perverted, whose heart is in a state of 
 rebellion against the law of God. It speaks to him, not in 
 the language of argumentation, but of authoritative and lofty 
 command. It enforces its claim to be listened to and obeyed 
 as the Word of the living God ; and it prostrates the power of 
 human intellect, when opposed to its requirements, by this 
 emphatic declaration, " Thus saith the Lord." 
 
 It will not do, therefore, first to acknowledge the Scrip- 
 tures as containing a revelation of the Divine will, and then 
 to sit in judgment upon the individual parts or subjects of 
 that revelation. If so, we are justly chargeable with the in- 
 consistency of at the same time admitting and rejecting it — 
 of admitting it in part, and of rejecting it in part. If it be 
 in deed and in truth an emanation from God, we must re- 
 ceive it as a whole and believe it as a whole : If it be not 
 a divine revelation, then let its claims be disproved, and its 
 authority at once and for ever set aside. 
 
 Were we required to furnish an exemplification of the 
 principle against which our observations have been directed, 
 we might select the account given by the Apostle John of 
 the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he says, 
 " The Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us.' 
 Now, that portion of Scripture which bears the name of John 
 as its author, after having been subjected to the most rigid 
 examination, has been admitted into the sacred canon, and has 
 invariably been received by professing Christians as part of 
 the Holy Scriptures. But many who admit its authority 
 in the abstract, and acknowledge John to be an inspired wri- 
 ter, nevertheless take exception against the passage in ques- 
 tion, because it is at variance with their preconceived opi- 
 nions, or inexplicable to their limited faculties. Now, if 
 John's gospel be indeed part of divine revelation, we are 
 bound to yield our assent to its statements : W r e must re- 
 ceive the declaration regarding Christ's incarnation (for to 
 him the passage quoted undoubtedly refers) as true, because 
 it forms part of John's gospel ; and that gospel has been 
 found to be true* 
 
 a3 
 
VI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The principle against which we are contending, springs from 
 an "evil heart of unbelief," which is opposed to the will of God, 
 and the conclusions to which his Word leads. That principle 
 sets itself in resistance to his authority ; and when, from the 
 force of overwhelming evidence, a constrained assent is yielded 
 to the claims of Scripture, its last resource is to blind or to per- 
 plex the understanding, by starting apparent difficulties as to 
 particular parts or particular doctrines of the Word of God. 
 The believer, on the other hand, receives the divine message in 
 its simplicity and in its entireness. He desires to know and to 
 obey " the truth as it is in Jesus." His prayer is, " Open thou 
 mine eyes, that I may understand the wonders of thy law :" 
 " Incline my heart unto thy testimonies ;" for " I will run in 
 the way of thy commandments when thou shalt enlarge my 
 heart." Such were the sentiments of David, the King and 
 Psalmist of Israel ; and such, we are convinced, will be the 
 feelings of every humble and believing inquirer after truth. 
 In conducting our inquiries, however, it is not only necessary 
 that we keep steadily in view the limit which marks out the 
 province of human reason, but 
 
 II. The limited range of the human faculties should in- 
 spire us with humility and self-distrust in considering those 
 doctrines which we cannot explain, and which are confessed- 
 ly beyond our comprehension. Man, as originally consti- 
 tuted, was endowed with intellectual and moral powers of a 
 jiigh order ; but the introduction of sin, which hath spread 
 a blight over his moral powers, has also exerted a baleful in- 
 fluence over his intellectual faculties. This is evident from 
 the statements of Scripture and the testimony of expe- 
 rience. It is true that the human mind is still gifted 
 with lofty powers ; and the exercise of these powers is 
 connected with much happiness and enjoyment. Though 
 not qualified, as in his original condition, to hold high and 
 holy intercourse with his Maker, man is still enabled to trace 
 the existence and operation of a great intelligent First Cause ; 
 and, from those things which are seen, to form some concep- 
 tion of "an invisible Power and Godhead." By the exercise 
 of his faculties, man has been enabled to explore the arcana 
 of physical science — to calculate the distances and motions 
 of the heavenly bodies — to render the most powerful agents 
 ki nature subservient to his purposes. But, after all, to what 
 do his utmost attainments amount ? In the world of matter, 
 low limited is the extent of his observation — how manyphe- 
 
INTRODUCTION. VH 
 
 nomena daily occur, which baffle all his attempts to explain 
 them ! In the world of mind, his knowledge is still more cir- 
 cumscribed : When lie seeks to explore it, he stumbles at the 
 very threshold of his inquiries ; for how can he define that 
 principle which has been kindled within him by the inspira- 
 tion of the Eternal ? If, then, he cannot explain the mode in 
 which the mind acts upon and by the organs of the body, or 
 disclose the hidden link which connects the unseen spirit with 
 the frame which it animates, how presumptuous for him to 
 argue and decide upon the mode of the Divine existence and 
 operation, and to reject as irrational and absurd whatever 
 transcends the range of his puny faculties ! 
 
 Such considerations are fitted to silence the cavils of those 
 who would reject every statement and doctrine of Scripture 
 which they do not comprehend, and to inspire our minds with 
 reverence and humility in considering those truths which are 
 the subject of revelation. It might, indeed, have been infer- 
 red, that a communication from God, being a transcript of 
 the Divine mind and will, would contain many things which 
 we could not explain, but which we are not on that account 
 to reject ;* and, when we reflect that the design of revelation 
 is to instruct us in regard to the character and government of 
 God, as a being of infinite holiness and truth and justice, and 
 in regard to the way appointed by himself for averting from 
 sinners the consequences of transgression, and for retracing in 
 their hearts that image which has been effaced by sin, we are 
 at once lost in admiration of the Divine goodness, and baffled 
 in our attempts to explain the counsels of the Eternal. 
 
 These remarks admit of a direct application to that import- 
 ant and distinguishing doctrine of Scripture which it is the 
 design of our author to unfold and defend : But, as he has ac- 
 complished that design in the most satisfactory and trium- 
 phant manner, we shall select, as an illustration of our ar- 
 gument, another Scriptural doctrine — the agency of the 
 Holy Spirit. The very enunciation of this doctrine, we are 
 quite aware, excites in many a feeling of contemptuous scorn, 
 while others treat the declarations of the Bible in regard to it 
 as figurative and metaphorical expressions. The language 
 of Scripture is, however, explicit, regarding the existence and 
 functions of the Holy Ghost ; and to him, as well as to Christ, 
 the attributes of the Godhead are ascribed. He is said to be 
 
 • Fide Butler's Analogy, Part II, chap. iii. 
 
Vlll INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the agent in quickening, and renewing, and sanctifying, and 
 comforting the people of God — to reside in their bodies as a 
 temple, holding communion with them, and bearing witness 
 with their spirits that they are the children of God.* In the 
 interesting dialogue between our Lord and Nicodemus, as re- 
 corded by the Evangelist John, the Spirit is represented as 
 the agent, in producing that mighty change of character 
 which constitutes a new nature — a being " born again." And, 
 lest it should be supposed that the operation of this Divine 
 agent was to be the subject of sensible observation, a simili- 
 tude is employed to show that it is inconceivable to our im- 
 perfect faculties, — " Marvel not," are the words of Christ, 
 " that I said unto thee, ye must be born again. The wind 
 bloweth where it listeth, and thou nearest the sound thereof, 
 but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth : So 
 is every one that is born of the Spirit." We frankly admit, 
 then, that we cannot explain either the mode of existence or 
 the operation of the Divine Spirit ; but we are not on that 
 account at liberty to reject what is clearly established by 
 Scripture. It is an article of belief — not of demonstration. 
 It rests on the testimony of God, and is addressed to the 
 faith, and not the senses or reason of man. But if we are un- 
 able to comprehend the nature and essence of God himself — 
 if we cannot understand or explain the manner in which the 
 human mind acts upon the body in which it dwells — why 
 should it be deemed incredible that the Divine Spirit should 
 hold communion with, and exert an influence upon the spirit of 
 man, in a manner unknown and inexplicable to us ? We main- 
 tain, that there are facts which are admitted among the ele- 
 mentary truths of science, which are in principle equally in- 
 explicable, and which are received as unquestionable, on evi- 
 dence not more conclusive than that by which the doctrine in 
 question is supported. The evidence may be different in 
 kind ; but in either case it must be held to be complete : And 
 when the doctrine for which we contend is assailed as extra- 
 vagant and incomprehensible, we take our stand upon the po- 
 sitive declarations of God's Word, and we answer our assail- 
 ant, that, when he shall have solved the difficulties to which 
 we have adverted, we shall be prepared to afford him a solu- 
 tion equally satisfactory of the difficulties started by him. 
 
 * John vi. 63 ; Tit. in. 5 ; Rom. xv. 16 j John xiv. 26 ; 1 Cor. iii. 16 ; 2 
 Cor. xiii. 14: Rom. viii. 16. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 12 
 
 III. The views of those who deny the divinity of Jesus 
 Christ, appear to us to be at variance with the harmony of the 
 Scriptural scheme, and inconsistent with the representation 
 of the moral government and perfections of God which is given 
 in his Word. In contemplating the character of the Deity, 
 we ought never to separate one attribute from its connexion 
 with the other attributes of the Godhead. There are some 
 who seem to dwell exclusively on the contemplation of God 
 as a being of boundless mercy and loving-kindness. We re- 
 quire not to climb up to heaven for proofs of these perfections, 
 for " the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord." He is 
 goodness itself — God is love. But holiness and justice are 
 also attributes of his character. Sin is therefore the object 
 of his abhorrence. His law is a transcript of his character ; 
 and there is a curse denounced against every one " who 
 continued] not in all things written in the law to do them." 
 As there is not a just man, then, upon earth, who doeth 
 good and who sinneth not, so there is not one who, on the 
 score of a sinless and perfect obedience, can claim exemption 
 from the curse. The law therefore demands the punishment 
 of the transgressor. Mercy pleads for the victim ; but Jus- 
 tice will not let him go until the full measure of punishment 
 shall have been poured out upon his head. The herald of 
 Mercy calls aloud, Is there none to pity — is there none to 
 save ? Christ answers in the language of the prophetical 
 psalm (the application of which is determined by Heb. x. 
 7), " Lo, I come, — ir. the volume of the Book it is written of 
 me, I delight to do thy will, O my God !' ; He did come : 
 He sustained the punishment due for the transgressions of 
 mankind — he satisfied the demands of Divine justice — re 
 opened up a channel through which mercy, in its highest ex- 
 ercise, might flow to sinners : And thus God is just, even 
 while he justifies the ungodly who believe in Christ Jesus. 
 Such, we apprehend, is the Scriptural statement of the man- 
 ner in which the justice of God is satisfied, and in which the 
 punishment is transferred from the guilty to the guiltless. 
 The question remains, Who is this sacrifice for sin — this sub- 
 stitute for sinners? Unitarians will answer, "The man Christ 
 Jesus." The Trinitarian replies, "The Divine Redeemer — God 
 manifest in the flesh." The former admit his humanity : They 
 invest him with the perfection of human virtue and human 
 benevolence : But they strip him of his divinity ; they dis- 
 robe him of the attributes of deity, although it cannot be 
 
X INTRODUCTION. 
 
 denied that these are ascribed to him in Scripture ; they 
 array him in the splendours of exalted humanity, but they 
 refuse worship to him before whom " every knee " shall be 
 compelled to " bow," and whose glory and whose Godhead 
 " every tongue shall confess." The existence of moral evil is 
 not denied even by Unitarians, and experience corroborates 
 tie declarations of Scripture as to the extent of that depra- 
 vity which prevails in the heart of man. The doom of the 
 wicked is written in characters of terror. God is represented 
 not only as " angry with the wicked " but as "a consuming 
 fire to the workers of iniquity." And on whom does the 
 Socinian rely, to roll back the tide of divine vengeance a- 
 gainst his transgressions of God's law ? On whom does he 
 trust as able to ward off the blow inflicted by the offended 
 justice of the Almighty ? And who is able to receive the 
 sword awakened to smite the trembling criminal ? Is he 
 contented to build his confidence on a creature like himself 
 — on a member of that family which lay under the ban of 
 exclusion from heaven on account of sin ? Is he contented 
 to rest his hopes on the satisfaction which a man like himself 
 could make to the violated law of God ? Can he believe 
 that his sins have been washed away by the blood of a fellow 
 mortal ? 
 
 Let him turn to the Volume of inspiration, and read the 
 inscription of God's holiness on e^ery page. It may be 
 considered as the distinctive attribute of his character — as in 
 fact including all the attributes of the Godhead ; and, al- 
 though our finite apprehensions cannot conceive of it aright, 
 it is the theme of admiring contemplation to those pure and 
 unfallen spirits who are privileged to stand in the imme- 
 diate presence of God. And what, after all, are we to 
 think of that holiness which should overlook the accu- 
 mulated transgressions of so many generations of Adam's 
 children, and be satisfied with the doings of one of their 
 number ? What are we to think of that justice which 
 visited with such direful consequences the spirit of re- 
 bellion which broke out in Adam's first deed of transgression 
 — which swept away, by one mighty act of vengeance, 
 the whole inhabitants of our world, save one chosen family, 
 for their accumulated iniquities — which scattered the car- 
 casses of the Israelites in the Wilderness for the sin of unbe- 
 lief — and which, afcer a 1 !, spent its thunders on the head of 
 a frail child of mortality ? Was it for such a consummation 
 
INTRODUCTION. Xi 
 
 that the voice of prophecy was lifted up four thousand years 
 before Christ was manifested in the flesh — that the blood of 
 victims streamed and the smoke of incense ascended from 
 altars through successive generations — that the Temple wor- 
 ship and all the splendid rites of the Jewish ceremonial were 
 instituted — and that the views of those who looked for the 
 coming Messiah were directed to him who should appear 
 upon our world in the fullness of time ? In him, as a 
 centre, the converging lines of prophecy all terminated — to 
 him the Prophets all bare witness — in him the various typi- 
 cal allusions of the Mosiac ritual found their explanation 
 and their antitype. And yet Socinians would have us be- 
 lieve, that he, who was the subject of so many annunciations 
 and the desire of so many nations, was nothing more than 
 man ! If so, then indeed the wrath of the offended Deity 
 was easily appeased : The scenes of Gethsemane and of 
 Calvary lose all their interest and all their significancy. 
 The declarations of Christ are unmeaning and delusive — the 
 arguments of the Apostles and first preachers of Christianity 
 are a mockery — and the faith of thousands who have lived 
 and died in the assured conviction of the matchless love 
 and atoning death and prevailing intercession of their divine 
 Redeemer, has been a dream. Such a supposition is a more 
 " enormous tax upon human credulity" than any thing which 
 has yet been propounded to the world. It is at variance 
 with the positive declarations of Scripture — it is derogatory 
 from the perfection of the divine character and the integrity 
 of the divine government — it is inconsistent with the general 
 bearing of the Word of God — it is subversive of the very 
 foundation of Christian morality — it is destructive of the 
 most precious hopes of the believer for time and for 
 eternity. 
 
 IV. The doctrine of Christ's divinity is not only con- 
 sistent with the harmony of the Scriptural economy, and 
 with the views exhibited in his Word of the character and 
 government of God, but it exalts our conception of the di- 
 vine attributes, and sheds a light over those parts of revela- 
 tion which are otherwise dark or unmeaning or inexplicable. 
 The holiness of God now shines forth in the magnitude of 
 that infliction which followed man's first transgression, and 
 in the provision which, in the councils of eternity, was made 
 for removing its consequences. Man lay under the curse, 
 and was unfit for communion with him who is " of purer 
 
Xii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 eyes than to behold iniquity." Jesus Christ, in virtue of his 
 divine nature, was able to offer such a satisfaction to the di- 
 vine law as it was fitting for the lawgiver to accept ; and, in 
 virtue of his humanity, he was qualified to endure the pu- 
 nishment due to the sins of mankind, in the very nature in 
 which the sin had been contracted. It was essential that 
 the integrity of the divine law should be upheld, and that 
 the doom denounced against the transgressor should be car- 
 ried into execution : But the punishment was transferred 
 from the sinner to his substitute ; and, in laying down his life 
 as a propitiation for the sins of his people, the Redeemer 
 paid the deepest homage to the holiness and strictness of 
 the law, while at the same time he exhibited the most affect- 
 ing evidence of that love for the guilty which sought their 
 deliverance even at such an unspeakable price. Every page 
 of the Sacred Volume, and every event which it records, 
 are stamped with the impress of divine justice ; but, nei- 
 ther in the history of man's expulsion from Eden's bliss- 
 ful enclosure, as the consequence of his transgression 
 — nor in the direful visitation by which the cities of the 
 plain were consumed because of their iniquity — nor in the 
 extirpation of the Canaanites on account of their abomina- 
 tions — nor in the overthrow of Jerusalem when the measure 
 of her iniquities was filled up — do we read the sternness of 
 the divine justice in such emphatic characters as when the 
 Son of God poured out his blood on Mount Calvary, as a 
 satisfaction to God's holy law, and as a propitiation for the 
 sins of his people. Then was the law magnified and made 
 honourable, for its amplest demands were met. Then did 
 Mercy triumph ; for a victim had been found, worthy to stand 
 in the stead of a rebel world. Then did the Sun of 
 Righteousness shine forth in the blended light of holiness 
 and faithfulness and love. The throne of judgment was 
 converted into a throne of grace. The voice of Justice, 
 which bade the trembling sinner keep away from the pre- 
 sence of the offended lawgiver, now invited him to approach 
 unto God through Christ Jesus. The way of access unto 
 God, which had been shut up by man's transgression, 
 Christ now threw open by the sacrifice of himself. 
 
 If it be objected, that the view which we have given is un- 
 favourable to personal holiness, or that the merit of Christ's 
 work and sacrifice weakens the restraints of moral obliga- 
 tion, we deny the force of the objection. On the contrary> 
 
INTRODUCTION. xiii 
 
 we maintain that the obligations to personal holiness and 
 Christian obedience now acquire additional strength. The va- 
 lueof the sacrifice enhances our conceptionsof the worth of the 
 object for which the sacrifice was offered. The representa- 
 tion which we have given, instead of countenancing any re- 
 laxation in the terms of the law, tends to exalt cur notions 
 of its uncompromising strictness. The requirements of the 
 law are not brought down : Its demands are as high as when 
 it was at first promulgated from the Mount of Sinai : Its 
 sanctions are as stern as when they were first uttered amidst 
 thunders and lightnings and smoke. The law of God is, like 
 himself, immutable. It has indeed received a satisfaction for 
 the sins of the guilty ; but it gives no tolerance to continue 
 in the practice of iniquity; and that man has not read the 
 Bible aright, nor felt upon his heart the influence of its truths, 
 who has not seen in the very message of forgiveness through 
 the blood of Christ, the strongest motive to depart from ini- 
 quity. The Christian feels himself delivered from the penalty 
 of transgression ; but he does not feel himself relieved from 
 the obligation to " do all things to the glory of God." He 
 feels that he is rescued from the bondage of Satan into the 
 glorious liberty of the sons of God ; but he only feels, on that 
 account, a more urgent obligation to adorn tiie doctrine 
 which he professes, by a consistent life and conversation. 
 The love of Christ becomes a constraining principle of new 
 and active obedience ; and that grace which is said to be 
 unfavourable to virtue and morality, alone teaches effectually 
 " to deny all ungodliness of the flesh and the spirit," and to 
 aim at the perfection of " holiness in the fear of God." 
 So far from allowing the promises of the gospel to slacken 
 his exertions in the way of duty, he finds in them an addi- 
 tional motive to perseverance ; and, while he seeks and 
 strives to "work out his own salvation with fear and trem- 
 bling," he knows and feels that it is God who worketh 
 in him, both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.'* 
 In such exercises and under such influences, he advances 
 from one measure of Christian attainment unto another ; 
 and, ever looking unto Jesus as at once the author and 
 the finisher of his faith, he presses on towards the prize 
 of his high calling in Christ Jesus. Firmly persuaded of 
 the existence and power of his divine Redeemer, he knows in 
 whom he has believed, and is assured that lie is able to keep 
 what has been committed to him till the day of retribution, 
 
 b 
 
Xiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 when that same Jesus, who once visited our world as a man 
 of sorrows and a companion of grief, shall be manifested in 
 the majesty of his power and in the uncreated splendours of 
 his Godhead. 
 
 How full of comfort and consolation is the religion of Je- 
 sus Christ, when viewed in this light ! In the hour of trial 
 and temptation, the Christian reposes on the power and faith- 
 fulness of his Saviour, who chastens his people in compas- 
 sion, and who knows the ingredients that are mingled in the 
 cup of their affliction. In the season of perplexity and alarm, 
 he goes to his Father in heaven, through his divine interces- 
 sor, and pleads for the accomplishment of those promises on 
 which his people are invited to rely. And, even in the pros- 
 pect of dissolution, he fears no evil, for his omnipotent Sa- 
 viour is with him ; and, as the shades of the Dark Valley ga- 
 ther around his head, he looks beyond them to that bright 
 and blessed region which is lighted up with the presence of 
 that divine Redeemer whose arm is able to sustain him in his 
 mortal conflict, and whose unveiled glories shall constitute 
 his happiness for ever. P. H. T. 
 
 Dundee, June 1829. 
 
LETTER 1. 
 
 REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, 
 
 I have recently perused a sermon delivered by you 
 at the ordination of the Reverend J. Sparks, in Balti- 
 more, with no small degree of interest. The subjects 
 of which it treats must be regarded as highly import- 
 ant, by every intelligent man who is a serious inquirer 
 after revealed truth. And if the views which you have 
 disclosed will stand the test of examination, and shall 
 appear to be those which the Word of God maintains, 
 or which it will justify, it certainly will be the duty of 
 every friend to Christianity to embrace and promote 
 them. 
 
 It is proper, no doubt, that every one who reads and 
 reflects upon your sermon, should do it without preju- 
 dice or party views. Unless I am deceived as to the 
 state of my own feelings, I have endeavoured impar- 
 tially to weigh the arguments and examine the reason- 
 ings which it presents, with a wish to know and be- 
 lieve the truth. I dare not flatter myself, indeed, that 
 I have perfectly succeeded in doing this ; for every man 
 who is acquainted with his own heart, will find reason 
 to believe that he often has been, and may be again, 
 deceived by it. But, as I am not conscious of party 
 feelings on the present occasion, will you permit me, 
 without apology, to lay before you my thoughts in re- 
 gard to three topics of your discourse that stand in 
 close connexion with each other, and are among the 
 principal points in regard to which I feel myself com- 
 pelled to dissent from your opinions? 
 
 The points to which I refer are — the principles of in- 
 terpreting Scripture ; the unity of God ; and the divinity 
 and humanity of the Saviour. I limit myself to these 
 three, because it would require more time and labour 
 than I can possibly spare at present, and more health 
 than I enjoy, to express in writing my views of all the 
 statements of doctrines which you have made. I might 
 adduce another reason for confining myself within these 
 
 A 
 
8 
 
 limits. If the principles of reasoning which you adopt, 
 and the results which you deduce from them, in regard 
 to some of the points on which I am about to remark, 
 are untenable or incorrect, the consequence of this 
 must extend itself esseiilially to som* of the remaining 
 and most important topics which you have discussed in 
 your sermon. 
 
 The general principles of interpreting Scripture you 
 describe in the following manner. 
 
 "We regard the Scriptures as the records of God's successive revela- 
 tions to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revela- 
 tion of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be 
 clearly taught in the Scriptures, we receive without reserve or excep- 
 tion. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in 
 this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testa- 
 ment. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we 
 consider as imperfect, earthly, obscure, adapted to the childhood of the 
 human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as 
 serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ 
 is the only master of Christians ; and whatever he taught, either during 
 his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of di- 
 vine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives. 
 
 " This authority which we give to the Scriptures, is a reason, we con- 
 ceive, for studying them with peculiar care, and for inquiring anxiously 
 into the principles of interpretation, by which their true meaning may 
 be ascertained. The principles adopted by the class of Christians in 
 whose name I speak, need to be explained, because they are often mis- 
 understood. We are particularly accused of making an unwarrantable 
 use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture. We are said to exalt 
 reason above revelation, to prefer our own wisdom to God's. Loose 
 and undefined charges of this kind aie circulated so freely and with such 
 injurious intentions, that we think it due to ourselves, and to the cause 
 of truth, to express our views with some particularity. 
 
 " Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the Bible 
 is a book written for men, in the language of men, and that its meaning 
 is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books. We be- 
 lieve that God, when he condescends to speak and write, submits, if we 
 may so say, to the established rules of speaking and writing. How else 
 would the Scriptures avail us, more than if communicated in an unknown 
 tongue ? 
 
 " Now, all books and all conversation require in the reader or hearer 
 the constant exercise of reason ; or their true import is only to be ob- 
 tained by continual comparison and inference. Human language, you 
 well know, admits various interpretations ; and every word and every 
 sentence must be modified and explained — according to the subject which 
 is discussed — according to the purposes, feelings, circumstances, and 
 principles of the writer, and according to the genius and idioms of the 
 language which he uses. These are acknowledged principles in the in- 
 terpretation of human writings ; and a man whose words we should 
 explain without reference to these principles, would reproach us justly 
 
9 
 
 with a criminal want of candour, and an intention of obscuring or dis- 
 torting his meaning. 
 
 " Were the Bible written in a language and style of its own, did it 
 consist of words which admit but a single sense, and of sentences wholly 
 detached from each other, there would be no place for the principles 
 now laid down. We could not reason about it as about other writings. 
 But such a book would be of little worth ; and perhaps, of all books, 
 the Scriptures correspond least to this description. 
 
 " The word of God bears the stamp of the same hand which we see 
 in his works. It has infinite connexions and dependencies. Every pro- 
 position is linked with others, and is to be compared with others, that 
 its full and precise import may be understood. Nothing stands alone. 
 The New Testament is built on the Old. The Christian dispensation 
 is a continuation of the Jewish, the completion of a vast scheme of 
 providence, requiring great extent of view in the reader. Still more, 
 the Bible treats of subjects on which we receive ideas from other 
 sources besides itself; such subjects as the nature, passions, relations, 
 and duties of man ; and it expects us to restrain and modify its lan- 
 guage by the known truths which observation and experience furnish 
 on these topics. 
 
 " We profess not to know a book which demands a more frequent 
 exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now 
 made on its infinite connexions, we may observe that its style nowhere 
 affects the precision of science or the accuracy of definition. Its lan- 
 guage is singularly glowing, bold, and figurative, demanding more fre- 
 quent departures from the literal sense than that of our own age and 
 country, and consequently demands more continual exercise of judg- 
 ment. We find, too, that the different portions of this book, instead 
 of being confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the times when 
 they were written, to states of society, to modes of thinking, to contro- 
 versies in the Church, to feelings and usages which have passed away, 
 and without the knowledge of which we are constantly in danger of ex- 
 tending to all times and places what was of temporary and local appli- 
 cation. We find, too, that some of these books are strongly marked 
 by the genius and character of their respective writers, that the Holy- 
 Spirit did not so guide the Apostles as to suspend the peculiarities of 
 their minds, and that a knowledge of their feelings, and of the influences 
 under which they were placed, is one of the preparations for understand- 
 ing their writings. With these views of the Bible, we feel it our bounden 
 duty to exercise our reason upon it perpetually, to compare, to infer, to 
 look beyond the letter to the spirit, to seek, in the nature of the subject 
 and the aim of the writer, his true meaning ; and, in general, to make 
 use of what is known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discover- 
 ing new truths. 
 
 " Need I descend to particulars to prove that the Scriptures demand 
 the exercise of reason ? Take, for example, the style in which they ge- 
 nerally speak of God, and observe how habitually they apply to him hu- 
 man passions and organs. Recollect the declarations of Christ, that he 
 came not to send peace, but a sword ; that unless we eat his flesh, and 
 drink his blood, we have no life in us ; that we must hate father and mo- 
 ther ; pluck out the right eye; and a vast number of passages equally 
 bold and unlimited. Recollect the unqualified manner in which it is said 
 of Christians that theypossess all things, know all things, and can do all 
 
10 
 
 things. Recollect the verbal contradiction betweeen Paul and James, 
 and the apparent clashing of some parts of Paul's writings, with the ge- 
 neral doctrines and end of Christianity. 1 might extend the enumera- 
 tion indefinitely, and who does not see that we must limit all these pas- 
 sages by the known attributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of human 
 nature, and by the circumstances under which they were writen, so a3 
 to give the language a quite different import from what it would require, 
 had it been applied to different beings, or used in different connexions. 
 " Enough has been said to show in what sense we make use of rea- 
 son in interpreting Scripture. From a variety of possible interpretations, 
 we select that which accords with the nature of the subject, and the 
 state of the writer, with the connexion of the passage, with the general 
 strain of Scripture, with the known character and will of God, and with 
 the obvious and acknowleged laws of nature. In other words, we be- 
 lieve that God never contradicts, in one part of Scripture, what he teaches 
 in another, and never contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches in his 
 works and providence ; and we therefore distrust every interpretation 
 which, after deliberate attention, seems repugnant to any established 
 truth. We reason about the Bible precisely as civilians do about the 
 constitution under which we live; who, you know, are accustomed to 
 limit one provision of that venerable instrument by others, and to fix the 
 precise import of its parts by inquiring into its general spirit, into the in- 
 tentions of its authors, and into the prevalent feelings, impressions, and 
 circumstances of the time when it was framed. Without these princi- 
 ples of interpretation, we frankly acknowledge that we cannot defend 
 the divine authority of the Scriptures. Deny us this latitude, and wo 
 must abandon this book to its enemies." pp. 3 — 6 
 
 To a great part of these principles I give my cheer- 
 ful and most cordial assent. They are the principles 
 which I apply to the explanation of the Scriptures from 
 day to day, in my private studies and in my public la- 
 bours. They are the principles by which I am led to 
 embrace the opinions that I have espoused, and by 
 which, so far as I am able, I expect to defend these 
 opinions, whenever called in duty to do it. 
 
 While I thus give my cordial approbation to most of 
 the above extract from your sermon, will you indulge 
 me in expressing a wish that the rank and value of the 
 Old Testament, in the Christian's library, had been de- 
 scribed in somewhat different terms? I do most fully 
 accord with the idea that the gospel, or the New Tes- 
 tament, is more perfect than the Mosaic Law or than 
 the Old Testament. On what other ground can the 
 assertions of Paul, in 2d Corinthians, iii., in Hebrews, 
 vili., and in other places, be believed or justified ? The 
 gospel gives a clearer view than the Jewish Scriptures 
 of our duty and of our destiny — of the objects of our 
 
11 
 
 hopes and fears — of the character of God and the way 
 of salvation. I agree fully, that whatever in the Old 
 Testament respects the Jews, simply as Jews, — e. g., 
 their ritual, their food, their dress, their civil polity, 
 their government — in a word, whatever from its nature 
 was national and local,— Is not binding upon us under 
 the Christian dispensation. 
 
 I am well satisfied, too, that the character of God 
 and the duty of men were, in many respects, less clear- 
 ly revealed under the ancient dispensation than they 
 now are. " The law was given by Moses ;" but "no 
 man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten, 
 who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, he hath re- 
 vealed him" — L e., it was reserved for Christ to make 
 a full display of the divine character ; — no man, no pro- 
 phet who preceded him, ever had such knowledge of 
 God as enabled him to do it. I am aware that many 
 Christians do not seem to understand this passage ; 
 and, with well-meaning but mistaken views, undertake 
 to deduce the character and designs of God as fully 
 and as clearly from the Old Testament as from the 
 New. 
 
 I must believe, too, that the duties of Christians are, 
 in most respects, more fully and definitely taught in 
 the gospel than in the Old Testament ; and 1 cannot 
 approve of that method of reasoning which deduces 
 our duties principally from texts in the Old Testament 
 that sometimes are less clear, when the Xew Testament 
 presents the same subjects in such characters of light 
 that he who runneth may read. 
 
 But when you say, " Jesus Christ is the only master 
 of Christians ; and whatever he taught, either during 
 his personal ministry or by his inspired Apostles, we 
 regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the 
 rule of our lives," does not this naturally imply that 
 we are absolved from obligation to receive the Old 
 Testament, in any sense as our guide; and. that what 
 it teaches, we are not bound " to make the rule of our 
 lives?" I do not feel certain that it was your design 
 to affirm this ; but the words in their connexion seem 
 naturally to bear this import. To such a view I should 
 
 a2 
 
12 
 
 object, that those parts of the Old Testament which 
 express the will of God, in reference to the great points 
 of duty, that must, from the nature of moral beings, be 
 for ever the same under every dispensation, may be and 
 ought to be regarded as unrepealed. It is a very sound 
 maxim, in the interpretation of divine as well as human 
 laws, — manente ratione, mauet ipsa lex — a law is wire- 
 ■pealed, while Ihe reason of that law continues. Express 
 repeal only can exempt a law from the application of 
 this maxim. And when our Saviour says, "Till hea- 
 ven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in nowise pass 
 from the law till all be fulfilled," he seems to me plain- 
 ly to have declared the immutability of the ancient 
 moral law, in the sense already explained. 
 
 What shall we say, moreover, of the devotional parts 
 of the Old Testament (the Book of Psalms, for in- 
 stance), or of those numerous prophetical parts which 
 are sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or 
 predictions of a future Messiah, and of the nature and 
 prosperity of his Church ? Are these any more Jewish 
 (except as to the garb in which they are clothed) than 
 Christian ? I admit that they are all less perfect than 
 that which the New Testament furnishes on the same 
 topics ; but I believe them to be sanctioned by the same 
 authority, and to require a similar respect and deference. 
 
 In regard to what you say respecting the leading 
 principle of interpreting Scripture, I cannot hesitate to 
 declare, that nothing is clearer to my apprehension, 
 than that God, when he speaks to men, speaks in such 
 language as is used by those whom he addresses. Of 
 course, the language of the Bible is to be interpreted 
 by the same laws, so far as philology is concerned, as 
 that of any other book. I ask with you, How else is 
 the Bible a revelation ? How else can men ever come 
 to agree in what manner the Scripture should be inter- 
 preted, or feel any assurance that they understand the 
 meaning of its language? 
 
 I find little from which I should dissent, in the re- 
 mainder of your observations upon the general princi- 
 ples of interpretation. I might perhaps make some ob- 
 jections to the manner in which the office of reason, in 
 
13 
 
 the interpretation of Scripture, is occasionally describ- 
 ed. But I am confident that I admit, as fully as jou 
 do or can do, the proper office of reason in the whole 
 matter of religion, both in regard to doctrine and prac- 
 tice. It is to our reason that the arguments which 
 prove the divine origin of Christianity are addressed ; 
 and it is by reason that we prove, or are led to admit 
 this origin, on general or historical grounds. Reason 
 prescribes, or at any rate developes and sanctions, the 
 laws of interpreting Scripture. The cases mentioned 
 by you, in which reason must be exercised, are in ge- 
 neral striking exemplifications of this. But when rea- 
 son is satisfied that the Bible is the book of God, by 
 proof which she cannot reject, and yet preserve her 
 character — and when she has decided what laws of exe- 
 gesis^ the nature of human language requires — the 
 office that remains for her in regard to the Scripture, 
 is the application of those laws to the actual interpre- 
 tation of the Bible. When by their application, she 
 becomes satisfied with respect to what the sacred wri- 
 ters really meant to declare in any case, she admits it 
 without hesitation, whether it be a doctrine, the rela- 
 tion of a fact, or a precept. It is the highest office of 
 reason to believe doctrines and facts which God has 
 asserted to be true, and to submit to his precepts, — 
 although many things, in regard to the manner in 
 which those facts and doctrines can be explained, or 
 those precepts vindicated, may be beyond her reach. 
 In short, the Scriptures being once admitted to be the 
 Word of God, or of divine authority, the sole office of 
 reason in respect to them is to act as an interpreter of 
 revelation, and not in any case as a legislator. Reason 
 can only judge of the laws of exegesis, and direct the 
 application of them, in order to discover simply what 
 the sacred writers meant to assert. This being disco- 
 vered, it is either to be received as they have asserted 
 it, or their divine authority must be rejected, and our 
 obligation to believe all which they assert, denied. 
 
 * A term of frequent occurrence with expositors and Biblical critics. 
 It signifies examination or interpretation. 
 
14 
 
 There is no other alternative. Philosophy has no right 
 to interfere here. If she ever interferes, it must be 
 when the question is pending, whether the Bible is di- 
 vine. Nor has system, prejudice, sectarian feeling, 
 orthodoxy, or heterodoxy, so called, any right to in- 
 terfere. The claims of the Bible to be authoritative be- 
 ing once admitted, the simple question in respect to it 
 is, What does it teach? In regard to any particular 
 passage, What idea did the original writer mean to con- 
 vey ? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules 
 of interpretation, it is authoritative, — this is orthodoxy 
 in the highest and best sense of the word ; and every 
 thing which is opposed to it, which modifies it, which 
 fritters its meaning away, is heterodoxy, is heresy, to 
 whatever name or party it is attached. 
 
 I presume you will agree without hesitation to these 
 remarks. The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible 
 is our only and sufficient rule of faith and practice, im- 
 plies most clearly the very same principles which I 
 have stated ; and these every man must admit, that ac- 
 knowledges the paramount claims of the Bible to be 
 believed, and has any tolerable acquaintance with the 
 subject of its interpretation. 
 
 If there be any thing to which I should object in your 
 statement, generally considered, of the laws of inter- 
 pretation, it is rather the colouring which has been given 
 to some of the language in which it is expressed. You 
 commence by saying, that your party are charged with 
 " exalting reason above revelation — with preferring 
 their own wisdom to God's ;" and that these charges 
 are " circulated freely, and with injurious intentions. " 
 You will readily acknowledge, as a general fact, that 
 there is difficulty in giving an impartial statement of 
 opinions, which we thus strongly feel to have been 
 misrepresented. W T e certainly are under temptation, 
 in such cases, to set off our own opinions to the best 
 advantage, and to place those of our opponents in the 
 most repulsive attitude. And although Trinitarians, 
 in fact, differ less from you, in respect to the laws of 
 interpretation, than you seem to have apprehended, 
 
15 
 
 the belief, on your part, that a wider difference exist- 
 ed, seems to have given a peculiar cast to some sen- 
 tences which simple discussion would hardly admit. 
 
 With the two last paragraphs of your sermon that 
 are quoted above, I wish not to be understood as sig- 
 nifying that I entirely agree. It is, however, rather 
 from the application of some exegetical principles which 
 is made in them, than from the principles themselves, 
 that I dissent. I shall have occasion to remark here- 
 after on this subject. I have mentioned it now, mere- 
 Iv to prevent any mistake with regard to the meaning 
 of what I say here upon the laws of interpretation, as 
 exhibited by you. 
 
 It would have given me pleasure to find you uncon- 
 ditionally admitting that the general principles of inter- 
 pretation which you defend are not original, nor pecu- 
 liar to your party. But you seem to qualify this, by 
 saying that " all Christians OCCASION ALLY adopt them." 
 If I understand you rightly, then, you would concede, 
 that only Unitarians admit substantially the syste?n of 
 exegesis which you have described, and practise upon 
 it. In this, however (if this be your meaning), you 
 are mistaken, — at least it appears plainly so to me, in 
 respect to the divines of New England, who, at the 
 present time are called orthodox. * I doubt whether 
 any man can study the science of interpretation, for a 
 considerable time together, without adopting those 
 principles of it, for substance, which you seem to claim 
 appropriately for Unitarians. 
 
 How can it be explained, then, supposing you and I 
 are both sincerely seeking after truth, and both adopt, 
 for substance, the same maxims of interpretation, that 
 we should differ so widely in the results that flow from 
 the application of these principles? Perhaps some light 
 may be cast upon this question in the sequel of these 
 Letters. 
 
 * This remark may be extended so as to include all those writers in 
 this country who are usually denominated orthodox or evangelical, 
 
16 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, 
 
 It would be very gratifying to find, in your sermon, 
 as much respecting the doctrine of the Trinity with 
 which I might accord, as in your principles of interpre- 
 tation. My apprehensions respecting this doctrine, 
 however, differ from yours. It is not without exami- 
 nation and reflection that I have embraced my present 
 views of it ; and the perusal of your statement of the 
 doctrine in question, and your arguments against it, 
 have not persuaded me that my views are erroneous. 
 
 You will not expect me, however, in these Letters, 
 which are intended to be brief, to go into a discussion 
 of this great subject, which shall embrace all the im- 
 portant topics which it presents. I intend to touch on 
 those points only on which the hinge of the contro- 
 versy seems to me to turn ; and on these in a manner 
 as summary as the nature and difficulty of the case will 
 permit. 
 
 The statement which you make of your own faith in 
 regard to the unity of God, and your account of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, are as follow. 
 
 " First. We believe in the doctrine of God's unity, or that there is 
 one God, and one only. To this truth we give infinite importance, and 
 we feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any man spoil us of it by s'ain 
 philosophy. The proposition, thatthere is one God, seems to us exceed- 
 ingly plain. We understand by it, that there is one being, one mind, 
 one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, to whom underived and 
 Infinite perfection and dominion belong. We conceive that these words 
 could have conveyed no other meaning to the simple and uncultivated 
 people who were set apart to be the depositaries of this great truth, and 
 who were utterly incapable of understanding those hair-breadth distinc- 
 tions between being and person, which the sagacity of latter ages ha9 
 discovered. We find no intimation that this language was to be taken 
 in an unusual sense, or that God's unity was a quite different thing from 
 the oneness of other intelligent beings. 
 
 " We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the unity 
 of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal 
 persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his 
 own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each 
 other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. 
 They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his ap- 
 propriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is 
 rngdiator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not 
 
17 
 
 himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son of taking flesh. Here 
 then we havethr*e intelligent agents, possessed of different conscious- 
 nesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different 
 acts, and sustaining different relations ; and if these things do not imply 
 and constitute three minds or heings, we are utterly at a loss to know 
 howthiee minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of proper- 
 ties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the belief of different 
 intelligent beings, and if this mark fail us, our whole knowledge fails,— 
 we have no proof that all the agents and persons in the universe are not 
 one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of three Gods, 
 we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves three agents, dis- 
 tinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to those 
 which separate the persons of theTrinity ; and when common Christians 
 hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each 
 other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them 
 as different beings, different minds ?" pp. 8, 9. 
 
 My object in (his letter is not to controvert your 
 creed, but to consider your representation of the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, as stated, believed, and defended 
 by those with whom I am accustomed to think and 
 act. 
 
 Admitting that you have given a fair account of our 
 belief, I cannot see, indeed, why we are not virtually 
 guilty of Tritheism,^ or at least of something which ap- 
 proximates so near to it, that I acknowledge myself 
 unable to distinguish it from Tritheism. But 1 cannot 
 help feeling that you have made neither an impartial 
 nor a correct statement of what we believe, and what 
 we are accustomed to teach and defend. 
 
 It needs but a moderate acquaintance with the his- 
 tory of the doctrine in question to satisfy anyone that 
 a great variety of explanations have been attempted by 
 inquisitive or by adventurous minds. All acknowledge 
 the difficulty of the subject; I regret to say, that some 
 have not refrained from treating it as though it were 
 more within their comprehension than it is. 
 
 But, among all the different explanations which I 
 have found, I have not met with any one which denied, 
 or at least was designed to deny, the unity of God. 
 All admit this to be a fundamental principle : AH ac- 
 knowledge that it is designated in characters of light, 
 both in the Jewish and Christian revelations; and that 
 
 * The worship of three Gods. 
 
18 
 
 to deny it would be the grossest absurdity, as well as 
 impiety. 
 
 It may indeed be questioned whether the explana- 
 tions given of the doctrine of the Trinity by some who 
 have speculated on this subject are consistent with the 
 divine unity, when the language which they use is in- 
 terpreted agreeably to the common laws of exegesis. 
 But, that their representations were not designed to call 
 in question the divine unity, is what I think every can- 
 did reader of their works will be disposed to admit. 
 
 Now, when I consider this fact, so plain and so ea- 
 sily established, and then look at the method in which 
 you state the doctrine of the Trinity, as exhibited a- 
 bove, I confess it gives me pain to think that you have 
 not conceded or even intimated that Trinitarians do or 
 can admit the unity of God. You have a right to say, 
 if you so think, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as they 
 explain and defend it, is at variance with the divine 
 unity, and that these two things are inconsistent with 
 each other. But, to appropriate to those solely, who 
 call themselves Unitarians, the belief that there is but 
 one God — or to construct an account of the Trinitarian 
 creed (as it seems to me you have done in the para- 
 graph on which I am remarking), so as not even to in- 
 timate to your hearers or readers that your opponents 
 admit or advocate the divine unity — is doing that which 
 you would censure in an antagonist, and which cannot 
 well serve the interests of truth. 
 
 But let us examine your statement of our creed. 
 
 " We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the unity 
 of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal 
 persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own 
 particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, 
 converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They 
 perform different parts in man's redemption, — each having his appropri- 
 ate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is Medi- 
 ator, and not the Father ; the Father sends the Son, and is not himself 
 sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here then we 
 have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, dif- 
 ferent wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts and 
 sustaining different relations ; and if these things do not imply and con- 
 stitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three 
 minds or beings are to be formed." p. 9. 
 
19 
 
 Is not this account a very different one, from that 
 which many of your brethren are accustomed to give 
 of us? By them it is said, that there is a great dis- 
 cordance and contradictory statements and explana- 
 tions of the doctrine of the Trinity among those who 
 embrace it. Do not you amalgamate us all together, 
 make us harmonious Tritheists, and then give us over 
 to the reproach of Tritheism, or at least of glaring in- 
 consistency ? 
 
 After all, the statement which yoU exhibit of our 
 views is very far from that which we (or at least all 
 Trinitarians with whom I am acquainted) make of our 
 belief. I do not deny that some writers have given 
 grounds for a statement not very diverse from yours, 
 as it regards the doctrine of the Trinity. Even some 
 great and good men, in their zeal to defend this doc- 
 trine, have sought to' reduce the whole subject to hu- 
 man comprehension. How vain the attempt, expe^- 
 rience has demonstrated. Efforts of this nature, how- 
 ever Well designed or ably conducted, never yet have 
 led to any thing but greater darkness. " Who can by 
 searching find out God ? Who can find out the Al- 
 mighty to perfection ?" 
 
 But though I readily admit, that efforts to explain 
 what in the nature of the case is inexplicable, may 
 have misled some in their exertions to acquire religious 
 knowledge, or given occasion to others of stumbling, 
 yet I am not prepared to admit that the great body of 
 Trinitarians have given just occasion to charge them 
 with a denial of the unity of God \ Or with opinions sub- 
 versive of this. You certainly ought not to deny them 
 the same liberty, in the use of terms, which all men 
 take on difficult subjects, for the accurate description 
 of Which language is not framed, perhaps is not in its 
 nature adequate. They must discuss such subjects 
 by using figurative language, by using terms which (if 
 I may be indulged the liberty of speaking thus) ap- 
 proximate as nearly to the expression of the ideas that 
 they mean to convey, as any which they can select. 
 If there is any obscurity in these general observations, 
 
 B 
 
20 
 
 I hope it will be cleared up in the remarks that are to 
 follow. 
 
 Since I refuse assent to your statement of our be- 
 lief, you will feel a right to inquire what we do believe, 
 that you may compare this with the doctrine of divine 
 unity, and judge for yourself whether it is subversive 
 of it or not. I cannot refuse my assent to a proposal 
 so reasonable ; nor do I feel any inclination to shrink 
 from the task of stating our belief, and then to proffer 
 the excuse, that every thing respecting the subject is 
 too mysterious and recondite to be the object of dis- 
 tinct contemplation. What we do believe can be stat- 
 ed — what we do not profess to define or explain can 
 be stated, and the reasons why we do not attempt de- 
 finition or explanation ; and this is what I shall now 
 attempt. 
 
 I must not, however, be understood as pledging nry- 
 self that those, in general, with whom I am accustomed 
 to think and act, will adopt my statement, and main- 
 tain that it exhibits the best method of explaining or 
 defending the great doctrine in question. Notwith- 
 standing we are so often charged with adherence to 
 Forms and modes of expression contained in creeds, 
 we use as great a variety of language, in giving in- 
 struction with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, as 
 with respect to the other doctrines of religion. In re- 
 gard to the statement which I shall make, I can say 
 only, that it is not the result of concert, in any degree, 
 with my clerical brethren, for the purpose of making a 
 statement to which they will adhere. It is the result 
 of investigation, and reflection on the subject, as it ap- 
 pears to be exhibited in the Scriptures, and in the 
 writings of the leading divines whom I have been able 
 to consult. 
 
 I believe, then, 
 
 I. That God is one ; numerically one, in essence and attri- 
 butes. In other words, — the infinitely perfect Spirit, the 
 Creator and preserver of all things, the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, has numerically the same essence, and the same 
 perfections, so far as they are known to us. To particularize ; 
 
21 
 
 the Son possesses not simply a similar or equal essence and 
 perfections, but numerically the same as the Father, without 
 division, and without multiplication. 
 
 II. The Son (and also the Holy Spirit), does in some re- 
 spect, truly and really, not merely nominally or logically, dif- 
 fer from the Father. 
 
 I am aware, as I have hinted above, that you may 
 find writers upon the doctrine of the Trinity, who have 
 stated the subject of my first proposition in a manner 
 somewhat different. But, after making due allowance 
 for inattention to precision of language, the difficulty 
 of the subject, and the various ways which men natu- 
 rally take to illustrate a difficult subject, I am not 
 aware that m^ny of them would dissent substantially 
 from the statement now made. Certain it is, that the 
 Lutheran Confession exhibits the same view. 
 
 The words are,— -" The divine essence is one, which is 
 called, and js, God, eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, of infinite 
 power, wisdom, and goodness, the Creator and Preserver of 
 all things visible and invisible." Art. I. 
 
 The Confession of Helvetia (written a. d. 1566) declares, 
 that " God is one in essence or nature, subsisting by himself, 
 all sufficient in himself, invisible, without a body, infinite, 
 eternal, the Creator of all things visible and invisible," &c. 
 It adds, " We detest the multitude of Gods, because it is ex- 
 pressly written, The Lord thy God is one God," &c. 
 
 The Confession of Basil (a. d. 1532) declares, that there 
 is " one eternal, almighty God in essence and substance, and 
 not three Gods" 
 
 The Confession of the Waldenses states, " that the Holy 
 Trinity is, in essence, one only true, alone, eternal, almighty, 
 and incomprehensible God, of one equal indivisible essence." 
 
 The French Confession (a. d. 1566) says, " We believe and 
 acknowledge one only God, who is one only and simple es- 
 sence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, infinite." &c. 
 
 The English Confession (a.d. 1562) states, that the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, " be of one power, of oxe ma- 
 jesty, of one eternity, of one godhead, and one substance. 
 And, although these three persons be so divided that neither 
 Ihe Father is the Son, nor the Son is the Holy Ghost nor 
 the Father, yet nevertheless, we believe that there is but 
 one very God." 
 
 The Confession of Belgia (a. d. 1566) declares, that " there 
 
22 
 
 is one only simple and spiritual essence, which we call God, 
 eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite," &c. 
 
 The articles of the English Episcopal Church declare, that, 
 "there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without 
 body, parts, or passions," &c. 
 
 The Confession of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, 
 revised at the Synod of Dort (a. d. 1618 — 1619) declares, 
 " We believe that there is one only and simple spiritual 
 Being, which we call God ; and that he is eternal, incompre- 
 hensible, invisible, immutable, infinite," &c. (See Harmony 
 of Confessions.) 
 
 With these agrees the Westminster Confession, approved 
 by the General Assembly of Divines in a. d. 1647, adopted 
 by all the Presbyterian Churches in Great Britain and Ame- 
 rica, and assented to by a great part of the Congregational 
 Churches in New England. Its words are, " There is but 
 one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and 
 perfection, a pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or 
 passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible," 
 Sec. West. Con. p. 32. 
 
 Now, is this the denial of the divine unity with which 
 we are implicitly charged ? Can Unitarians present a 
 more complete assertion of the divine unity, than is 
 presented by these symbols of different denomina- 
 tions of Christians, who admit the doctrine of the 
 Trinity ? 
 
 But, admitting our statement of the divine unity to 
 be correct, you will aver, probably, that my second 
 proposition is subversive of the first. Whether this 
 be so, or not, is what I now propose to investigate. 
 
 The common language of the Trinitarian symbols 
 is, " That there are three persons in the Godhead" In 
 your comments upon this, you have all along explain- 
 ed the word person, as though it were a given point, 
 that we use this word here, in its ordinary accepta- 
 tion, as applied to men. But can you satisfy yourself, 
 that this is doing us justice ? Is it not evident from 
 Church history, that the word person was used, in an- 
 cient times, as a term, which would express the dis- 
 agreement of Christians in general, with the reputed 
 errors of the Sabellians, and others of similar senti- 
 ments, who denied the existence of any real distinction 
 in the Godhead, and asserted that Father, Son, and 
 
23 
 
 Holy Ghost, were merely attributes of God, or the 
 names of different ways in which he revealed himself to 
 mankind, or of different relations which he bore to them 
 and in which he acted. Some of the principal Fathers 
 and Councils meant to deny the correctness of such 
 assertions, by using the word person to designate some 
 real, not merely nominal distinction in the Godhead — 
 to signify that something more than a diversity of re- 
 lation or action, in respect to us, was intended. They 
 seem to me to have used the word person, because 
 they supposed it to approximate nearer to expressing 
 the existence of a real distinction, than any other which 
 they could choose. 
 
 We profess to use the word person, merely from the 
 poverty of language — merely to designate our belief 
 of a real distinction in the Godhead ; and not to de- 
 scribe independent, conscious beings, possessing se- 
 parate and equal essences and perfections. Why should 
 we be obliged so often to explain ourselves on this 
 point? Is there any more difficulty here, or any thing 
 more obnoxious, than when you say, u God is angry 
 with the wicked every day?" You defend yourself in 
 the use of such an expression, by saying, that it is 
 only the language of approximation, — i. e. that it is in- 
 tended to describe that, in the mind of the Deity, or 
 in his actions, which corresponds in some measure, or 
 in some respect, to anger in men, — not that he is really 
 affected with the passion of anger. You will permit 
 me then to add, that we speak of person in the God- 
 head to express that, which, in some respect or other, 
 corresponds to persons as applied to men, — i. e. some 
 distinction; not that we attach to it the meaning of 
 three beings, with a separate consciousness, will, om- 
 nipotence, omniscience, &c. Where then is our in- 
 consistency in this, or the absurdity of our language, 
 provided there is a real foundation in the Scriptures, 
 on which may rest the fact of a distinction that we be- 
 lieve to exist? 
 
 I could heartily wish, indeed, that the word person 
 never had come into the symbols of the Churches, be- 
 cause it has been the occasion of so much unnecessary 
 
 b2 
 
24 
 
 dispute and difficulty. But since it has long been in 
 common use, it is difficult, perhaps inexpedient, or 
 even impossible, altogether to reject it. If it must be 
 retained, I readily concede that the use of it ought to 
 be so explained and guarded, as not to lead Christians 
 into erroneous ideas of the nature of God. Nor can I 
 suppose that the great body of Christians have such 
 ideas, or understand it to mean that which you attri- 
 bute to us as believing. Then, surely, it is not the 
 best mode of convincing your opponents, to take the 
 word in a sense so different from that in which they 
 understand it, and proceed to charge them with ab- 
 surdities, consequent upon the language of their creed. 
 It has always been a conceded point, that, in the 
 statement of difficult subjects, or the discussion of 
 them, terms might be used in a sense somewhat dif- 
 ferent from their ordinary import. And what can de- 
 clare in a plainer manner that Trinitarians do use the 
 word person in this way, as applied to the divine 
 Being, than the agreement among them that God is 
 numerically one, in essence and in attributes ? 
 
 It might have been justly expected, likewise, that 
 before they were charged with sentiments which sub* 
 vert the divine Unity, the meaning of the word person, 
 in the ancient records which describe its introduction 
 into the technical language of the Church, should have 
 been carefully investigated. One of your rules of exe- 
 gesis, to which 1 have with all my heart assented, de- 
 mands that " every word should be modified and ex- 
 plained, according to the subject which is discussed, 
 according to the purposes, feelings, circumstances , and 
 principles of the writer." Do us the justice to apply 
 this law of interpretation to our language, and the dis- 
 pute between us about the meaning of the word person, 
 is for ever at an end. 
 
 What then, you doubtless will ask, is that distinc- 
 tion in the Godhead, which the word person is meant 
 to designate ? I answer, without hesitation, that I do 
 not know. The fact that a distinction exists, is w T hat 
 we aver ; the definition of that distinction is what I 
 shall by no means attempt. By what shall I. or can I 
 
25 
 
 define it ? What simile drawn from created objects, 
 which are necessarily derived and dependent, can il- 
 lustrate the mode of existence in that Being who is 
 underived, independent, unchangeable, infinite, eter- 
 nal ? I confess myself unable to advance a single 
 step here in explaining what the distinction is. 1 re- 
 ceive (he fact that it exists, simply because 1 believe that 
 the Scriptures reveal the fact. And if the Scriptures 
 do reveal the fact that there are three persons in the 
 Godhead (in the sense explained) ; that there is a dis- 
 tinction which affords ground for the appellations of 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — which lays the foun- 
 dation for the application of the personal pronouns, /, 
 thou, he — which renders it proper to speak of sending 
 and being sent, of Christ being with God, being in his 
 bosom, and other things of the like nature ; and yet 
 that the divine nature belongs to Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost ; then it is, like every other fact reveal- 
 ed, to be received simply on the credit of divine reve- 
 lation. 
 
 Is there any more difficulty in understanding the 
 fact that there is a distinction in the Godhead, than 
 there is in understanding that God possesses an un- 
 derived existence ? With what shall we compare 
 such existence ? All other beings are derived ; and, 
 of course, there is no object in the universe with whose 
 existence it can be compared. To define it then, is 
 beyond our reach. We can approximate towards a 
 conception of it, merely by negatives. We deny that 
 the divine existence has any author or cause ; and, 
 when we have done this, we have not defined it, but 
 simply said that a certain thing does not belong to it. 
 Here we must rest. The boundaries of human know- 
 ledge can never be extended beyond this. 
 
 The distinction in the Godhead, which I have now 
 mentioned, I ought to say here, we do not, and can- 
 not consider as a mere subject of speculation, which 
 has little or no concern with ardent piety, or the best 
 hopes of the Christian. We believe that some of the 
 most interesting and endearing exhibitions of the di- 
 vine character, are founded upon it and connected with 
 
26 
 
 it ; and that corresponding duties are urged upon us, 
 and peculiar hopes excited, and consolations adminis- 
 tered by it. 
 
 In regard to this distinction, we say, It isnota mere 
 distinction of attributes, of relation to us, of modes of ac- 
 tion, or of relation between attributes and substance or es- 
 sence, so far as they are known to us. We believe 
 the Scriptures justify us in these negations. But here 
 we leave the subject. We undertake (at least the 
 Trinitarians of our country, with whom I am acquaint- 
 ed, undertake) not at all to describe affirmatively the 
 distinction in the Godhead. When you will give me 
 an affirmative description of under ived existence, I may 
 safely engage to furnish you with one of person in the 
 Trinity. You do not reject the belief of self-exist- 
 ence, merely because you cannot affirmatively define 
 it ; neither do we of a distinction in the Godhead, be- 
 cause we cannot affirmatively define it. 
 
 I may ask, moreover, What is the eternity of God ? 
 You answer by telling me, that there never was a 
 time when he did not exist, and never can be one 
 when he will not exist. True ; but then, what was 
 time before the planetary system, which measures it, 
 had an existence ? And what will time be when these 
 heavens and this earth shall be bloated out? Besides, 
 passing over this difficulty about time, you have only 
 given a negative description of God's eternity ; you 
 deny certain things of him, and then aver that he is 
 eternal. Yet, because you cannot affirmatively de- 
 scribe eternity, you would not refuse to believe that 
 God is eternal. Why, then, should I reject the belief 
 of a distinction in the Godhead, because I cannot af- 
 firmatively define it ? 
 
 I do not admit, therefore, that we are exposed justly 
 to be taxed with mysticism and absurdity when we 
 aver there is a distinction in the Godhead, which we are 
 utterly unable to define. I am aware, indeed, that a 
 writer, some time since, composed and published, in 
 a periodical work, then edited at Cambridge, a piece in 
 which he laboured, with no small degree of acuteness, 
 to show that no man can believe a proposition, the 
 
*7 
 
 terms of which are unintelligible, or which he does 
 not understand. His object in doing this appears to 
 have been to fix upon a belief in a doctrine of the 
 Trinity the charge of absurdity. But, it seems to fne, 
 the whole argument of that piece is founded on a con- 
 fusion of two things, which are in themselves very di- 
 verse, — viz. terms which are unintelligible, and things 
 which are undefinable. You believe in the fact, that 
 the divine existence is without cause ; you under- 
 stand the fact, that God exists uncaused ; but you can- 
 not define underived existence. I believe, on the au- 
 thority of the Scriptures, that there is a real distinction 
 in the Godhead ; but I cannot define it. Still the pro- 
 position that there is a real distinction, is just as intel- 
 ligible as the one, that God is self-existent. A multi- 
 tude of propositions, respecting diverse subjects, re- 
 semble these. We affirm, that gravitation brings a 
 body thrown into the air down to the earth.* The 
 fact is perfectly intelligible. The terms are perfectly 
 understood, so far as they are the means of describing 
 this fact. But, then, what is gravitation ? An affir- 
 mative definition cannot be given, which is not a mere 
 exchange of synonymes. Nor can any comparison de- 
 fine it ; for to what shall we liken it ? 
 
 The mind of every man who is accustomed to think 
 will supply him with a multitude of propositions of 
 this nature ; in all of which, the fact designed to be 
 described is clear. The terms, so far as they describe 
 this fact, are clear ; but the subject of the proposi- 
 tion, — that is, the thing itself, or agent, concerning 
 which the fact is asserted, — is undefinable ; and, ex- 
 cepting in regard to the J act in question, perhaps wholly 
 unknown to us. 
 
 How easy now to perplex common minds, by calling 
 a proposition unintelligible, the subject of which is unde- 
 finable I In confounding things so very different, con- 
 sists, as I apprehend, the whole ingenuity of the piece 
 in question, — an ingenuity which may excite the ad- 
 
 * Illustrations might in like manner be drawn from electricity, gal- 
 vanism, magnetism, &c, the existence of which cannot be denied, but 
 the nature of which cannot, in affirmative terms, be defined. — Eo. 
 
28 
 
 miration of those who love the subtilties of dispute, 
 but cannot contribute much to illuminate the path of 
 theological science. 
 
 I have been thus particular in my statement of this 
 very difficult part of the subject, in order to prevent 
 misapprehension. I certainly do not hold myself 
 bound to vindicate any of the definitions of person or of 
 distinction in the Godhead which I have seen, because 
 I do not adopt them. I do not and cannot understand 
 them ; and to a definition I cannot with propriety as- 
 sent (still less can I undertake to defend it), until I do un- 
 derstand what it signifies. It is truly matter of regret 
 that some great and good men have carried their spe- 
 culations on this subject to such a length, that they 
 have bewildered themselves and their readers. I 
 would always speak with respect and tenderness of 
 such men : Still T have no hesitation in saying, that 
 my mind is absolutely unable to elicit any distinct and 
 certain ideas from any of the definitions of person in 
 the Godhead which I have ever examined. A few ex- 
 amples of attempts at definition or illustration will 
 vindicate the correctness of what I have just said. 
 
 Let me begin with Tertullian, who nourished about 
 A. D. 200. 
 
 In his book against Praxeas, he says, " This perversity 
 (viz. of Praxeas) thinks itself to be in possession of pure 
 truth, while it supposes that we are to believe in one God, 
 not otherwise than if we make the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, the self same ; as if all were not one, while all are of 
 one, viz. by a unity of substance ; and still the mysterious 
 economy which distributes unity into a Trinity is observed, 
 marking out [distinguishing] Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 There are three, not in condition, but rank ; not in essence, 
 but form ; not in power, but in kind ; but of one substance, 
 one condition, and one power ; for there is one God, from whom 
 all those ranks, and forms, and kinds by the name of Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, are reckoned." 
 
 A little farther on, he says, " Whatever therefore the sub- 
 stance of the Word (Logos) is, I call him a person, and pay 
 him reverence ; and, acknowledging the Son, I maintain that 
 he is second from the Father. 
 
 " The third is the Spirit from God and the Son, as the 
 
29 
 
 fruit from the stalk is the third from the root ; a stream from 
 the river [the third] from the fountain ; the sharp point from 
 a ray [the third] from the sun. So the Trinity proceeds, by 
 interlinked and connected grades, from the Father." (c. 2.) 
 
 In cap. 9, he says, " They (the Trinity) are not separate 
 from each other, although the Father is said to be diverse 
 from the Son and the Spirit." 
 
 And again " We are baptized into the persons (of the 
 Trinity) severally, by the use of their several names." 
 
 It is proper to observe here how plainly and defi- 
 nitely the words person and Trinity are, at this very 
 early age, applied by Tertullian to the Godhead ; 
 which contradicts the confident affirmations of some 
 writers, that these terms were an invention of later 
 ages and of scholastic divinity. I may add, that the 
 familiar and habitual use which Tertullian makes of 
 these terms proves that they were commonly under- 
 stood, or at least used in the Church, at a period so 
 early, and in reference to the very distinction in the 
 Godhead, which is the subject of the present discussion. 
 
 The object which Tertullian aims at, in predicating 
 person of the Godhead, is, as has been already remark- 
 ed, to oppose the sentiment of Praxeas, who denied 
 that there existed any distinction in the divine nature. 
 But, to explain Tertullian's similitudes, designed to 
 illustrate the nature of this distinction, and so fre- 
 quently copied in after ages, is more than I shall un- 
 dertake. Who does not see that all similitudes drawn 
 from created, limited, dependent beings or things, must 
 be utterly inadequate to illustrate the mode in which 
 an uncreated, infinite, and omnipresent Being exists ? 
 What is the attempt at explanation, but "darkening 
 words without knowledge ?" I believe with Tertullian 
 in a threefold distinction of the Godhead ; but I be- 
 lieve simply the fact of the Trinity, and do not venture 
 to make any- attempt at explanation. 
 
 The venerable Council of Nice, held A. D. 325, have 
 made an attempt, similar to that of the Father just 
 named, at definition or description. Their words are — 
 " We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the 
 maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one 
 
so 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten 
 of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father ; 
 God of God, light of light, very God of very God, be- 
 gotten, not made, of the same substance with the Fa- 
 ther, by whom all things were made." 
 
 This Council, like the great body of the ancient Fa- 
 thers, believed in the doctrine of the eter?ial generation 
 of the Son. This generation, from all eternity, appears 
 to have been the distinctive point of difference between 
 the Son and the Father (whom the ancient ecclesiasti- 
 cal writers often describe as wy&/v9ffog, unbegotten), on 
 which they fixed their attention, and which they have 
 plainly laboured in their Creed to describe or illus- 
 trate. As coeternal with the Father, they regarded the 
 Son, — of the same substance, they have asserted him to 
 be. How then could he be begotten, or derived, if he 
 were of the same substance and of the same eternity ? 
 To hold fast both these ideas, they said the Son was 
 •' God of God, light of light, very God of very God, 
 begotten, not made, of the same substance with the 
 Father." They endeavoured to justify such expres- 
 sions, by saying, that the light of the sun is coeval 
 with it, and of the same substance ; and by a multitude 
 of similies of such a nature, drawn from created and 
 material objects. How utterly incompetent all this 
 must be to effect the object intended, is easy of appre- 
 hension, when we once reflect that the divine nature is 
 self-existent, independent, and immutable. 
 
 The true occasion, however, why the Nicene Fa- 
 thers accumulated so many terms in their creed, must 
 be found in their intention to oppose every form and 
 species of Arianism, although they meant to strike, as 
 has been before observed, at other opinions which they 
 disapproved. A slight consideration of the Nicene 
 Creed might lead one, perhaps, to suppose, that unde- 
 finable or objectionable terms of illustration had been, 
 almost intentionally, accumulated in it. The history 
 of the introduction of these terms, however, may be 
 found in the manner in which the Arians disputed with 
 the Xicene Fathers. "Being asked, whether they ac- 
 knowledged the Son as begotten of the Father, they 
 
31 
 
 assented, — meaning that they acknowledged the de- 
 rived existence of the Son from God, as well as that 
 of all other beings. Did they acknowledge the Son 
 as God? — Altogether so. Did they acknowledge him 
 as the f rue God ? — Undoubtedly : He must be the true 
 God, who is constituted God. Was the Son of God a 
 creature ? — By no means (meaning, not a creature in 
 the sense that other things were ; these being medi- 
 ately created by the Logos, but the Logos immediately 
 by the Father). But when the word ifiawttog (omausios, 
 i. e. the same in substance) was proposed, and it was 
 decided that Christ was consubstanfUU with the Father, 
 they never assented to this, as it excluded all hope of 
 evasion." — (Athan. Epis. ad Afric.) A sober inquirer 
 may therefore find, perhaps, more reason to vindicate 
 this term (so much agitated in the churches), as used 
 by the Xicene Fathers, than he might at first suspect. 
 After all, I am unable to conceive of any definite 
 meaning, in the phrase, eternal generation. Generation 
 or production, like creation, necessarily implies in it- 
 self beginning ; and of course contradicts the idea of 
 absolute eternity. In so far as Christ is divine, con- 
 substantial with the Father, he must, for ought that I 
 can see, be necessarily regarded as self-existent, inde- 
 pendent, and eternal. A being to whom these attri- 
 butes do not belong, can never be regarded as God, 
 except he be called so by a figurative use of the term. 
 The generation or production of the Son of God, as di- 
 vine, as really and truly God, seems to be out of ques- 
 tion, therefore, unless it be an express doctrine of re- 
 velation ; which is so far from being the case, that I 
 conceive the contrary is plainly taught. If the phrase 
 eternal generation, then, is to be vindicated, it is only 
 on the ground that it is figuratively used, to describe 
 an indefinable connexion and discrimination between 
 Father and Son, which is from everlasting. It is not 
 well chosen, however, for this purpose, because it ne- 
 cessarily, even in its figurative use, carries along with 
 it an idea which is at variance with the self-existence 
 and independence of Christ, as divine; and of course, 
 
 c 
 
32 
 
 in so far as it does this, it seems to detract from his 
 real divinity. 
 
 I cannot therefore understand what "God of God, 
 light of light, very God of very God," means ; nor can 
 I think that any definite and positive ideas ever were 
 or could be attached to these phrases. That the Ni- 
 cene Fathers meant to contradict Arius, is sufficiently 
 plain to any one conversant with the history of the 
 Council of Nice. But, that they have made out a po- 
 sitive, or affirmative and intelligible definition of the 
 distinction between Father and Son, I presume no one, 
 at the present day, will hardly venture to assert. 
 
 The Council of Constantinople (a. d. 381), in their 
 Synodic Epistle to the Western Bishops, have shown 
 the manner in which the doctrine of the Trinity was 
 stated and defended in their day. They adopted and 
 enlarged the Nicene Symbol, so as to strike at the 
 opinions of Macedonius ; and then, in their Synodic 
 Letter, gave the sum of what they had done or what 
 they believed. My objection to their language is, that 
 it is too affirmative. "Three most perfect hypostases, 
 or three perfect persons," though aimed to contradict 
 Sabeliius, Paul of Samosata, and others of like sen- 
 timents, is an attempt to define too far. Hypostases, 
 or persons , in the sense of distinction in the Godhead, 
 may be admissible through the penury of language. 
 But most perfect hypostases, perfect pcrso?is, is attempt- 
 ing to make the distinction more a matter of definition 
 than it can be made. I believe that what they design- 
 ed to assert is substantially true ; but I cannot adopt, 
 because I cannot regard as intelligible, all their lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Let us leave antiquity now, and glance for a moment 
 at some of the similar attempts at definition or illus- 
 tration in modern times. The celebrated Leibnitz was 
 requested by Loetler, who had undertaken to refute the 
 writings of a certain English Antitrinitarian, to give 
 him an affirmative definition of the persons in the God- 
 head. He sent for answer the following, — "Several 
 persons in an absolute substance numerically the same, 
 
signify several, particular, intelligent substances es- 
 sentially related." On farther consideration, he aban- 
 doned this, and sent a second ; which was, " Several 
 persons, in an absolute substance numerically the 
 same, mean relative, incommunicable modes of sub- 
 sisting." 
 
 If Leibnitz actually understood this, I believe be 
 must have been a better master of metaphysics than 
 any person who has ever read his definition. In fact, 
 he does not himself appear to have been satisfied with 
 it ; for, not long after, he wrote as follows, — "We must 
 say, that there are relations in the divine substance, 
 which distinguish the persons, since these persons can- 
 not be absolute substances. But we must aver, too, 
 that these relations are substantial. At least, we must 
 say that the Divine Persons are not the same Con- 
 crete, under different denominations or relations ; as a 
 man maybe, at the same time, both a poet and an ora- 
 tor. We must say, moreover, that the three persons 
 are not as absolute substances as the whole "# 
 
 This is somewhat better than either of his former at- 
 tempts, inasmuch as it is confined principally to de- 
 scription of a negative kind. Yet, after all, I obtain by- 
 it no additional light upon the subject, which is import- 
 ant. 
 
 With quite as little success did that original genius 
 and masterly reasoner the celebrated Toellner of 
 Frankfort, labour to define the subject in question. 
 
 " It is certain," says he, " that we must conceive, as co- 
 existing in God, three eternal and really different actions, 
 the action of activity, of idea, and of the desire of all pos- 
 sible good within and without him. 
 
 " Three reaily different actions, coexisting from eternity, 
 necessarily presuppose three really different and operative 
 substrata. It is thus, through the aid of reason illuminated 
 by the Scriptures, we come to know, that the power, the un- 
 derstanding, and the will of God, are not merely three facul- 
 ties, but three distinct energies, that is, three substances." 
 (Vermisch. Aufsatze. B. I. p. 81.) 
 
 • Remanjues sur le livre d' un Antitrinitaire Anglois, p. 26. 
 
34 
 
 Tertullian's explication, or the Nicene Creed is, at 
 least, as intelligible to me as this. 
 
 I have not produced these instances, in order to sa- 
 tify you that all attempts of this nature are and must 
 he fruitless. You doubtless need no such proof. I 
 have produced them for two reasons, — the first, to jus- 
 tify myself, in some measure, for not attempting a de- 
 finition, in which no one has yet succeeded ; the se- 
 cond, to show that, notwithstanding all the fruitless at- 
 tempts at definition which have been made, and not- 
 withstanding the variety of method in which men have 
 chosen to make these attempts, yet, for substance, 
 there is a far greater unanimity of opinion among Tri- 
 nitarians than you and your friends seem to be willing 
 to concede. I grant freely, that there is a great va- 
 riety in the mode by which an attempt at definition or 
 illustration is made. With my present views, I can 
 never look upon any attempts of this nature but with 
 regret. But I am very far from accusing them gene- 
 rally of any ill design, — much less can I treat them 
 with contempt. 
 
 Patient investigation and candour will lead one to 
 believe, as it seems to me, that the thing aimed at teas, 
 in substance, to assert the idea of a distinction in the God- 
 head. To do this with the more success, as they ima- 
 gined, they endeavoured to describe affii 7 natively the 
 nature of that distinction. Here they have all failed. 
 But does this prove, that there is actually a great va- 
 riety of opinion among Trinitarians, in regard to the 
 principal thing concerned, merely because endeavours 
 to define this thing have produced a great variety of 
 illustration ? 1 cannot help feeling that this matter is 
 sometimes misrepresented, and very generally but lit- 
 tle understood. 
 
 And now, can you, by arguing a priori, prove to me 
 that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with it- 
 self, or " subversive of the doctrine of the divine unity," 
 and therefore untrue ? We say the divine essence and 
 attributes are 7iumericallu one, so far as they are known 
 to us, but that there is in the Godhead a real dustinc 
 
35 
 
 Hon between the Father and the Son. (I omit the con- 
 sideration of the Holy Spirit here, because your sermon 
 merely hints at this subject, and because all difficulties, 
 in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, are essentially 
 connected with proving or disproving the divinity of 
 Christ.) We abjure all attempts to define that distinction 
 —ire admit it simply as ajact, on the authority of divine 
 revelation. Now, how can you prove that a distinction 
 does ?wt exist in the Godhead ? I acknowledge that 
 the want of evidence, in the Scriptures, to establish the 
 fact, would be a sufficient reason for rejecting it. But 
 we are now making out a statement of the subject, and 
 answering objections that are urged a priori, or in- 
 dependently of the Scriptures. The proof, which the 
 New Testament exhibits, we are hereafter to examine. 
 How then, 1 repeat it, are you to show that we believe 
 in a self-contradiction, or in an impossibility? If the 
 distinction in question cannot be proved, independent- 
 ly of the Scriptures (and most freely 1 acknowledge it 
 cannot), it is equally certain that it cannot in this man- 
 ner be disproved. In order to prove that this distinc- 
 tion contradicts the divine unity, must you not be able 
 to tell what it is, and what the divine unity is ? Can 
 you do either ? 
 
 Allow me for a moment to dwell on the subject now 
 casually introduced. It is a clear point, I think, that 
 the unity of God cannot be proved without revelation. 
 It may perhaps be rendered faintly probable. Then 
 you depend on Scripture proof for the establishment 
 of this doctrine. But have the Scriptures anywhere 
 told us what the divine unity 'is? Will you produce 
 the passage ? The oneness of God they assert : But 
 this they assert always, in opposition to the idols of the 
 Heathen — the poly theism of the Gentiles — the gods su- 
 perior and inferior, which they worshipped. In no 
 other sense have the Scriptures denned the oneness 
 of the Deity. What, then, is oneness, in the uncre- 
 ated, infinite, and eternal Being ? In created and fi- 
 nite objects, we have a distinct perception of what we 
 mean by it; but can created objects be just and ade- 
 quate representatives of the uncreated one ? Familiar 
 
 c2 
 
36 
 
 as the assertion is, in your conversation and in your 
 sermons, that God is one, can you give me any defi- 
 nition of this oneness, except a negative one? That is, 
 you deny plurality of it : You say God is but one, and 
 not two or more. Still, in what, I ask, does the di- 
 vine unity consist? Has not God different and vari- 
 ous faculties and powers ? Is he not almighty, omni- 
 scient, omnipresent, holy, just, and good? Does he 
 not act differently, i. e. variously, in the natural and 
 in the moral world ? Does his unity consist, then, ap- 
 propriately in his essence? But what is the essence 
 of God? And how can you assert that his unity con- 
 sists appropriately in this, unless you know what his 
 essence is, and whether oneness can be any better 
 predicated of this than of his attributes ? 
 
 Your answer to all this is — "The nature of God i$ 
 beyond my reach : I cannot define it. I approach to 
 a definition of the divine unit) 7 only by negatives." 
 That is, you deny the numerical plurality of God ; or 
 you say there is not two or more essences, omni- 
 sciences, omnipotences, &c. : But here all investiga- 
 tion is at an end. Is it possible to show what consti- 
 tutes the internal nature of the divine essence or attri- 
 butes, or how T they are related to each other, or what 
 internal distinctions exist ? About all this revelation 
 says not one word, — certainly the book of Nature 
 gives no instruction concerning it. The assertion, 
 then, that God is one, can never be fairly understood 
 as meaning any thing more than that he is nume- 
 rically one, — i. e. it simply denies polytheism, and 
 never can reach beyond this. But how does this 
 prove, or how can it prove, that there may not be, or 
 that there are not distinctions in the Godhead, either 
 in regard to attributes or essence, the nature of which 
 is unknown to us, and the existence of which is to 
 "be proved, by the authority of the Scriptures only? 
 
 When Unitarians, therefore, inquire what that dis- 
 tinction in the Godhead is in which we believe, we an- 
 swer, that we do not profess to understand what it is : 
 We do not undertake to define it affirmatively. We 
 canapproximate to a definition of it only by negatives. 
 
37 
 
 We deny that the Father is in all respects the same 
 as the Son ; and that the Holy Spirit is in all respects 
 the same as either the Father or the Son. We rest 
 the tact, that a distinction exists, solely upon the basis 
 of revelation. 
 
 In principle, then, what more difficulty lies in the 
 way of believing in a threefold distinction of the God- 
 head, than in believing in the divine unity? 
 
 I am certainly willing to allow, that the evidences 
 of the divine unity in the New Testament are suffi- 
 cient: But 1 may be permitted to suggest here, that 
 in my view, the passages asserting it are J ewer in num- 
 ber, than the passages which assert or imply that Christ 
 is truly divine. I cannot but think that the frequent 
 assertions of your sermon, and of Unitarians in gene- 
 ral, with regard to this subject, are very erroneous ; 
 that they are made at hazard, and without a diligent 
 and faithful comparison of the number of texts that 
 respect the divine unity in the New Testament, and 
 the number of those which concern the divinity of the 
 Saviour. After all, to what purpose is it, that so great 
 a multitude of texts should be required to prove the 
 divinity of Christ, by those who believe, as you do, 
 that the decisions of the Scriptures are of divine 
 authority ? The decision of one text fairly made out 
 by the laws of exegesis, is as authoritative as that of 
 a thousand. Would a law a thousand times repeated 
 have any more authority attached to it for the repeti- 
 tion ? It might be better explained by the repetition 
 in different connexions ; but its authority is uniformly 
 the same. 
 
 But, to return from this digression, suppose I should 
 affirm that two subjects, A and B, are numerically 
 identical in regard to something called X, but diverse 
 or distinct in regard to something else called Y, is 
 there any absurdity or contradiction in this affirma- 
 tion ? 1 hope I shall not, by making this supposition, 
 be subjected to the imputation of endeavouring to prove 
 the doctrine of the Trinity by the science of Algebra; 
 for my only object in proposing this statement, is to 
 illustrate the answer that we make to a very common 
 
38 
 
 question which Unitarians put us — "How can three 
 be one, and one three?" — In no way I necessarily and 
 cheerfully reply. " How, then, is the doctrine of the 
 Trinity in unity to be vindicated?" — In a manner 
 which is not at all embarrassed by these questions. 
 We do not maintain that the Godhead is three in the same 
 respects that it is one, but the reverse. In regard to X, 
 we maintain its numerical unity: In regard to Y, we 
 maintain a threefold distinction. I repeat it : We 
 maintain simply the fact, that there is such a distinction 
 on Scripture authority. We do not profess to under- 
 stand in what it consists. 
 
 Will you not concede, now, provided the statements 
 made above are correct, that we are not very unrea- 
 sonable, when we complain, that, from the time in 
 which Tertullian maintained the doctrine of the Trinity 
 against Praxeas, down to the present period, the views 
 and statements of Trinitarians, in regard to this sub- 
 ject, should have been so frequently misunderstood or 
 misrepresented ? 
 
 I have dwelt sufficiently on my statement of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and of the difficulties that lie 
 in the way of proving this statement to be erroneous 
 or contradictory. Before I proceed to the next topic, 
 I will merely mention, in a brief way, two of the most 
 formidable objections to our views which I have seen, 
 and which were adduced by two men, who must be 
 reckoned among the most intelligent that have em- 
 braced the cause of Unitarianism. The first is from 
 Faustus Socinus, and runs thus, — 
 
 " No one is so stupid as not to see that these things are con- 
 tradictory, that our God the creator of heaven and earth, 
 should be one only in number, and yet be three, each of 
 which is our God. For as to what they affirm that our God 
 is one in number, in respect to his essence, but three-fold in 
 regard to persons ; here again they affirm things which are 
 6elf-contradictory, since two or three persons cannot exist, 
 where there is numerically only one individual essence ; for 
 to constitute more than one person, more than one individual 
 essence is required. For what is person, but a certain indi- 
 vidual intelligent essence ? Or in what way, I pray, does 
 one person diifer from another, unless by the diversity of his 
 
39 
 
 individual or numerical essence ? This implies, that the di- 
 vine essence, is numerically one only, yet that there is more 
 than one person ; although the divine essence which is nume- 
 rically one, and divine person are altogether identical." (Opp. 
 torn. i. p. 697.) 
 
 Here, however, it is obvious that the whole weight 
 of the objection lies in an erroneous use of the words 
 person and essence. Socinus attaches to them a sense, 
 which Trinitarians do not admit. How then can Tri- 
 nitarians be charged with inconsistencies, in proposi- 
 tions which they do not make ? 
 
 Of the same tenour with the objection of Socinus, 
 is the objection mentioned by the famous Toellner 
 (Theolog. Untersuchungen, B. 1. p. 29), which, to save 
 room, I shall merely translate, without subjoining the 
 original. 
 
 " The most considerable objection (against the doctrine of 
 the Trinity), is this," says he, " that the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, are each a particular substance endowed with 
 understanding ; and at the same time, neither of them is 
 said to have his separate being, his separate understanding, 
 his separate will, his separate power of action ; but all three 
 together have only one being, one understanding, one will, 
 one power of action. As it appears then, it is affirmed that 
 there are three real beings, truly separate ; each consequently 
 having his own individual power of action, and not having 
 it ; three separate persons, and three persons not separate" 
 
 All the difficulty, which this masterly writer has, in 
 his usual way, so strikingly pourtrayed, lies merely 
 in the representations of those Trinitarians, who have 
 expressed themselves on this subject so incautiously, 
 as to be understood to affirm that there are three se- 
 parate beings (persons in the common sense of the 
 word), in the Godhead, with distinct powers, volitions, 
 &c. If there be any now, who defend such a state- 
 ment of this subject, I must leave them to compose 
 the difficulty with Toellner as they can. The view of 
 the doctrine of the Trinity given by Toellner, in his 
 statement of the objection, is not that which I have 
 presented, or which I should ever undertake to de- 
 fend. Of course it cannot be adduced as an objection 
 
40 
 
 against the statement which I have given, and have 
 undertaken to defend. 
 
 The second objection appears, at first sight, more 
 formidable and perplexing It comes from Taylor, 
 and was inserted in the English Theological Magazine, 
 Vol. I. No 4, p. 111. 17/0. I have not opportunity 
 of access to the original, and take the ideas from a 
 Latin translation of the piece, which was published in 
 Germany. 
 
 " There can," says Taylor, "be no real distinction between 
 the Father and the Son, unless they so differ from each other, 
 that what is peculiar to the Father, is wanting in the Son ; 
 and what is peculiar to the Son, is wanting in the Father. 
 Now, that property which helongs exclusively to the Father, 
 or the Son, must be numbered among the perfections of God ; 
 for in the divine nature no imperfections can exist. It fol- 
 lows then, that some perfection is lacking both in the Father 
 and in the Son, so that neither is endowed with infinite per- 
 fection, which is essential to the divine nature. It must be 
 conceded then, that the essence of the Father and the Son 
 is not one and the same." 
 
 Ingenious and specious as this is, still I am unable 
 to see that it settles the point in debate. The es- 
 sence and attributes of God, so far as they are known 
 to us, are numerically one, as we have already admit- 
 ted. If by i% perfection," Taylor means all which be- 
 longs to the Godhead, then I answer merely by say- 
 ing, It is essential to the perfection of the Godhead, 
 that the distinction between the Father and Son should 
 exist ; for that otherwise there would be imperfection. 
 My right to make such a statement, is just the same 
 as his to make the assertion, that the distinction be- 
 tween Father and Son involved an imperfection in 
 each. The very distinction between Father and Son 
 is essential to complete divinity ; and, did not these 
 exist, something would be wanting to complete the 
 perfection of the Godhead. I acknowledge this is as- 
 sumption ; but so is Taylor's statement ; and an ar- 
 gument which is built on an assumption, may surely 
 be opposed by another argument, which has the same 
 foundation, 
 
41 
 
 My object in the present Letter has been, thus far, 
 to compare our views of the Trinity, with those which 
 you have ascribed to us ; to show that we are not ex- 
 posed on account of our belief, to be justly charged 
 with gross and palpable absurdity, or with " subvert- 
 ing the Unity of the Godhead ;" and to prove that the 
 question, after all, whether there is a distinction in the 
 Godhead, must be referred solely to the decision of 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 To them 1 shall appeal, as soon as I have made a 
 few remarks on the twofold nature, which we ascribe 
 to Christ. You say (p. 11.) 
 
 " We (Unitarians) believe in the unity of Jesus Christ. We believe 
 that Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly one as we are, and 
 equally distinct from the one God. We complain of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, that, not satisfied wiih making God three beings, it makes 
 Jesus Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our 
 conceptions of his character. This corruption of Christianity, alike 
 repugnant to common sense, and to the general strain of Scripture, is 
 n remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the 
 simple truth of Jesus." 
 
 You will admit that this is expressed in terms of 
 severity. Whether we are reall} 7 deserving of it, who 
 hold the doctrine in question, every lover of truth 
 will permit to be brought to the test of fair examina- 
 tion. 
 
 I am not certain that I have rightly apprehended 
 your meaning, when you say that the twofold nature 
 of Christ is " repugnant to common sense." Do you 
 mean that common sense may determine first, inde- 
 pendently of revelation, that the doctrine cannot be 
 true ; and then maintain the impossibility that revelation 
 should exhibit it? If so, then we are able to decide, a 
 priori, what can be revealed, and what cannot; conse- 
 quently, what we may believe, and what we must dis- 
 believe. It follows, then, that a revelation is unneces- 
 sary, or rather that it is impossible, — at least or.e 
 which shall be obligatory upon our belief; for we have 
 only to say, that our common sense decides against the 
 propriety or the possibility of the things said to be re- 
 vealed, and then we are at liberty to reject them. 
 
 But is this the proper sphere in which common sense 
 should act ? Is it not true that common sense is li- 
 
42 
 
 mited to judging of the evidences that the Bible is of 
 divine origin and authority ; to establishing the rules 
 of exegesis common to all languages and books ; and 
 finally, to directing a fair and impartial application of 
 those rules, to determine what the orginal writer of 
 any portion of the Scriptures designed to inculcate? 
 Having once admitted, as you have, the divine autho- 
 rity of the Scripture in deciding all questions, and 
 your obligation to submit to its decision when you 
 can understand the meaning of it, by using the com- 
 mon rules of interpretation, how is it to be deter- 
 mined by common sense whether Christ has two na- 
 tures or one ? Common sense may investigate the 
 language of the inspired writers, and inquire what 
 they have said ; and if, by the sound rules of inter- 
 pretation, it should appear that they have ascribed 
 two natures to Christ, or asserted that which una- 
 voidably leads to the conclusion that he has two na- 
 tures, then, either it is to be believed, or the authority 
 of the writers is to be cast off. In rejecting any doc- 
 trine which the language of Scripture plainly teaches, 
 common sense must cast off the divine authority of the 
 Bible. To receive the Bible as a revelation from God, 
 and yet to decide, a priori, what the Scriptures can 
 and what they cannot contain, and to make their lan- 
 guage bend until it conform with this decision, cannot 
 surely be a proper part for a sincere lover of truth and 
 sober investigation. 
 
 In saying, then, that the doctrine which teaches that 
 Christ has two natures, is " repugnant to common 
 sense," I presume you must mean, that the rules of 
 exegesis, applied by common sense, lead unavoidably 
 to the conclusion that Christ has but one nature. If 
 this be your meaning, what I have to say in reply will 
 be contained in my next Letter. 
 
 In regard to the impossibility that Christ should 
 possess two natures, and the absurdity of such a sup- 
 position, I have not much to say. If the Scriptures are 
 the Word of Gotl, and do contain the doctrine in ques- 
 tion, it is neither impossible nor absurd. Most cer- 
 tainly, if it be a fact that Christ possesses two natures, 
 
 
43 
 
 it is a fact with which natural religion has no concern ; 
 at least, of which it has no knowledge. It can there- 
 fore decide neither for nor against it. It is purely a 
 doctrine of revelation ; and to Scripture only can we 
 look for evidences of it. If the doctrine be palpably 
 absurd and contradictory to reason, and yet it is found 
 in the Bible, then reject the claims of the Bible to in- 
 spiration and truth. But if the laws of interpretation 
 do not permit us to avoid the conclusion that it is 
 found there, we cannot with any consistency admit 
 that the Scriptures are of divine authority, and yet re- 
 ject the doctrine. 
 
 How shall any man decide, a piori, that the doc- 
 trine cannot be true ? Can we limit the omniscient 
 and omnipotent God, by saying that the Son cannot 
 be so united with human nature, so " become flesh and 
 dwell among us," that we recognize and distinguish, 
 in this complex being, but one person, and therefore 
 speak of but one ? If you ask me how such a union 
 can be effected between natures so infinitely diverse 
 as the divine and human, I answer (as in the case of 
 the distinction in the Godhead), I do not know how 
 this is done ; / do not undertake to define wherein that 
 union consists, nor how it is effected. God cannot divest 
 himself of his essential perfections, — i. e. he is immu- 
 tably perfect ; nor could the human nature of Christ 
 have continued to be human nature, if it had ceased to 
 be subject to the infirmities, and sorrows, and affec- 
 tions of this nature, while he dwelt among men. In 
 whatever way, then, the union of the two natures was 
 effected, it neither destroyed nor essentially changed 
 either the divine or human nature. 
 
 Hence, at one time, Christ is represented as the 
 Creator of the Universe ; and at another, as a man of 
 sorrows, and of imperfect knowledge, — (John, i. 1 — 
 18 ; Hebrews, i. 10—12; Luke, xxii. 44, 45 ; ii. 52.) 
 If both these accounts are true, he must, as it seems 
 to me, be God omniscient and omnipotent; and still a 
 feeble man and of imperfect knowledge. It is, indeed, 
 impossible to reconcile these two things without the 
 
 D 
 
44 
 
 supposition of two natures. The simple question then 
 is, Can they be joined or united, so that, in speaking 
 of them, we may say the person is God or man ; or 
 we may call him by one single name, and by this un- 
 derstand, as designated, either or both of these na- 
 tures ? On this subject, the religion of nature says 
 nothing. Reason has nothing to say ; for surely no 
 finite being is competent to decide that the junction of 
 the two natures is impossible or absurd. 
 
 One person^ in the sense in which each of us is one, 
 Christ could not be. If you make God the soul, and 
 Jesus of Nazareth the body of Christ, then you take 
 away his human nature, and deny the imperfection of 
 his knowledge. But may not God have been, in a 
 manner altogether peculiar and mysterious, united to 
 Jesus, without displaying at once his whole power in 
 him, or necessarily rendering him supremely perfect ? 
 In the act of creation, God does not put forth all his 
 power — nor in preservation — nor in sanctification ; 
 nor does he bring all his knowledge into action when 
 be inspires prophets and apostles. Was it necessary 
 that he should exert it all when in conjunction with 
 the human nature of Christ? In governing the world 
 from day to day, God does not surely exhaust his 
 omnipotence or his wisdom. He employs only so 
 much as is necessary to accomplish the design which 
 he has in view. In his union with Jesus of Nazareth, 
 the divine Logos could not, of course, be necessitated 
 at once to put forth all his energy or exhibit all his 
 knowledge and wisdom. Just so much of it, and no 
 more, was manifested as was requisite to constitute 
 the character of an all-sufficient incarnate Mediator 
 and Redeemer. When necessary, power and autho- 
 rity infinitely above human were displayed ; when 
 otherwise, the human nature sympathized and suffer- 
 ed like that of other men. 
 
 Is this impossible for God ? Is there any thing in 
 such a doctrine which, if found in the Bible, would af- 
 ford an adequate reason for rejecting its claims to in- 
 spiration? For my own part, I cannot see the impos- 
 
45 
 
 sibility or the absurdity of such a thing. How shall 
 we limit the Deity as to the ways in which he is to 
 reveal himself to his creatures? 
 
 Can we not find mystery within ourselves which is 
 as inexplicable as anything in the doctrine before us? 
 We do not appropriate the affections of our minds to 
 our bodies, nor those of our bodies to our minds : 
 Each class of affections is separate and distinct. Yet 
 we refer either to the whole man. Abraham was mor- 
 tal ; Abraham was immortal ; are both equally true ? 
 He had an immortal and a mortal part; yet both made 
 but one person. How is it a greater mystery if I say 
 Christ was God, and Christ was man ? He had a na- 
 ture human and divine. One person, indeed, in the 
 sense in which Abraham was, he is not. Xor is there 
 any created object to which the union of Godhead with 
 humanity can be compared. But shall we deny the 
 possibility of it on this account ? Or shall we tax with 
 absurdity that which it is utterly beyond our reach to 
 scan ? I shrink from such an undertaking, and place 
 myself in the attitude of listening to what the voice of 
 revelation may dictate in regard to this. It becomes us 
 here to do so — to prostrate ourselves before the Fa- 
 ther of Lights, and say, " Speak, Lord, for thy servants 
 hear. Lord, what wilt thou have us to believe ?" 
 
 You may indeed find fault with us that we speak of 
 three persons in the Godhead where there is but one 
 nature; and yet of but one person in Christ where 
 there are two natures. I admit that it is an apparent 
 inconsistency in the use of language ; and cannot but 
 wish that it had not, originally, been adopted. Still, it is 
 capable of some explanation. In the first case, person 
 simply designates the idea that there is some real dis- 
 tinction in the Godhead, in opposition to the opinion 
 that it is merely nominal. In the second, it designates 
 Christ as he appears to us in the New Testament, 
 clothed with a human body, and yet acting (as we sup- 
 pose), not only as possessing the attributes of a man, 
 but as also possessing divine power. We see the at- 
 tributes of human nature in such intimate conjunction 
 with those of the divine, that we cannot separate the 
 
 d2 
 
46 
 
 agents ; at least we know not where to draw the line 
 of separation, because we do not know the manner in 
 which the union is effected or continued. We speak 
 therefore of one per son , — i. e., one agent. And when 
 we say that the two natures of Christ are united in one 
 person, we mean to say that divinity and humanity are 
 brought into such a connexion in this case, that we can- 
 not separate them, so as to make two entirely distinct 
 and separate agents. 
 
 The present generation of Trinitarians, however, do 
 not feel responsible for the introduction of such tech- 
 nical terms, in senses so diverse from the common 
 ideas attached to them. They merely take them as 
 they find them. For my own part, I have no attach- 
 ment to them ; I think them injudiciously chosen ; and 
 heartily wish they were by general consent entirely 
 exploded. They serve, perhaps, in most cases, prin- 
 cipally to keep up the form of words without definite 
 ideas ; and I fear they have been the occasion of many 
 disputes in the Church. The things which are aimed 
 at by these terms, I would strenuously retain ; be- 
 cause I believe in the divine origin and authority of 
 the Bible; and that its language, fairly interpreted, 
 does inculcate these things. And candour, on your 
 part, will certainly admit, that things only are worth 
 any dispute. Logomachy is too trifling for a lover of 
 truth. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 REVEREND AXD DEAR SIR, 
 
 My great object hitherto, has been to show that the 
 real question at issue between us, in regard to a dis- 
 tinction in the Godhead and the divinity of the Saviour, 
 cannot be decided independently of the Scriptures. 
 There is no such absurdity or inconsistency in either 
 of these doctrines, as will justify us in rejecting them 
 without investigation. The question whether they are 
 true or not, belongs entirely and purely to revelation. 
 If you admit this, then the simple question between u,s 
 
47 
 
 is, what does revelation teach ? We are agreed that 
 the Bible is the Word of God ; that whatever " Christ 
 taught, either during his personal ministry or by his 
 inspired Apostles, is of divine authority." We are 
 agreed as to principles of interpretation, in most things 
 that are of importance. We both concede, that the 
 principles by which all books are to be interpreted, are 
 those which apply to the interpretation of the Bible ; 
 for the very plain reason which you have given, that 
 when God condescends to speak and write for men, it 
 is according to the established rules of human language. 
 What better than an enigma would the Scriptures be, 
 if such were not the fact? An inspired interpreter 
 would be as necessary to explain, as an inspired pro- 
 phet or apostle was to compose, the books of Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 From this great and fundamental principle of the 
 Scriptural writings, — viz. that they are composed 
 agreeably to the common laws of human language, it 
 results, that the grammatical analysis of the words of 
 any passage, — i. e. an investigation of their usual and 
 general meaning, of their syntactical connexion, of 
 their idiom 5 and of their relation to the context, must 
 be the essential process, in determining the sense of 
 any text or part of Scripture. On this fundamental 
 process, depends the interpretation of all the classics, 
 and of all other books. In conformity to this process, 
 rules of interpretation are prescribed, which cannot be 
 violated without at once plunging into the dark and 
 boundless field of conjectural exegesis. I may obtain 
 aid from many sources, to throw light upon the mean- 
 ing of words and sentences. From a knowledge of the 
 geography of any country — of its climate, soil, produc- 
 tions, mountains, rivers, and other natural objects, as 
 well as of the manners, customs, laws, history, &c, of 
 its inhabitants — I may obtain assistance to explain its 
 language, and must obtain it, if I mean to make out a 
 satisfactory interpretation. But I can never dispense 
 with the laws of grammatical analysis. These laws 
 are vindicated by the simple fact, that every writer 
 wishes and expects to be understood by his cotempo- 
 
 »3 
 
48 
 
 raries, and therefore maybe expected to use language 
 as they do. We presume this of the sacred writers ; 
 and therefore apply to their productions, as to those of 
 classic authors, the common rules of grammatical in- 
 terpretation. 
 
 Admitting these rules to be the best and surest 
 guide to the meaning of language, we cannot super- 
 sede them by supposing, or conjecturing, peculiarities 
 in a writer. It is only when these peculiarities are 
 proved, or at least rendered probable, that they can 
 be admitted to influence our interpretation of any pas- 
 sage. Without such proof, we cannot violate the 
 obvious principles of grammatical interpretation, for 
 the sake of vindicating from inconsistency, absur- 
 dity, or contradiction, any author, even a Scriptural 
 one. 
 
 I must here explain myself, however, in order to 
 prevent mistake in regard to my meaning. The Scrip- 
 tures certainly stand on different ground from that on 
 which any other book rests, on account of their claim 
 to be received as a revelation from God. What other 
 book can plead well-authenticated miracles for its sup- 
 port ; or can produce declarations of a prophetic na- 
 ture that have been fulfilled ; or can glory in such an 
 exhibition of the principles of piety and virtue — of love 
 to God, and of benevolence and beneficence to men ? 
 Just in proportion, then, as these evidences influence 
 my mind to believe that the Bible is of divine origin, 
 in the same proportion it becomes improbable to me 
 that this Bible contains absurdities, errors, or contra- 
 dictions. When any apparent error or contradiction at- 
 tracts my attention, I hesitate to pronounce it such as 
 it appears to be. My reason for doing so is the 
 strength of the evidence in favour of its divine origin ; 
 which is such, that I must do violence to my convic- 
 tions, if I admit that the book contains either what is 
 erroneous or contradictory. I am, then, slow to at- 
 tribute, in any case, such a sense to words in the 
 Scriptures, as would make a passage speak either ab- 
 surdity or contradiction. But if, after all the light 
 which I could gain, it should appear still to be a plain 
 
49 
 
 case, that there is either absurdity or contradiction in 
 the sacred text ; then I must find a different reading 
 ■ — or give up the passage — or renounce the whole 
 book. 1 may suspend an opinion, while I live, as to 
 doubtful cases. My convictions respecting the nature 
 and design of the Holy Scriptures, the imperfection of 
 my knowledge, diffidence in myself, all demand that I 
 should act in this manner. But, in any clear case, 
 where the meaning of a sacred writer, or what he ori- 
 ginally designed to say, can be definitely ascertained 
 by the common laws of interpretation, — and it appears 
 plainly that this meaning is erroneous, or contradicts 
 some other passage, — I have no right to put a con- 
 structive sense upon the words, and do violence to 
 the passage, in order to avoid the consequences that 
 may follow. I cannot honestly do it. The same com- 
 mon sense and reason which prescribe the laws of 
 exegesis, decide that the meaning of a writer must be 
 that which those laws determine it to be. Of course, 
 if I put a gloss upon any passage, which represents it 
 as conveying a meaning different from that which the 
 laws of interpretation would assign to it, I may de- 
 ceive others, or I may serve the interests of party ; but 
 I violate the reason which God has given me by so 
 doing, and act a part dishonest, and unworthy of an 
 inquirer after truth. 
 
 If the fundamental maxims of exegesis lead to the 
 belief that a writer of the New Testament has contra- 
 dicted himself, or another sacred writer, then I must 
 revert at once to the question, Is the book divine ? 
 Can it be so, if there is contradiction ? This question 
 I may settle (on my responsibility to God) as 1 please. 
 But I have no right to violate the fundamental rules 
 of language, by forcing a meaning upon the writer to 
 make him consistent ; which it is obvious, on the uni- 
 versal principles of explaining language, he never de- 
 signed to convey. In determining the question, whether 
 the writers of the New Testament were inspired ? I 
 must always, in attending to the internal evidence of 
 the books, consider whether they have contradicted each 
 other. To determine this question, I cannot violate 
 
50 
 
 the simple rules of grammatical exegesis. I must 
 read this book, as I do a!l other books. Then, if 
 there evidently be contradiction, I must reject its 
 claims ; if there be not, and I think the evidence is 
 sufficient that they are well-founded, I must admit 
 them. But, at any period subsequent to this, when I 
 have admitted the book to be inspired, I am not at 
 liberty to aver that the writers could never have taught 
 some particular doctrine w T hich I may dislike ; and 
 therefore to do violence to the rules of grammatical 
 interpretation, in order to explain away a doctrine of 
 this nature, which they seem to inculcate. My simple 
 inquiry must be, what sentiment does the language of 
 this or that passage convey, without violence or per- 
 version of rule ? When this question is settled philo- 
 logically (not philosophically), then I either believe what 
 is taught, or else reject the claim of divine authority. 
 What can my own theories and reasonings about the 
 absurdity or reasonableness of any particular doctrine, 
 avail in determining whether a writer of the new Tes- 
 tament has taught this doctrine or not ? My inves- 
 tigation must be conducted independently of my phi- 
 losophy, by my philology. And, when I have obtained 
 his meaning by the simple and universal rules of ex- 
 pounding language, I choose the course I will take ; 
 1 must believe his assertion, or reject his authority. 
 
 If these be not sound maxims of interpretation, I 
 confess myself a stranger to the subject ; nor can I 
 help thinking that you will accord with me at once in 
 the views just expressed. 
 
 Guided then by these principles, let us now come to 
 the investigation of a few passages in the New Testa- 
 ment, which concern the divine nature of Christ. I 
 take this point because you have dwelt most upon it ; 
 and because very obviously, when this is admitted 
 or rejected, no possible objection can be felt to admit- 
 ting or rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 You will not require of me, however, to examine at 
 length every text of the New Testament, which I may 
 suppose to have any connexion with the subject in 
 question. I must be permitted, in order to save time, 
 
51 
 
 to select only those texts, the language of which ap- 
 pears to be genuine, and above the condemnation of 
 textual criticism ; and such as appear to contain the 
 best and most decisive proof of the point to be dis- 
 cussed. Believing the New Testament to be of di- 
 vine origin and authority, you will permit me to add 
 that I cannot think the decision of this or any other 
 question, depends on the number of times in which 
 the terms of that decision are repeated. 
 I observe, then, 
 
 I. The A r eiv Testament gives to Christ the appellation of 
 God, in such a manner as thai, according to the fair rules of 
 interpretation, only the supreme God can be meant. 
 
 A conspicuous passage in proof of this 1 should find 
 in John i. 1 — 3. " In the beginning was the Word, 
 and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
 The same was in the beginning with God. All things 
 were made by him ; and without him was not any 
 thing made that was made." Verse 10, "and the world 
 was made by him." 
 
 All known manuscripts agree in the text here. 
 Griesbach has indeed recorded, that, for 6 ©so; (Theos, 
 God) there is a conjectural reading Qtov ; and that for 
 7.CU Qso; wo Xoyos, there is a conjectural reading of Qso: rp 
 -/.at 6 Xoyog. The first of these conjectures was made by 
 Crellius. (Initium Evang. Johan. restauratum per. L. 
 M. Artemonium, P. i. c. 2.) The reason of making 
 such a conjecture Crellius has given. 
 
 " The greater Christ is," says he„ " compared with other 
 gods (the Father excepted), the less can he be expressly cal- 
 led God, lest he should be taken for the supreme God the Fa- 
 ther." And again, " If he (Christ) had been expressly called 
 God by the sacred writers, and had not always been distin- 
 guished from God, the sacred writers would have given an oc- 
 casion to unskilful men to regard him as the supreme God."— 
 (Init. Evang. Johan., p. 295.) 
 
 To liberate John from being taxed with this impru- 
 dence, Crellius proposed to substitute ©sou for ©«&?, in 
 John i. 1 ; so as to say, the Logos was of God , instead 
 of saying, as John has done, that He was God. 
 
 The second conjectural reading is supported by no 
 
52 
 
 better authority. Bahrdt (in Xeuesten Offenbarungen) 
 proposed it as a happy expedient to relieve the text 
 from the difficulty and embarrassment under which he 
 thought it laboured. For, instead of saying, "the 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God," he 
 might then translate it thus, — " The Word was with 
 God. God was, and this Word was in the beginning 
 with God," &e. 
 
 I have a great regard for the labours and learning 
 of Griesbach; but I am constrained to ask here why 
 he should have condescended to notice conjectures so 
 gratuitous and unfounded as these. 
 
 I proceed to the explanation of the text. Ey og^j 
 (i. e. in the beginning) corresponds exactly with the 
 Hebrew — Gen. i. 1. .# I cannot embrace the opinion 
 of those critics, who think that the phrase svogxp, °** 
 itself simply signifies from eternity. Although I believe 
 that the Logos did exist from eternity, I do not think 
 it is proved directly by this expression. (Compare 
 Gen. i. 1.) That existence from eternity is implied, 
 however, may be properly admitted. Ey a?yj is equi- 
 valent to ev apyji xoo^pu, in the beginning of the world, i e. 
 before the world was made ; and so agreeing in this 
 particular with the phrase, John xvii. 5, " the glory 
 that I had with thee before the world was ;" and Eph. 
 i. 4, " before the foundation of the world." To say 
 with Crellius, that, by » a-f/j, is meant the commence' 
 ment of preaching the gospel or the beginning of Chris- 
 tian instruction, would be making John gravely tell us, 
 that, before the Logos preached the gospel, he had an 
 existence. 
 
 Before the world was created, then, the Logos exist- 
 ed. Who or what was this Logos? A real existence, 
 or only an attribute of God ? A real substance, or 
 only the wisdom, or reason, or power of God ? 
 
 It is of no importance in settling this question that 
 we should know with certainty whence John derived 
 
 * The Hebrew words are omitted in this and some other passages, 
 partly for want of types for the Hebrew characters, and partly because 
 their insertion would be of little use to the general reader. The bibli- 
 cal student may however consult the original Hebrew. 
 
53 
 
 the appellation Logos. In my mind, the most proba- 
 ble account is, that this appellation is bestowed on 
 Christ, in reference to his becoming the instructor or 
 teacher of mankind — the medium of communication 
 between God and them. Be this, however, as it may, 
 the Logos appears to be a real existence, and not merely 
 an attribute. For, first, — The attributes of God are 
 nowhere else personified by the New Testament wri- 
 ters, — i. e. the usage of the Xew Testament authors is 
 against this mode of writing. Secondly, — Logos, if 
 considered as an abstract term, or as merely desig- 
 nating an attribute, must mean either wisdom or 
 word ; and in what intelligible sense can the wis- 
 dom or the word of God, in the abstract sense, be 
 said to have "become flesh and dwelt among ws," v. 14 ; 
 or why should John select either the wisdom or icord 
 of God as any more concerned with the incarnation 
 than the benevolence of God, or the mercy of God, which 
 one might suppose would be the attributes more espe- 
 cially displayed in the incarnation ? Thirdly, — If Lo- 
 gos mean here the power of God, as many assert, the 
 exposition is attended with the same difficulties. 
 Fourthly, — If it mean, as others aver, the power of God 
 putting itself forth, i. e. in creation, it is liable to the 
 same objections. In short, make it any attribute of 
 God thus personified, and you introduce a mode of 
 writing that the New Testament nowhere else dis- 
 plays, and which even the Old Testament exhibits but 
 once, Prov. viii., in a poetic composition of the most 
 animated and exalted nature. 
 
 Yet this is not the chief difficulty. To what class 
 of men could John address the asseveration, that the 
 Logos {wisdom, word, or power of God) " was with 
 God?'* 5 
 
 Where did these singular heretics suppose the power 
 of God was except with him ? Or where his wisdom or 
 his icord? A peculiar pertinacity, too, in their strange 
 opinion they must have had, to have rendered it ne- 
 cessary for the Apostle to repeat, with emphasis, in 
 the second verse, that this Logos was icith God. What 
 would be said of a man who should gravely assert that 
 
54 
 
 (i the power of Peter is with Peter, or that his wisdom 
 or his word is so?" And suppose he should add, "the 
 power or wisdom of Peter is Peter" with what class of 
 mystics should we rank him? Yet John adds, " The 
 Logos was God." Until, then, some heretics of the a- 
 postolic age can be discovered who maintained that the 
 attributes of God were not with him, I cannot explain 
 how the Apostle could assert twice successively, and 
 of course emphatically, that his attributes were with 
 him. 
 
 Equally difficult is it for me to divine how he could 
 sav that any attribute (power or wisdoin) was God — 
 understanding the word God in any sense which you 
 please. If it mean Supreme God, then it reduces itself 
 to this, either that one attribute is the supreme God, 
 or that there are as many Gods as attributes. If it 
 mean an inferior God, then the wisdom of God being 
 an inferior God implies that his other attributes are 
 superior Gods ; or else that his wisdom holds the place 
 of quasi God, while his other attributes occupy a 
 lower place. Suppose that it should be said that 
 Logos or wisdom denotes the essence of God, then 
 how could it be called Qsog, which implies an agent 
 or person — a concrete, as logicians say, and not an ab- 
 stract ? The divine substance or essence is called 
 Onorr,; or ro Quov, not 6 §zog. What could be meant, 
 moreover, by the esse?ice of God becoming incarnate? 
 
 If, however, it should be said, that to suppose the 
 existence of a sect of heretics, who held that the attri- 
 butes of God were 720/ with him, is unnecessary in or- 
 der to justify the Apostle for having written the first 
 verse of his gospel, and that we may regard this verse 
 as written simply for general instruction, then I would 
 ask, whether it is probable that a revelation from hea- 
 ven is made to inform us that the attributes of a being 
 are with that being ? or what can be thought of the as- 
 sertion, that the wisdom or power of God is God him- 
 self? 
 
 Let us proceed now to the second clause, " and the 
 Logos was icith God" — i. e. as all agree, with God the 
 Father. CompareversesMand 18; also chapter xvii. 5, 
 
55 
 
 and 1 John, i. 1, 2; which make the point clear. 
 Is this expression capable of any tolerable interpreta- 
 tion, without supposing that the Logos, who was with 
 God, was in some respect or other different, or diverse 
 from that God, with whom he was ? This Logos was the 
 same that became incarnate, verse 14; that made the 
 most perfect revelation of the will and character of 
 God to men, verse 18 ; and was called Christ. He was 
 therefore, in some respect, diverse from the Father, and 
 therefore by no means to be confounded with him. 
 
 " And the Logos was God." It has been proposed 
 (in Impr. Vers, of N. Test.) to render the word ©so;, a 
 god. Does then the Christian Revelation admit of 
 gods superior and inferior? And if so, to what class 
 of inferior gods does the Logos belong? And how much 
 would such a theory of divine natures differ from that 
 which admits a Jupiter Optimus Maximus and gods 
 greater and less ? 
 
 But it is said, that " ©ho? is destitute of the article, 
 and therefore cannot designate the Divine Being, who 
 is supreme." This observation, however, is far from 
 being justifiable, either by the usage of the sacred wri- 
 ters or the principles of Greek syntax. Among in- 
 stances where the Supreme God is certainly designat- 
 ed, and yet the article is omitted, the inquirer may 
 consult the very chapter in question, ver. 6, 13, 18; 
 also, Mat. xix. 26 ; Luke xvi. 13; John ix. 33 ; xvi. 
 30; Rom. viii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; Gal. i. 1; Ephes. ii. 
 8; Heb. ix. 14. Besides, every reader of Greek 
 knows, that where the subject of a proposition (which 
 in this case is 6 y.oyog) has the article, the predicate (©jo?) 
 omits it. Such is Greek usage ; and from it dissent 
 only propositions of a reciprocating or convertible na- 
 ture, — as in verse 4 of the chapter in question. It 
 may be added, too, that if the writer had said, xa/ 6 Xoyog 
 rjvoQso;, it would have conveyed a very different sense 
 from the proposition as it now stands. He would 
 then have said, the Logos is the God with whom he is; 
 whereas I understand ©so; here to mean divine nature, 
 simply but not abstractly considered, for which it so 
 often stands in other places. Vide Mark viii. 33; x. 
 
 E 
 
56 
 
 27 ; xii. 24 ; Luke iii. 8 ; xi. 20 ; xviii. 4, 19 ; John i. 
 13 ; iii. 2 ; iv. 24 ; x. 33 ; Acts v. 29 ; vii. 55 ; x. 33 ; 
 xi. 18, &c. 
 
 I readily acknowledge, that affirmative evidence of 
 the somewhat diverse meaning of ©eo; here, cannot be 
 drawn from the word itself, but must be deduced from 
 the circumstances of the affirmation, united with the 
 supposition that John did assert, and did mean to as- 
 sert, something that is intelligible. There is indeed 
 no very serious difficulty, in taking Qzo? (God) in the 
 same sense in both clauses, provided we understand it 
 to denote the Divinity. To interpret the verse thus, 
 would represent John as saying, that while Christ was 
 God or truly divine, there was at the same time a sense 
 in which he was with God. In order that this should 
 have any possible meaning, a distinction in the God- 
 head must be admitted, — viz. that the Father is not in 
 all respects the same as the Son. 
 
 For myself, J do not hesitate to understand the word 
 God, in a sense somewhat diverse, in the two clauses 
 of the verse under consideration. Every word takes a 
 sense adapted to its connexion. Such is the rule which 
 must be adopted, after we have once conceded that a 
 writer uses words with propriety, and designs to be 
 understood. So, when our Saviour says, " Let the dead 
 bury, their dead," the connexion requires us to explain 
 it thus, — "Let those who are morally or spiritually 
 dead, bury those who are corporeally so." It were easy 
 to accumulate examples, where the very same word, 
 in the very same verse, has two different shades of 
 sense. The exigency of the passage (exigentia loci) 
 is the rule of interpretation which guides us here : And, 
 guided by this exigency, what difficulty is therein sup- 
 posing that God, as Father, is meant in the first in- 
 stance, and the Divinity, without reference to the pe- 
 culiar distinction of Father, in the second ? 
 
 I understand John, then, as affirming, that the Logos 
 was God, and yet was with God, — viz. that he was 
 truly divine, but still divine in such a manner that there 
 did exist a distinction between him and the Father. I 
 take the word God, in one case, to mean, as in a great 
 
5 7 . 
 
 number of cases it does mean, God as Father ; in the 
 other case, I regard it as a description of divine being 
 of the Divinity, without reference to the distinction of 
 Father, — a use which is very common. 
 
 Least of all have those a right to object to this, who 
 here make the meaning of God, in the second instance, 
 to be infinitely different from its meaning in the first 
 instance, — understanding by the first, the self-existent, 
 independent, and infinite God ; by the second, a creat- 
 ed or derived and finite being. 
 
 If you ask now, What could be the object of John, 
 in asserting that the Logos was with God ? I answer, 
 that the phrase, to be with one (eimi xeoz nm), indicates 
 conjunction, communion, familiarity, society. See Mark 
 ix. 19. Compare, too, John i. 18, where the only-be- 
 gotten Son is said to be " in the bosom (s? rw xoXxoy) of 
 the Father," which is a phrase of similar import. 
 
 To illustrate the meaning of the phrase to be with 
 God, it is useful also to compare those cases where 
 Christians are promised, as the summit of their felicity, 
 that they shall be with God and Christ, and be where 
 they are. See among other passages, John xiv. 2, 3 ; 
 xii. 26; xvii. 24; I Thess. iv. \J. Compare Rom. 
 viii. 1/ ; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12; Coloss. iii. 1—4. 
 
 In John xvii. 5, Christ speaks of that " glory which 
 he had with the Father, before the world was." From 
 all these passages taken together, it would seem that 
 the phrase, the Logos was with God, amounts to assert- 
 ing that he was (conjunclissimus Deo) most intimately con- 
 nected with him. If you ask me how, I answer freely 
 that I cannot tell. The Evangelist has asserted the 
 fact, but has not added one word to explain the (mo- 
 dus) manner. If I could explain it, then perhaps I 
 might define the distinction which I believe to exist in 
 the Godhead. 
 
 But why should John assert such a connexion ? — In 
 opposition, I answer, to those in early times who as- 
 serted that Christ was a being not only distinct from 
 God, but an emanation from him. The asseveration, 
 that the Logos was with God — was from the beginning 
 
 E2 
 
58 
 
 most intimately connected with Mm, and was divine — 
 would of course contradict such an opinion. 
 
 But does the Evangelist here mean to assert of the 
 Logos, that he is God in the true and supreme sense, 
 or not? This is the fundamental question between us. 
 Analogy, drawn from the New Testament usage of the 
 word Oto; (which nowhere else employs this word 
 simply and singly, except to designate the Supreme 
 God) must be admitted strongly to favour the idea, 
 that Christ is here asserted to be truly divine. I rea- 
 dily allow, that, in the Old Testament, the word God 
 has various applications — that it is applied (though 
 only in the plural number) to magistrates — that it is 
 used to designate those who, for a time, stand as it 
 were in the place of God, as Moses was to be for a god 
 to Pharaoh, Exod. vii. 1, and instead of God to Aaron, 
 Exod. iv. 16. But it is not possible, in any instances 
 of this nature, to mistake the meaning. The adjuncts 
 or context always guard effectually against mistake. 
 Men or inferior beings are never called God, or gods 
 simply. We read of a " god to Pharaoh ; we read also, 
 "1 have said ye are gods, but ye shall die like men" 
 The Scriptures speak of the god of Ekron, the god of 
 the Ammonites, the gods of the Heathen, &c. Is a mis- 
 take possible here? But the Logos is called God sim- 
 ply. Nor is this all Admitting that the name of it- 
 self determines nothing (and, for sake of the argument, 
 I am willing to admit it), yet the writer has added ex- 
 planations of his meaning, which seem to place what 
 he intended to assert, by the expression in question, 
 beyond the reach of fair debate. 
 
 John i. 3. " All things were [made] by him ; and 
 without him was nothing [made] which was [made]. 
 Verse 10. The world was [made] by him. 
 
 I have excluded the word made, by placing it in 
 brackets, merely to show that the sense is in nowise 
 changed by the version of those critics, who tell us 
 that iyivi7o never means made, but simply was. Yet 
 nothing can be farther from correctness than such an 
 assertion. Accordingly, co/sw and ym^ou are used as 
 
59 
 
 synonymeSj-^as in Jamesiii.9; compare Gen. i. 26, 
 in the Septuagint ; Gen. ii. 4 ; Isaiah xlviii. 7- The 
 cases where ytyoftou means to make or produce, are so 
 numerous and ohvious, that a moment's delay in re- 
 spect to this part of the subject would be useless. 
 Schleusner's Lexicon, under the word ymfuu } will fur- 
 nish adequate proof of this. If not, read the commen- 
 tary of Theodoret on the two first chapters of Genesis, 
 which places the question, as to the use of ympau, be- 
 yond debate. 
 
 But what are the "all things " — the universe (Va xavra} 
 — which the Logos made or created ? — " The moral 
 world — the Christian Church," answers Faustus Soci- 
 nus. To this exposition, however, there are two ob- 
 jections. First, a part of these ra iravra are, in verse 
 10, represented as (o xotrpos) the world, — a term nowhere 
 in the New Testament applied to the Christian Church, 
 nor to men as morally amended by the gospel. Se- 
 condly, this very world (o xo<r>Ao;), which he created, did 
 not know or acknowledge him, awov owe eyvu : Whereas 
 the distinguishing trait of Christians is, that they k?ioio 
 Christ — that they know the only true God and Jesus 
 Christ whom he has sent. 
 
 Ta iravra, then, which the Logos created, means (as 
 common usage and the exigency of the passage re- 
 quire), the universe — the worlds material and imma- 
 terial. (Ver. 10.) Here, consequently, in the First 
 Chapter of John, is a passage in which, beyond all rea- 
 sonable doubt, Christ is called God ; and where the 
 context, instead of furnishing us with reasons for un- 
 derstanding the word God in an inferior sense (as 
 is usual when this designation is applied to inferior 
 beings) has plainly and unequivocally taught us, that 
 this God (Qbo;), who was the Logos, created the universe. 
 The question, then, is reduced to this simple state, — 
 Is he, who created the universe, truly and properly 
 divine? On this question I shall make a few re- 
 marks, when I have considered some other passages 
 which ascribe the work of creation to Christ. 
 
 Heb. i. 10 — 12, "And thou, Lord, in the beginning 
 hast laid the foundation of the earth j and the heavens 
 
 e3 
 
60 
 
 are the works of thine hands : They shall^perish, but 
 thou remainest ; and they shall wax old as doth a gar- 
 ment ; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and 
 they shall he changed ; but thou art the same, and thy 
 years shall not fail." 
 
 These words are spoken of the Son of God ; for they 
 are intimately connected by the conjunction and with 
 ver. 8, where it is written, " But unto the Son he 
 saith," &c. According to the laws of grammar, and 
 most' clearly according to the nature and design of the 
 Apostle's argument, the ellipsis to be supplied, in the 
 beginning of the tenth verse, after and (xa#) is, "And 
 [tolhe Son he tooth], Thou, Lord," &c. No other ex- 
 position can be pointed out, which doth not make a 
 violent divulsion of the passage, from the connexion 
 of the writer's argument. 
 
 The question still remains, "What is meant by 
 founding the earth, and by the heavens being the work 
 of Christ's hands ?" To answer the first question, and 
 place the answer beyond the possibility of a reason- 
 able doubt, it is necessary only to compare the pas- 
 sages in which Jehovah is said to have founded the 
 earth. By this phrase, the creation of it is indubitably 
 meant. The passages may be found in Ps. xxiv. 2, 
 Ixxxix. 11, civ. 5, cxix. 90; Job, xxxviii. 4; Prov- 
 iii. 19; Is. xlviii. 13, li. 13; Zech. xii. 1; where, if 
 you inspect the Septuagint, you will see the very verb 
 ^iixiXioM {themelio—io found, to establish), employed, 
 which the Apostle uses in our text. 
 
 In regard to the " heavens being the works of Christ's 
 hands," it is an expression plainly of similar import 
 to the one just examined, and signifies the creation of 
 the heavens. Thus, Ps. viii. 3, 6—" When I consider 
 the heavens, the work of thy hands;" which is parallel 
 with, " The moon and stars which thou hast ordained," 
 (Septuagint, efepehtuaais). So, in verse 6th, " And hast 
 placed him over the works of thy hands ; all things hast 
 thou put under his feet," — i. e. placed him over the 
 creation. 
 
 To prove that the phrase to create the heavens and the 
 earth, means to create ail things, it is necessary only 
 
61 
 
 to consult Gen. i. 1 ; Ex. xx. 11, xxxi. 17 ; Xeh. ix. 6; 
 Ps. cxxi. 2, cxxiv. 8, cxxxiv. 3, and other like pas- 
 sages, which a Concordance will supply. 
 
 It will be remembered, that the passage in ques- 
 tion (Heb. i. 10 — 12) is a quotation from the Old Tes- 
 tament ; and that to quote the language of the Old Tes- 
 tament, therefore, in order to explain it, is peculiarly 
 appropriate and necessary. 
 
 Would any one, now, unembarrassed by peculiarity 
 of system, ever suspect that Christ's founding the earth, 
 and the heavens being the works of his hands, could mean 
 any thing less than the creation of the Universe? Yet 
 we have been told, by some distinguished Unitarians, 
 that the heavens mean the Christian state or dispensa- 
 tion, and earth the Jewish one. 
 
 Bute's/, this is against usage, either in the Old or 
 New Testament, — there being nothing to support 
 such a sense of it. Isaiah indeed speaks of creating a 
 new heaven and a new earth (lxv. 17); and of plant- 
 ing the heavens and the earth (li. 16) in a moral sense, 
 i. e. making a moral change or creation. But then the 
 language itself, in the first case, indicates, that the old 
 creation is not meant ; and, in the second case, the 
 context makes it as clear what kind of heaven and earth 
 is to be planted or established, and what the planting 
 of them means, — viz. the Jewish church and state is to 
 be renewed and established. The meaning, then, as- 
 signed by some Unitarians to the passage in Heb. i. 
 is against the plain and perpetual usage of the Scrip- 
 tures, in regard to such expressions, when they occur 
 in an unlimited form, as they do in the passage under 
 examination. 
 
 Secondly, — If the Jewish and the Christian states are 
 here meant, in what sense are they to wax old as a 
 garment and to be changed ? Of the Jewish state this 
 might without much difficulty be affirmed. But how the 
 Christian dispensation is to be changed — how that 
 " kingdom w T hich shall have no end" (Luke i. 33) is to 
 " perish," I am unable to explain. 
 
 " It is a moral creation, of which Christ is the au- 
 thor/' says Artemonius, i. e. Crellius (Init. Evang. Jo- 
 
62 
 
 han). This, however, does not explain the matter; 
 for how is it that the moral creation of Christ is to be 
 changed and perish, i. c to be annihilated? Most ob- 
 viously his moral creation is to be eternal. 
 
 Another method of explaining this subject has been, 
 to aver that the passage here quoted by the Apostle 
 from Ps. cii. 25 — 2/, is, in the original, plainly appli- 
 cable to Jehovah only ; and that none would conjec- 
 ture, from the simple perusal of this Psalm, how Christ 
 could be the subject of it. Conceding that the passage 
 is applicable to Jehovah only (and it would be difficult 
 to show why this is not to be conceded), what is the 
 consequence? — Either that the Apostle has directly, 
 and without qualification, applied to Christ language 
 used by an inspired writer of the Old Testament to de- 
 signate the Creator of the world, with his eternal and 
 immutable nature ; or that he has (in a way singular 
 indeed for a man of piety and honesty) accommodated 
 language descriptive of the infinite Jehovah only, to a 
 created and dependent being. Kug»s (Lord) in the 
 Greek, corresponds to the word Jehovah in the ori- 
 ginal Hebrew, — the Septuagint having commonly ren- 
 dered it in this manner. And though Jehovah is not 
 in the Hebrew text (Ps. cii. 25), yet it is evident, from 
 the preceding context, that it must be understood there 
 as the subject of the verb, thou hast founded. Christ, 
 then, is here called by the Apostle Jehovah ; and eter- 
 nity, immutability, and the creation of the universe, are 
 ascribed to him.* 
 
 I cannot think that the paraphrase of Grotius, on the 
 passage in question, deserves a serious refutation. 
 
 * I readily admit, that XVglog- is not always synonymous icith Jehovah : 
 But where the word Jehovah is used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, 
 KOPtOi stands, in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, as the transla- 
 tion of it. Therefore xupiog in the New Testament must of course, in such 
 cases, have the same meaning as Jehovah in the Old Testament. The rea- 
 son why '/.i/ptog is used by the New Testament writers as the translation of 
 Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, is, that the Jews, in reading their sacred 
 icritings, were not accustomed to pronounce the word Jehovah, but read, for 
 the most part. Lord, xvpws. in the room of it. 
 
63 
 
 "Thou wast the cause," says he, "that the earth was 
 founded ; and on thy account the heavens were made." 
 If this be not a different thing from what the language 
 of the Apostle naturally means, or can mean, I confess 
 I know not any bounds which may be set to para- 
 phrastic or mystical exegesis. Suppose now the Gnos- 
 tics, who maintained that evil demons, and not Jeho- 
 vah, created the world, should have paraphrased the 
 first verse in Genesis in this manner, — " Thou, Jeho- 
 vah, wast the cause why the heavens and the earth 
 were created ;" and, when asked how this could con- 
 sist with their sentiments, or what they could mean by 
 it, they should have replied, " Out of enmity to thee 
 the evil demons brought the material creation into 
 existence," then they would have explained away the 
 creative act of Jehovah, exactly as Grotius explains 
 away the evidence that Christ was the Creator. 
 
 Col. i. 15 — 17. " Who is the image of the invisible 
 God, the head of all creation ; for by him were all 
 things created, both celestial and terrestrial, visible 
 and invisible, of whatever order or rank they are — all 
 things were created by him and for him. Therefore 
 he was before all things, and by him are all things sus- 
 tained." 
 
 The places in which T have departed from our com- 
 mon version, are not differently rendered in order to 
 make them favour the cause which I have espoused ; 
 for they determine nothing respecting the point now at 
 issue. They are rendered as above, merely to make 
 the meaning of the passage in general as plain as the 
 nature of the case will permit. 
 
 Because, inverse 20, Christ is said "to reconcile 
 (acroxara/.?.aJa/) all things unto himself," and these are said 
 to be " things in heaven and things on earth ;" and af- 
 terwards, he is represented as breaking down the wall 
 of partition between Jews and Gentiles. Some inge- 
 nious commentators have supposed that " things in hea* 
 ven and things on earth," mean Jews and Gentiles. 
 How very unnatural this explanation is, no one can 
 help feeling who reads the passage in an unbiassed 
 manner. In what tolerable sense can the Jews and 
 
64 
 
 Gentiles be called " things visible and invisible?" or 
 how shall we explain the phrase, "things in heaven 
 and things on earth," as applied to them ? By "re- 
 conciling things in heaven and things on earth," seems 
 evidently to be meant, bringing into union, under one 
 great head, t. e. Christ, by a new and special bond of 
 intercommunication, both angels and men. In like 
 manner, the two great parties on earth, Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, are united together. But why Christ should be 
 called " the image of the invisible God," and the " head 
 (xguronxog, the first born) of all creation," because he is 
 merely the instrument of bringing Jews and Gentiles to- 
 gether, is not apparent to me. Yet, to be such an instru- 
 ment, is all that the passage in question ascribes to him, 
 if we are to construe it in the manner above related. But 
 when you understand the words of the Apostle, as de- 
 scribing the creation of the worlds celestial and terres- 
 trial (6/ ovgmvot xat q yr i} compare Heb. i. 10 — 12), and as- 
 cribing it to Christ, then you find sufficient reason for 
 designating him by the exalted appellations in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 It has also been affirmed that a moral creation only 
 is here ascribed to Christ. But words like these, in 
 such a connexion and with such adjuncts, are nowhere 
 else used in this sense. Moreover, in what sense has 
 the moral creation by Christ affected the angels ? The 
 good ones needed not repentance or pardon ; the bad 
 ones have never sought or obtained either. " Verily, he 
 did not assist the angels {ov yog br^vj wyy&m ravXa/xCavsra/), 
 but the seed of Abraham." — Heb. ii. 16. 
 
 Until I see different light, therefore, shed over the 
 passage in question, I must regard it as very clearly 
 ascribing the creation of the universe to Christ. 
 
 But you will say, perhaps, that in John i. 3, "All 
 things are said to be made by Christ, o,a Xphttov, as the 
 instrumental, not the principal cause, — the preposition 
 dia denoting such cause. In Col. i. 16, it is also said 
 that all things were created by Christ (6/' uvrov) ; and in 
 Heb. i. 2, God is said to have created the worlds by 
 his Son, — A/' b'j (sc. wov) xai rov; aiuvag iKGirfis." 
 
 The allegation, however, that o/a does not designate 
 
the principal as well as the instrumental cause, can by 
 no means be supported. In Rom. xi. 36, " All things 
 are said to be of God (eg avrov) and by God (3/ a-jr*), the 
 very form of expression applied to Christ, in Coloss. i. 
 16—20. So Heb. ii. 10, " For it became him (God the 
 Father), for whom, 8i 6v, are all things, and by whom, 
 bi w, are all things," &c 1 Cor. i. 9, " God is faith- 
 ful, by whom, 8i 6v, ye were called into the fellowship 
 of his Son," &c. Moreover m and dia are sometimes 
 interchanged as equivalents or synonymes. See Rom. 
 iii. 30. So also scant! <5/«, Coloss. i. 16, — ro Kuvra ev avrca 
 r/~«i$r] and bi avrov exnffreu, — i. e. zv and bia, in these two 
 phrases, are of the same import. See Schleusner's 
 Lex. in voc. 8ia. 
 
 The difficulty remaining is, to explain the phrase 
 " by whom 6/ ov he (the Father) made the worlds ;" 
 Heb. i. 2. The Apostle has added sufficient inverses 
 10 — 12, as it might seem, to prevent mistake here. If, 
 however, the difficulty seems still to press, it may be 
 compared with Hos. i. J, " I (Jehovah) will have mer- 
 cy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by 
 Jehovah" Is the second Jehovah merely the instru- 
 mental cause in this case ? Of the same nature is the 
 phraseology in Gen. xix. 24, "And Jehovah rained 
 down upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone 
 from jekovah out of heaven." Must the last Jeho- 
 vah, in this case, be a being inferior to the first? If 
 not, then the phrase that God made the worlds by his Son, 
 does not imply, of course, that the Son is of an infe- 
 rior nature. It does imply that there is a distinction 
 between the Father and Son ; and this is what we 
 aver to be a Scripture doctrine. It seems to declare, 
 also, that the Godhead, in respect to the distinction of Son, 
 teas in a special manner concerned with the creation of 
 the worlds. What is there impossible or improbable 
 in this ? 
 
 From the passages of Scripture thus far considered, 
 it appears plain that the Apostles have ascribed the 
 creation of the universe to Christ. And now we come, 
 in order, to the consideration of the simple question, 
 
66 
 
 whether he who created the world is really and truly 
 divine. 
 
 i First, then, permit me to ask, If the act of creation 
 does not prove the being who performs it to be omni- 
 scient, omnipotent, and independent, is it possible for 
 me to conceive of any thing which does or can prove 
 the existence of such a being? To bring this world 
 into existence from nothing — to establish such perfect 
 concord and design through all the operations of nature 
 — to set in motion unnumbered worlds and systems of 
 worlds, and all in the most perfect harmony and order 
 — requires more intelligence, more power, and more 
 wisdom, than ever belonged to any finite being. And 
 if these things do not characterize the infinite being, it 
 seems to me no proof that such a being exists, can be 
 adduced. 
 
 It is in vain to tell me here that the creation of the 
 universe can be performed by delegation — by an infe- 
 rior and subordinate being. What can be meant by 
 omnipotence and infinite wisdom (all of which must 
 belong to a Creator) being delegated? Can God dele- 
 gate his ])erfeclio?is ? If so, then the Gnostics, when 
 pressed with the argument that Jehovah, the God of 
 the Jews, was the Supreme God, because he created 
 the heavens and the earth, might have replied, that he 
 did this only by delegated power ; and that the act of 
 creation, therefore, proves nothing. You reply to such 
 an allegation, that the act of creating the universe is 
 one which no finite or secondary being can perform ? 
 If this act do not designate the absolute, Supreme, 
 omnipotent, and omniscient Being, then no proof that 
 such a Being exists can possibly be adduced. 
 
 We use the very same arguments to confute those 
 who maintain that Christ created the world by delegated 
 power. The Apostle having decided the question that 
 Christ did create the world, has decided, consequent- 
 ly, that he must be truly divine. 
 
 Agreeably to this reasoning, the Bible everywhere 
 appeals to creative power as the peculiar and distin- 
 guishing prerogative of the Supreme God ; and attri- 
 
67 
 
 butes it solely to Jehovah. Road Gen. ii. 2, 3; Ex. 
 xx. 11 ; Is. xliv. 24; Jer. x. 12; Ps. viii. 3,4; cii.25, 
 and other passages of the same tenour. Read Is. xl., 
 and onward, where God, by his Prophet, makes a most 
 solemn challenge to all polytheists to bring the objects 
 of their worship into competition with him, anddeclares 
 himself to be distinguished from them all by his being 
 "the Creator of the ends of the earth" (ver. 28), and by 
 his having formed and arranged the heavens (ver. 26). 
 
 Can it be made plainer than these passages make it 
 that creative power was regarded by the Hebrew Pro- 
 phets as the appropriate and peculiar attribute of the 
 Supreme God ? Need I say, that the Old Testament 
 is filled with passages which ascribe the work of crea- 
 tion to Jehovah alone? Who does not find them every- 
 where intermixed, in the most delightful and affecting 
 manner, with all the instructions of the sacred Hebrew 
 writers ? 
 
 Now, if a subordinate agent, a finite spirit, did create 
 the universe, why should all the instructions of the Old 
 Testament be so framed as inevitably to lead the Jew- 
 ish nation to disbelieve and reject this fact? Specially 
 so as the Jews were strongly inclined to polytheism, 
 and a plurality of gods would have been very agreeable 
 to their wishes. And why, after a lapse of so many 
 centuries, should the writers of the New Testament 
 overturn all that the Hebrew Scriptures had taught on 
 this subject and lead men to admit that a finite being 
 could and did create the world ? Most of all, how could 
 Paul say (Rom. i. 20) that the Heathen were without 
 excuse for not acknowledging the eternal power and 
 Godhead of the Divinity, from the evidence which his 
 creating power afforded. — fromconsideringtheTHiNGS 
 
 THAT WERE MADE? 
 
 And is this truth (that the Deity possesses eternal 
 power and Godhead) so plain, then, and so easily de- 
 duced from creating energy, that the very Heathen 
 are destitute of all excuse for not seeing and admitting 
 it ; and yet, can it be the object of Christianity to 
 bring us back to the very polytheism for which the 
 Apostle condemned them — to bring us to " worship 
 
68 
 
 the creature more than the Creator?" Does Chris- 
 tianity contradict 'a truth of natural religion so plain 
 and incontrovertible, that the very Heathen were with* 
 out excuse for not acknowledging it? And after read- 
 ing such a passage in the writings of Paul, can it be 
 possible to suppose, that he ascribed the creation of 
 the world to any thing but the true God only ? Com- 
 pare now Acts xvii. 23 — 26, with John i. 1 — 3, and 
 10; Heb. i. 10—12; Coloss. i. 14—1/; and then say, 
 is it possible to admit the rules of interpretation 
 which you have laid down, and not admit that the 
 Apostles designed to assert that Christ is the Creator 
 of the Universe? And if he is so, is it possible to 
 deny that he is truly divine? 
 
 It were easy to produce passages of the New Tes- 
 tament, which ascribe the same works to Christ as to 
 God (as John v. \J — 23 ; xiv. 9, 11). But as the vindica- 
 tion of these would swell these Letters beyond their 
 proper length, I shall not enter into a discussion of 
 them at present. I am not anxious to increase the 
 number of witnesses ; for, acknowledging the New 
 Testament to be of divine authority, I consider what- 
 ever it plainly declares, once to be the truth. The re- 
 levancy and plainness of the testimony, therefore, is 
 more the object of my solicitude, than the number of 
 witnesses, — a point, 1 may add, in which many, who 
 have defended our sentiments, have greatly erred. 
 
 I shall proceed, therefore, to other texts of Scrip- 
 ture, in which Christ is declared to be God. 
 
 Rom. ix. b y " Whose are the Fathers ; and from 
 whom, in repect to the flesh (his human nature), Christ 
 (descended), who is the Supreme God, blessed for 
 ever. Amen !" 
 
 In regard to this text, it may be remaiked,/frs/, that 
 although Griesbach has filled his margin with conjec- 
 tured and other readings, he attributes no considerable 
 weight to any of them ; for all the manuscripts of the 
 Epistle to the Romans, which have been collated, con- 
 tain the text as it stands ; as do all the ancient versions, 
 and nearly all the Fathers. 
 
 In rendering ro xara caexa, in respect to his human na- 
 
69 
 
 lure, I feel supported by corresponding passages, in 
 Rom. i. 3;* Acts, ii. 30. And that h u» en nww Sso^ 
 vSkoyrtToc u; ro-j; aiuvag, is literally translated, z^o is Su- 
 preme God, blessed for ever, may be shown in various 
 ways. 'Oojv is here put, as in common (see John i. 
 18; iii. 13; 2 Cor. xi. 31), for h &*>, who is. The 
 ground of this lies simply in the nature of Greek usage. 
 Whenever 6 is used for 6;, it takes the participle w in- 
 stead of the verb «o*r/. The Greeks say 6 uv, but ©> igti. 
 
 Ecr/ rravruv ©go? is, literally, " over-all God," i. e. Su- 
 preme God. Compare with the phraseology here, 
 the word rravra {all), as used in a connexion which re- 
 spects Christ, in Col. i. 1/ ; Eph. i. 19, 23; John iii. 
 31 ; and 1 Cor. xv. 2/. It is used in such passages 
 as a term of qualification which serves to describe him 
 as the head or r?der of the universe. What, then, can 
 £-/ nww Qiog mean, but Supreme God ? 
 
 But on no text has greater pains been bestowed, in 
 order to devise an unusual construction and meaning. 
 Schlichting proposed to transpose o w, and read mp o, 
 i. e. of whom (the Jewish Fathers) is God, blessed for 
 ever. But as, in this very Epistle, the Apostle has la- 
 boured to prove that God is as well the God of the 
 Gentiles as the Jews (ch. iii. 29), this expedient would 
 seem to impeach the Apostle's consistency, as well as 
 violate the text. Nor would the text itself, as amend- 
 ed by Schlichting's conjecture, be in any measure ac- 
 cordant with the idiom of the Greek language. If &og 
 has the article (and his transposition makes it o Sso;), 
 then tokoytp-og must of necessity have it too, — inasmuch 
 as an adjective following a noun with an article, and 
 agreeing with it, of necessity takes the article. 
 
 Wetstein's conjecture, that it should be read 6 an, 6 
 i-i vaurw Qiog, is not more fortunate. Such a mode of 
 expression as o w 6, all relating to the same subject, is 
 repugnant to Greek usage. Besides, this conjecture_, 
 like that of Schlichting, not only violates the integrity 
 of the text, but assigns the article to Sag, and omits it 
 before Evto/qrof, which is surely inadmissible. 
 
 * As it stands in the Textus Rjceptus. 
 
 f2 
 
70 
 
 Enough of amending the Apostle's words by con- 
 jecture, without the authority of a single manuscript or 
 version. Critical acumen has also employed itselfin 
 dividing and translating the verse in question, in a 
 manner different from that in our common Testament. 
 The late Professor Justi, at Marburg, a man of great 
 acuteness and fine taste, undertook to defend the in- 
 genious supposition, that the latter part of the verse is 
 a doxology. He renders it, " Whose ancestors were 
 those [renowned] Fathers from whom the Messiah, as 
 to his mortal body, was derived, who is exalted over 
 all [the Fathers]. God be blessd forever!" Thus, 
 by the aid of supplying an idea not contained in the 
 text, and by doing violence to the custom of language, 
 in the doxological part, he has devised a method in 
 which we may avoid the assertion, that Christ is God 
 over all, or Supreme God. But who does not perceive 
 the violence and inaptitude of the divulsion which he 
 makes, by separating the former from the latter part 
 of the verse ? Besides, how would a doxology fit the 
 passage in question ? Crellius (Init. Evang. Johan. p. 
 230, 237) l° n § a ?° was candid enough to own, that 
 when the Apostle was affected with the greatest sad- 
 ness, on account of the unbelief of his Jewish brethren, 
 and the loss of their privileges, a doxo/ogi/ was not very 
 congruous. A prayer (as in ch. x. 1) would seem, as 
 he thinks, to be much more appropriate. 
 
 Omitting, however, all this, it may be added, that 
 Greek usage by no possibility admits of the doxologi- 
 cal version of Justi. ©so? tvXoyr,ro? means, God who is 
 blessed, i. e. the proposition in such a case is assumed, 
 not asserted. But s^oyr^og 6 Qic? means, God be blessed; 
 lei God be blessed or praised. In accordance with this 
 Greek usage, we find five instances of doxology in the 
 New Testament, and about forty in the Old, in which 
 vj\oyr,rog is uniformly placed first. The same order is 
 observed in respect to xaraparog (cursed), when an im- 
 precation is uttered. 
 
 Besides, the text must be changed to make out a 
 doxology ; and we must read 6 Qsog instead of Qsoc ; for 
 universal usage prescribes evXe/^rog 6 ©so?. (The in- 
 
n 
 
 stance Ps. lxvii, 19; Sept., brought by Stolz in his 
 Ertaeuterungen, &c. to support Justi's rendering, de- 
 pends merely on wrong punctuation, and the repetition 
 of a word which does not correspond to the Hebrew 
 text.) 
 
 Finally, if a doxology to the Father were intended 
 here, it is scarcely possible to suppose that a particle 
 of transition (&, for instance) should not have been in- 
 serted, in order to give notice of so great a change. In 
 any other ca3e, we should expect to find it thus, — 6 fo 
 m ; or if the doxology begin at ©so?, then svXoynro; 6 ©so*-. 
 Xo text, no manuscript, no ancient version, gives us a 
 trace of either of these readings. To invent them, 
 therefore, and force them upon the text, or to substitute 
 a conjecture, which originated from theological specu- 
 lation, against the plain and incontrovertible evidence 
 of the integrity of the text, what is it but to introduce 
 a principle fundamentally subversive of all interpreta- 
 tion and criticism, and give up the Scriptures to be 
 moulded to every man's own wishes ? 
 
 All conjectures and theories, then, appear to be 
 quite incompetent to explain away the common ren- 
 dering of the verse, and the meaning connected with 
 it. On the other hand, we may ask, How comes it that 
 Christ, according to his human nature {to xara tagxa) is 
 said to have descended from the Fathers ? What if I 
 should affirm that David, as to his human nature, was 
 descended from Jesse ? Would you not of course ask, 
 what other nature had he except human? And such 
 an inquiry, forced upon us by the expression in ques- 
 tion, the Apostle has immediately answered. As to 
 his nature not human, he was "Supreme God, blessed 
 for ever. Amen!" To have produced the human na- 
 ture connected with such an exalted Being, the Apos- 
 tle reckons as one of the special privileges which the 
 Jews had enjoyed. See and compare Rom. ix. 1 — 4. 
 
 I do not argue that Christ is divine, merely from 
 having the appellation Qso; bestowed upon him. But 
 if o ojv stti rravruv Qbo; be not Supreme God, and if the anti- 
 thesis in. this verse do not require us to understand a 
 divine nature here, then I must despair of discovering 
 
 F3 
 
72 
 
 the sentiment of any text of Scripture, by using any of 
 the rules of exegesis. 
 
 Heb. i 8, 9. " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 
 O God, is for ever and ever : A sceptre of righteous- 
 ness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved 
 righteousness and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even 
 thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness 
 above thy fellows." 
 
 This passage is quoted from Ps. xlv. 6, *], It has 
 been objected, that b ^so? here should not be translated 
 as the vocative, but nominative, — e. g. " God is thy 
 throne for ever and ever, or thine everlasting throne 
 or eternal support." 
 
 To this it may be replied, 6 Ssog is the common vocative 
 of the New Testament and Septuagint. Xo objection 
 to the usual rendering of this verse in the vocative 
 case can be made from the form of the word, which is 
 altogether common in Hellenistic Greek.* The At- 
 tics use the same form of the noun, but they write it 
 u %toc and not 6 Ssoj. One needs only to open his Sep- 
 tuagint, in the Book of Psalms, or in almost any other 
 part, to see incontrovertible evidence that o ^so? is the 
 common vocative of the Hellenistic writers. 
 
 To the translation, " God is thy throne," i. e. thy 
 support, several objections may be made. 
 
 1. Greek usage does not permit such a version. The 
 subject and predicate cannot both have the article, un- 
 less in the case of a convertible or reciprocal sentence ; 
 and surely it will not be urged, that such is the present 
 case. 4 ' God is thy throne" would stand in Greek, Roves' 
 gov o ^bo;.-\ For such a change in the text there is no 
 respectable authority. 
 
 2. Such a translation would render insipid the ar- 
 gument of the Apostle, in this chapter, to prove the 
 preeminently exalted nature of Christ. To say of this 
 illustrious personage, God is thy throne, i. e. thy sup- 
 
 * There were several dialects of the Greek language, the Attic, the 
 Doric, &c. The Hellenistic Greek is a mixed dialect, which prevailed 
 in the countries and periods in which the New Testament writers 
 lived— Ed. 
 
 f See the latter clause of the verse where ?? |a£oo£ is the subject, but gaZoo; 
 the predicate, according to the laws oj the language. 
 
73 
 
 port, might excite the persons to whom the epistle was 
 addressed to ask, "And who is not supported by God ? 
 How is Christ entitled, on this account, to claim any 
 preeminence in our regard?" 
 
 3. Such a translation contradicts the meaning of the 
 word throne, understood either literally or figuratively. 
 Literally, it is the seat on which kings sit. This sense 
 is here out of the question. Figuratively \ it stands for 
 dominion, e?npire, regal authority ; because it is one of 
 the ensigns of such authority. But there is no such 
 figurative sense to it as that of support. And what 
 sense would it make to say, God is thy dominion, thy 
 regal authority ? If you reply, This may mean God is 
 the cause of thy dominion or regal authority, then I ask 
 again, Of what king's dominion and authority is not 
 God the cause? Is it not the universal doctrine of the 
 Bible that " by hi,n kings reign and princes decree jus- 
 tice?" And how then is Christ entitled to any preemi- 
 nence because God is the cause of his dominion ? Or 
 what advances does the Apostle make in his argument 
 by such an assertion ? 
 
 To the translation in question there is still another 
 objection, which is drawn from the nature of Hebrew 
 parallelism in poetry. The verse under discussion 
 plainly is one in which the subject is the same in both 
 parts, i. e. it is a synonymous parallelism. Now, the 
 second member of this is, "the sceptre of thy kingdom 
 is a sceptre of righteousness;" in other words, thy do- 
 million is righteous. The first member of the parallel- 
 ism, consequently, is to be explained in a similar way, 
 and evidently means thy dominion (throne) is everlasting. 
 What could be more tasteless or unmeaning here than 
 to say, " God is thy throne," i. e. support, or cause of 
 dominion — when the object of the writer is to show 
 the preeminent dignity of the Son of God ? 
 
 The proposed mode of rendering, then, violates Greek 
 usage — frustrates the argument of the Apostle — forces 
 an unexampled meaning upon Sftwe — and transgresses 
 the laws of parallelism in the Hebrew original, from 
 which the passage was taken. 
 
I am aware of the objections which have been made 
 to understanding the word God, in the passage now 
 under consideration, in its highest sense. For, first, — 
 It is said that the person called God {Elohim) here calls 
 another being his God, and therefore he cannot be Su- 
 preme. 
 
 To the fact I readily assent ; but the conclusion drawn 
 from it I must be permitted to doubt. If Christ be de- 
 scribed in the Forty-fifth Psalm (and the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews asserts this to be the fact), he 
 is described as a king triumphant over his enemies. 
 As the Messiah, the anointed king, he might, with the 
 greatest propriety, call Jehovah his God — for as Mes- 
 siah he is to be considered as incarnate — and of course 
 subordinate. Is it still a matter of wonder that the 
 same person could at one time be called GWand have 
 everlasting dominion ascribed to him, who, the next 
 moment, calls Jehovah his God ? It is a wonder of 
 the same nature, as that which perplexed the Jews, 
 when Christ asked them how David could call the 
 Messiah Lord, while at the same time he was his Son. 
 It is a wonder which no ground but that of Trinitarians 
 can ever explain. I mean the ground, that the divine 
 and human natures coexisted in Christ, and that in the 
 same sentence he could, with propriety, speak of him- 
 self as human and divine. The sacred writers appear 
 not to take the least pains to separate the two natures 
 in any thing which they say of either. They everwhere 
 speak of Christ (so it appears to me) as either human 
 or divine, or both. They do not seem to apprehend 
 any danger of mistake in regard to the subject, no more 
 than we when we say, Abraham is dead, or Abraham 
 is alive, think it necessary to add, as to his body in one 
 case, or as to his soul in the other. 
 
 This very negligence (if I may be allowed the ex- 
 pression, saving every thing that would imply impro- 
 per want of care) offers a powerful argument to me, I 
 confess, to prove that the sacred writers regarded the 
 human and divine natures as so intimately connected 
 in Christ, that it was unnecessary and inexpedient to 
 
attempt a distinctive separation of them, on every oc- 
 casion which brought to view the person or actions of 
 Christ. 
 
 A second objection is urged, — viz. that the king, 
 who is the subject ofthe Forty-fifth Psalm, notonly calls 
 God his God, but is said to be "anointed with the oil 
 of gladness, above his fellows." If Christ be truly di- 
 vine, how, it is asked, can he have fallows, L e. equals? 
 
 The answer to this has, in substance, already been 
 given. Christ is introduced here as the incarnate Mes- 
 siah. To the office of king > God * consecrated him with 
 the oil of gladness," i. e. placed him in a royal station ; 
 he has the "oil of gladness abo % his fellows," or a 
 rank above those who also hold a regal office. 
 
 Ithas been objected, thirdly, that the Forty -fifth Psalm, 
 from which our text was taken, does not belong to the 
 Messiah, but to David or Solomon. But how is this 
 proved ? " The language," it is said, " is such as to 
 show that it is a mere epithalamium or nuptial ode on 
 the marriage of one of these kings with a foreign prin- 
 cess." I have no time to enter into a discussion of this 
 topic here ; but I am satisfied that the difficulties which 
 press upon such a view ofthe Forty-fifth Psalm are over- 
 whelming. Whatever may be said, moreover, to prove 
 this, unless it be palpable demonstration, cannot weigh 
 much in the minds of those who regard the authority 
 of the writer that composed the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 He has told us that the passage in question is addres- 
 sed lo the Son, 
 
 Here, then, if our view be correct, is one instance' 
 more in which Christ is called God, with adjuncts which 
 render it probable that the Supreme God is meant. 
 
 I should rank the texts which 1 have already pro- 
 duced as the leading ones to establish the divine na- 
 ture of Christ. But there are others which should not 
 be neglected, in an impartial examination of Scripture 
 evidence, on the present topic. 
 
 1 John v. 20, " And we know that the Son of God is 
 come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may 
 know him that is true ; and we are in him that is true, 
 
76 
 
 even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God 
 and eternal life." 
 
 There are two reasons here why (<> aXrfaos §so;) 
 the true God may be referred to Christ. 1. The gram- 
 matical construction favours it. Christ is the imme- 
 diate antecedent. I grant that pronouns sometimes 
 relate to a more remote antecedent; but cases of this 
 nature stand on the ground of necessity, not of common 
 grammatical usage. What doubt can there be that John 
 could, without scruple, call the Logos the true God 
 (i ttktfivog Iteos), whom he had before asserted to be God 
 and to have created all things? 
 
 But, secondly, mj' principal reason for referring the 
 true God (6 aki\6m$ ^so;) to Christ is the other adjunct 
 which stands with it ; " This is the true God — and the 
 eternal LIFE." How* familiar is this language with 
 John, as applied to Christ ! " In him (£ e. Christ) was 
 LIFE, this life was the light of men — giving life to 
 the world — the bread of life — my words are spirit and 
 LIFE — I am the way, the truth, and the life — the Lo- 
 gos of life. This life (Christ) was manifested and 
 we have seen it, and do testify to you and declare the 
 eternal life, which was with the Father, and was 
 manifested to us." 1 John i. 2. Now, as I cannot 
 find any instance in John's writings in which the ap- 
 pellation of life and eternal life is bestowed upon 
 the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual 
 and eternal life — and as this occurs so frequently in 
 John's writings as applied to Christ — the laws of exe- 
 gesis compel me here to accord in my exposition with 
 the common laws of grammar, and to construe both 
 6 «Xq 6m$ 3eo$ and *£«jj ouumog (or, as some manuscripts 
 more consonantly with Greekidiom, read h ^r t r, ww*?), 
 both of Christ. If the true God then be not really 
 divine, who is? 
 
 John xx. 28. " And Thomas answered and said 
 unto him, my Lord and my God." 
 
 I have three reasons for adducing this text. 1. 
 There is no satisfactory proof that it is an exclama- 
 tion of surprise or astonishment. Xo phrase of this 
 
kind, by which the Jews were accustomed to express 
 surprise or astonishment, has yet been produced ; and 
 there is no evidence that such a phrase, with the sense 
 alleged, belongs to this language. 2. The Evangelist 
 tells us, that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus ; 
 said to him, eivev auru ; he did not merely exclaim. 3, 
 The commendation, which the Saviour immediately 
 bestows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to defend the 
 meaning that I attach to the verse. Christ commends 
 him for having seen and believed. The evidence that 
 he believed was contained in the expression under 
 examination ; for, before uttering this expression, he 
 is represented as doubting. On the supposition, then, 
 that the expression was a mere exclamation, what 
 evidence was it to the mind of Jesus, or could it be to 
 the minds of others, that he admitted the claims of the 
 Saviour of men, to the character which was connected 
 with this office ? What more proof of real belief can 
 be found in such an exclamation , if it be truly one, 
 than we can find that men are Christians, when they 
 repeat, as is very common on occasions of surprise or 
 delight, the name of Christ, by way of exclamation ? 
 But if we admit that the words of Thomas were the 
 proper evidence and expression of that belief, for 
 which the Saviour commended him (and 1 do not see 
 how we can fairly avoid this) ; then we must admit 
 that he will commend us, for believing that he is both 
 Lord and God, Kvmg xat 0fo?, unless we adopt the 
 notable expedient of Schlichting, who avers that Lord 
 is to be referred to Christ, and God to the Father : 
 which latter, he thinks, Thomas spoke, after some in- 
 terval of time had elapsed. 
 
 I pass over several passages, where our common 
 text applies the name of God to Christ ; e. g. Acts 
 xx. 28, and 1 Tim. iii. 16. In regard to this latter 
 text, however, it appears to me a plain case, that the 
 authorities which Griesbach himself has adduced, 
 would fairly lead to a decision different from his own, 
 respecting ihe genuineness of the reading, &m. I will 
 not attempt to weigh them here ; as 1 feel no desire 
 to press into my service, witnesses of a character at 
 
78 
 
 all dubious. I admit the great desert of Griesbach, 
 in his critical edition of the New Testament. I be- 
 lieve he was a man who would not willingly or con- 
 sciously misrepresent either facts or arguments, for 
 or against any reading. But the work which he un- 
 dertook was too great to be accomplished by one per- 
 son, or even by one whole generation of critics. Dr 
 Laurence, in his Essay upon the Classification of Ma- 
 nuscripts by Griesbach, has rendered it more than 
 probable that Griesbach's account of facts is not un- 
 frequently vert/ erroneous, not through design, but 
 from human infirmity ; and that the principles by 
 which he estimated the value of manuscripts, and of 
 course the genuineness of particular readings, are fun- 
 damentally erroneous. And, since I am on this sub- 
 ject, I may take the liberty to state, what seems to be 
 so little known among us, that Griesbach is not the 
 only recent editor of a critical Testament, to which 
 the great body of critics attach importance. The ce- 
 lebrated Matthai, whom Middleton calls the best 
 Greek scholar that ever edited a Greek Testament, 
 published at Riga (between A. D. 1 782—1/88) a cri- 
 tical Testament, of twelve volumes, which approaches 
 much nearer to the Textus Receptus, than the edition 
 of Griesbach, with whom he is at variance. Eichhorn 
 (after giving a high character of this edition of Matthai, 
 and noticing that', in his maxims respecting the forma- 
 tion of the Xew Testament text, the editor differs 
 very much from Griesbach and others) says, that 
 " for a long time he had followed the middle path be- 
 tween the two parties." [Bibliothek. Band ii. St. 2. s. 
 411.1 
 
 The whole system of classifying manuscripts, which 
 lies at the very foundation of ail Griesbach's decisions 
 in regard to the text, is rejected by Matthai as worth- 
 less ; and Dr Laurence has, in the Essay above-men- 
 tioned, made an attack upon the same classification, 
 which renders questionable the principles of it ; at 
 least the application of those principles, as made by 
 Griesbach. 
 
 Professor Knapp, of Halle, has also published a 
 
Greek Testament, the text of which is independent of 
 Griesbach's, although it approximates to it. The 
 edition is esteemed for its punctuation, order of 
 words, accentuation, and spirituation ; and has great 
 currency. 
 
 I acknowledge this is digression. But it may he 
 useful to those who are in the habit of attributing so 
 much weight to Griesbach's decisions, to know that 
 they are far from being uncontroverted by many of the 
 best critics among his own countrymen. I know of 
 no commentator of note who has made Griesbach's 
 text his basis, except Paulus ; and he has reexamined 
 all his decisions. 
 
 To return, however, to our subject: We do not 
 want, and feel no disposition to use, either of the texts 
 referred to above as proof texts, in the question be- 
 fore us. 
 
 There is another class of texts, which I have not hi- 
 therto mentioned, because the certainty of their mean- 
 ing is commonly thought to be less capable of demon- 
 stration than that of others which I have produced. I 
 refer to such texts as Ephes. v. 5, "The kingdom of 
 Christ and God;" Titus ii. 13, "Looking for the bles- 
 sed hope and glorious'appearance of our great God and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ;" 2 Tim. iv. 1, "I adjure you 
 before God, even Jesus Christ, who will judge the 
 quick and the dead at his appearance and kingdom;" 
 2 Pet. i. 1, .... "of our God and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 The translation of these texts here proposed is al- 
 together in conformity to the Greek idiom. Middle- 
 ton (on the article) thinks it absolutely essential to it : 
 For, although proper names and abstract nouns, in 
 such a connexion as Qsog and Xp/gro?here, may take the 
 article before the first noun, and omit it before the se- 
 cond, and yet designate different things and persons ; 
 yet if words which are attributives omit the article in 
 such a case, they exhibit evidence that they are to 
 be connected with a preceding noun, and are the pre- 
 dicates of it, and not significant of something separate, 
 e. g\, in the first case, Eph. v. 5, " the kingdom of 
 
 G 
 
80 
 
 Christ and God," according to this rule, would mean, 
 of Christ, who is God; in the second instance, Tit. ii. 
 13, the meaning is, "of the great God, who is our 
 Saviour," &c. 
 
 Mr Wordsworth, a few years since, instituted a most 
 laborious investigation of the Greek Fathers, to see 
 whether the idiom which respects the article here was 
 prevalent in their writings ; and whether they ever 
 understood more than one person to be designated by 
 such expressions. The result I will give in his own 
 words. (P. 132.) 
 
 " I have observed more, I am persuaded, than a thousand 
 instances of the form, 6 Xeizro; xa/ 0so? (Christ and God) 
 (Eph. v. 5) ; some hundreds of instances of 6 /.ityag Qsoc xai 
 eurr,? (the great God and Saviour) (Tit. ii. 13) ; and not fewer 
 than several thousands, of the form 6 Qzo? xai auir^o (God and 
 Saviour) (2 Pet. i. 1) ; while in no single case have I seen, 
 where the sense could be determined, any one of them used, 
 but only of one -person." 
 
 After all, if there were no other evidence of the di- 
 vinity of Christ in the Xew Testament, than what de- 
 pends solely on these texts, one might perhaps hesi- 
 tate concerning the subject. But when I consider that 
 the method of translating here proposed, is perfectly 
 conformable to the Greek idiom, and must be adopted 
 in various other passages (e. g. Rom. xv. 6, Eph. v. 
 20, James i. 2/) — and if adopted in these, will give 
 them a sense conformable to that of other parts of the 
 sacred volume — I confess the evidence which these 
 passages afford, if not decisive, at least confirms in no 
 small degree the testimony of other texts ; — specially 
 in this case, in regard to the text in Titus ; for where 
 is the appearing of God the Father ever spoken of by 
 the Xew Testament writers ? It is Christ who appear- 
 ed to execute vengeance upon the Jewish nation, — who 
 will appear at the judgment. Yet here, the appearance 
 of the great God is mentioned — of the great God and 
 Saviour ; for so I cannot but believe the text is fairly 
 to be construed. Can this great God be any other 
 than Christ himself? 
 
 Thus much for the texts which bestow on Christ the 
 
81 
 
 appellation of God, with adjuncts that show in what 
 sense the word God must be understood, according to 
 the common rules of interpreting language. I must 
 now 
 
 II. Examine another class, which attribute to Christ equa- 
 lity with God, or that power and dignity or honour which be- 
 long to God. 
 
 I use the phrase equality with God, after the example 
 of the Apostle, in the text to be immediately examin- 
 ed. I know, at the same time, it is a phrase that leads, 
 if any are so disposed, to logomachy. What I mean 
 by it is explained by the words which immediately fol- 
 low it. 
 
 Phil. ii. 5 — 8. "Let the same mind be in you which 
 was in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the condition of 
 God, did not regard his equality with God as an object 
 of solicitous desire, but humbled himself (assumed an 
 inferior or humble station), taking the condition of a 
 Servant, being made after the similitude of men, and 
 being found in fashion as a man, he exhibited his hu- 
 mility by obedience, even to the death of the cross." 
 
 Such is the rendering which, after laborious exami- 
 nation, I am persuaded the Greek of this passage not 
 only admits, but demands. I will state my reasons 
 for dissenting from the common method in which either 
 Trinitarians or Unitarians have translated it. 
 
 Our common version runs thus, — " Who, being in the 
 form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 God, but humbled himself,'' &c. This version seems 
 to render nugatory, or at least irrevalent, a part of the 
 Apostle's reasoning in the passage. He is enforcing 
 the principle of Christian humility upon the Philippians. 
 In order to urge this in the most effectual manner, he 
 proposes to them the example of Christ, — " Let the 
 same mind be in you which was in Christ." What 
 was this ? — It was manifested by the fact, that though 
 essentially divine O ftogpq 0£oj), he did not eagerly re- 
 tain his divine condition, but assumed the station or 
 condition of a servant (jm&ip dmkut). Here the rele- 
 vancy of his reasoning is sufficiently plain. But how 
 
 g2 
 
82 
 
 was it any proof or example of humility, that he did not 
 think it robbery to be equal with God? 
 
 Besides, the Greek will not fairly bear this construc- 
 tion. 'Agray/iog, translated robbery, does not seem here 
 to signify an act of robbery, but res rapta, or rather, fi- 
 guratively resavide diripienda el ' vindicanda ', — i. e. some- 
 thing which is eagerly to be seized and appropriated. 
 (See Schleusner and Storr, in locum.) Moreover, 
 ac-c.y>j.c:, which our translators have placed nest to the 
 verb rr/r,(ra-o, does not, by the rules of syntax, belong 
 there. The Greek syntax would place the words thus, 
 as to their sense, — wx rr/rfiaro to saeu tea S=& [xara] dscray/xcv, 
 literally, " he regarded not the being equal to God (as) 
 igcray^w, as a thing to be greedily sought or appro- 
 priated." 
 
 For these reasons, I cannot believe that our common 
 version gives the sense of the passage. And, for simi- 
 lar reasons, I feel compelled to reject the version so 
 common among some Unitarians, — " He did not think 
 of the robbery of being equal with God." The objec- 
 tions to it are, that it translates agrayftovheYe, as desig- 
 nating the action of robbery ; and that owe rr/r^aro ro mat 
 ita. Sew uscruy-;.:; can never be proved to mean, " He 
 thought not of the robbery of being equal with God." 
 The verb r t yr,<sa-o is not susceptible of such a meaning 
 as thought not of, — i. e., did not aspire to, imagine, form, 
 expectations of, &c. In its primary sense, it signifies 
 to lead, to be preeminent , &c- ; in its secondary sense, to 
 esteem, judge, regard, repute, &c. To render »x rr/r^ara 
 az~ayuov, he did not think of the robbery, would therefore 
 be violating the obvious principles of the Greek lan- 
 guage. To justify in any measure such a version, 
 the passage must run thus,— ou TON b.^ayiiw r,yr,(fu7o TOT 
 ir,ui jffa Qeu, Even then, rr/r.euro could not be rendered 
 thought not of The word does not permit this sense, 
 And, as no ancient manuscript or version has given a 
 hint of such a form of the text, it seems to be placed 
 beyond fair debate, that the translation now in ques- 
 tion cannot be admitted. 
 
 Both our translators and Unitarians appear, generally, 
 to have mistaken the import of the word fi*°pn (condition, 
 
83 
 
 state) in this passage. On the one hand, /wopn does not 
 seem to me at all parallel with the brightness {a-Tra-jyaapa) 
 andexpress image (x a i wcr ^S) which are applied to the Son, 
 in Heb. i. 3. These words designate the glory of the 
 incarnate Messiah, who had appeared f in these last 
 days," and spoken to men. They express the same 
 view of Christ which John gives (i. 14), when he says, 
 " We beheld his (Christ's) glory, — verily the glory of 
 the only-begotten of the Father ; and this glory was 
 seen after the « Word became flesh and dwelt among 
 us.'" Comparison, then, of A«W Qso ' J with these pas- 
 sages, will not ascertain its meaning ; for, to Christ be- 
 longed the (Mopri 0soy {the condition of God), before he hum- 
 bled himself and took upon him theformofaservant. In 
 occupying, indeed, the condition of a servant (if I may so 
 express theGreekey.sv&Mrt<rsauroy), consisted his humiliation. 
 
 A fair examination of fwgpii, either generally or in 
 special relation to the passage before us, will end, as 
 1 must believe, in the conviction that the word is not 
 unfrequently synonymous with <pvtis (nature) and ovffia 
 (being). The proofs which Schleusner has offered of 
 this are sufficient. (Lex. in voc (Wgpn.) But the proof 
 of what it means in the passage before us, is too plain 
 to be easily mistaken. If you say ftogpq Qso-j means 
 only a similitude or resemblance of God in moral 
 qualities, as we speak of Christians resembling God, 
 then I ask whether his humiliation consisted in de- 
 pressing, or subjecting to a lower state, the moral 
 qualities which Christ possessed ? 
 
 Does pogpn Qsov mean, then, a resemblance to God 
 in respect to office, as magistrates are called gods ? 
 But, on the supposition that Christ was only a finite 
 being, what office did he lay aside in order to become 
 incarnate ? If Christ be only a created being, who 
 were his subjects, and what was his dominion, before 
 .his mediatorial kingdom commenced by the event of 
 his incarnation ? 
 
 But this is not all. If i^n mean only similitude^ 
 then what is the sense of the next clause, where 
 Christ is said to have taken upon him the (u%fw dovXou ? 
 That he bore merely a resemblance to a servant, — i. e. 9 
 
 g3 
 
84 
 
 to one who obeys, or is in an humble station ; or that 
 he did actually take the condition of one who was in 
 an humble and depressed state, and persevere in it to 
 the very death of the cross ? The latter must be ad- 
 mitted, unless we hearken to the doctrine of the Do- 
 eetae, who taught that Christ was a man in appearance 
 only, and not in reality. If jawigpij fouXou, then, means 
 the condition or state of one who is humbled or de- 
 pressed, and subjected to the command of others, does 
 not f*og<pn Saw mean the state or condition of one who 
 is truly divine ? 
 
 After all, it should be sacredly remembered that on 
 such a subject as this, human language (made up of terms 
 formed to express the ideas of finite and mutable beings 
 about finite and mutable objects) is of course incompe- 
 tent fully to designate the mode of union between the 
 divine and human natures. I must regard the language 
 here, and in all other passages on this awful subject, 
 as only an approximation toward describing what ex- 
 ists in the Divinity, or is done by him — he who was 
 in the condition of God, and equal with God, i. e. divine, 
 gzsMcMft lav™, which means, as we translate it, " exinanimt 
 seipsiwi — made himself of no reputation" Yet, how 
 incompetent must these translations be ! So far as 
 Christ is the immutable God, he cannot change — i. e. he 
 cannot divest himself of his essential perfections. He 
 cannot cease to be omnipotent, omniscient, &c. But 
 he may veil the brightness of his glories for a time by 
 assuming to himself a union with the human nature, 
 and making this the organ through which he displays 
 his perfections during the time of the incarnation. Does 
 the sun cease to shine — are his beams extinguished 
 when an intervening cloud obscures for a while his 
 lustre? Or is the sun in any measure changed? 
 
 In reply to a multitude of questions with which you 
 and others can press Trinitarians on this subject, we 
 may ask, Because God is omnipotent, does it follow 
 that the whole of that omnipotence must be every mo- 
 ment exerted? If not (and who will refuse assent to 
 this ?), then why may he not have veiled his glories for 
 a time in the incarnate Saviour, and still retain all his 
 
85 
 
 essential perfections unchanged ? Is it too much to 
 say that he may have done so ? I believe that the text 
 in question decides that he did. 
 
 I approach such a subject, however, with solemn 
 awe ; and never feel my own weakness and ignorance 
 more intensely than while endeavouring to think upon 
 it. The familiar, I had almost said irreverential man- 
 ner, in which some speak and write respecting this mys- 
 tery, is calculated, I freely acknowledge, to excite pain- 
 ful emotions. On the one hand, it would seem, if we 
 are to credit one mode of representation, that the great- 
 est portion of Christ's humiliation consisted in his hav- 
 ing renounced and absolutely laid aside his divinity 
 during the time of the incarnation ; and that as God, in 
 this diminished condition, he did actually expire upon 
 the cross. All the powers of language are exhausted in 
 order to show how great must be the sufferings and con- 
 descension of Christ in undergoing such a degradation 
 as this. On the other hand, some who revolt from these 
 mistaken representations, verge to the other extreme. 
 Lest they should degrade the divine nature of Christ, 
 they are so careful to separate the human nature from 
 it, that one is compelled to suppose that the man Jesus 
 had simply a higher degree of inspiration and commu- 
 nion with God than other prophets. The New Testa- 
 ment does not seem to me to justify either of these 
 extremes. 
 
 A thousand questions may be raised here — a thou- 
 sand difficulties suggested which no reflecting man will 
 undertake to answer. The history of past ages exhi- 
 bits an appalling picture of disputes about the person 
 of Christ — all springing from the denial of facts reveal- 
 ed in the New Testament, or from the unhallowed cu- 
 riosity of men who desired to know what God has not 
 revealed. The very last age witnessed a dispute in 
 Germany between the theologians of Giessen and Tu- 
 bingen, whether the humiliation (xst/w<r/r) of Christ con- 
 sisted u in abstinence from both the direct and reflex 
 use of divine majesty," or in the "occupation of divine 
 majesty," a dispute which agitated the Lutheran Church 
 to the very centre. 
 
86 
 
 The humble inquirer after truth who once is brought 
 clearly to see the boundaries of human knowledge, will 
 shrink from disputations of such a nature, and pour 
 forth his earnest supplications to God that the simple 
 verities which the Scriptures reveal may be believed 
 on the authority of God ; while the manner in which 
 the facts revealed for our credence exist, is left with 
 him "whose ways are unsearchable, and whose judg- 
 ments are past finding out/' 
 
 I have used the freedom of letter-writing in this dis- 
 cussion; I can hardly call it digression, as it is so near- 
 ly connected with the explanation of the text which I 
 am examining. Will you now permit me to repeat, 
 that the version which would correspond best with the 
 real meaning of the passage in question must express 
 the following ideas ? " Who, being of divine nature or 
 condition, did not eagerly seek to retain his equality 
 with God, but took on himself an humble condition," 
 &c. In this way, and in this only, does the passage 
 appear to be consistent with the Apostle's argument 
 and design, at least appropriate to them ; and in this 
 way only can the Greek be fairly and grammatically 
 rendered. 
 
 With the passage that has now been considered, seem 
 to me to agree, in general import, several others; John 
 v. 19, — " Whatsoever things he (the Father) doeth, the 
 same doeth the Son likewise ;" i. e. he has the same 
 power as the Father. And when it is said in the con- 
 text, " The Son doeth nothing by (or of avo afi) him- 
 self, except he see the Father do it," I understand the 
 meaning to be, that the Jews had no reason to believe 
 that Christ had any disposition to blaspheme God (of 
 which they had so frequently accused him), for he acted 
 in entire concert with the divine purposes and com- 
 mands, and had no separate interests of his own. 
 
 John v. 21 — 23. "For as the Father raiseth the dead 
 and restoreth them to life, so also the Son restoreth to 
 life whom he pleases. For the Father judgeth no man, 
 but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all 
 men might honour the Son, even as they honour the 
 Father." 
 
87 
 
 Is there not here an equality of power and honour 
 ascribed to the Father and Son ? The Son is indeed 
 introduced as M head over all things;" but could he be 
 such a head, could '• all judgment be committed to him," 
 if at the same time he was not also divine, and conse* 
 quently omniscient? It is perfectly plain, that, in so 
 far as the " committing of judgment to the Son" is con- 
 cerned, it must be to the mediatorial person — to one 
 who, in respect to office, is subordinate to God. But, 
 in so far as qualifications requisite to perform the duties 
 which that commitment requires are concerned, the Sa- 
 viour is divine ; and the honour to be claimed by him 
 is the same with that which the Divinity himself claims. 
 It matters not whether you interpret this of obedience 
 to be rendered to the Son, or of homage to be paid to 
 him. Multitudes of prophets, as commissioned by God, 
 have borne his messages of mercy and of judgment to 
 his people ; but to whom, among them all, did he grant 
 the privilege of being honoured as himself? Or to what 
 created being shall the glory of the blessed God be 
 rendered, without infringing upon the fundamental 
 principles of both the Jewish and the Christian reli- 
 gion ? 
 
 In fact, I cannot well conceive how our Saviour could 
 have used the words above quoted without having ex-r 
 posed himself to renewed and just accusations of the 
 Jews for blaspheming, unless he were really divine. 
 The Jews had accused him of violating the Sabbath 
 because he had on that day healed the impotent man 
 at the Pool of Bethesda. The reply of Christ to them 
 was, " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ;" which, 
 if I understand the argument, must mean, My Father 
 has never ceased to work on the Sabbath in carrying 
 on all the operations of the natural and moral world j 
 he supersedes the law of the Sabbath: 1 have the same 
 right. " The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." 
 The Jews then sought to slay him, because, as they 
 affirmed, "he had violated the Sabbath, and said that 
 God was his Father, making himself equal with God." 
 In reply to their bitter accusations, Jesus made use of 
 
89 
 
 the language above cited, — telling them that he did 
 whatever the Father did, and was entitled to the same 
 honour. Was this relinquishing his claim to the equa- 
 lity with God which the Jews had charged him with 
 assuming? Or was it speaking out plainly that he 
 wrought on the Sabbath by the same right that the Fa- 
 ther did, and was entitled to the same deference? Can 
 his words, interpreted without regard to any precon- 
 ceived theory, be made to signify less than this ? 
 
 You will expect me, perhaps, to adduce John x. 30, 
 "I and my Father are one." It is a clear case that 
 the Jews here seem to have understood Christ as 
 claiming equality with God, or rather claiming to be 
 God. (See verse 33.) But I am not satisfied that the 
 manner in which they often expounded his words is a 
 sure guide for our interpretation of them at the present 
 time. The malignant disposition which they frequent- 
 ly displayed may well lead us to suspect that they 
 would, if possible, put such a construction on his words 
 as would subject him to the imputation of blasphemy 
 or rebellion against the Roman Government. I would 
 expound the words of Christ, therefore, independently 
 of any construction which. his embittered enemies put 
 upon them. And, in the present case, it seems to me 
 that the meaning of " I and my Father are one," is 
 simply, " I and my Father are united in counsel, de- 
 sign, and power." 
 
 So in John xvii. 20, 21, Christ prays that "all who 
 shall believe on him may be one. As thou, Father," 
 continued he, " art in me, and 1 in thee ; so they also 
 may be one in us," — i. e., that the disciples may have 
 the "■ same mind which was in Christ Jesus " — may 
 copy after his example, and be united in the temper 
 of their souls to him, as he is to God — may be one with 
 the Father and with him. 
 
 So also, in Gal. iii. 28, Christians of different ranks 
 and nations are said to be one in Christ ; and 1 Cor. 
 iii. 3, he that planteth and he that watereth are one, — 
 i. <?., they have the same affections and designs — they 
 are united to accomplish the same object. In the 
 
89 
 
 same manner, Cicero says, " Unus fiat e pluribus," 
 many constitute one, when persons are united in tem- 
 per and pursuits. (De Offic. 1. i. c. \J .) 
 
 From the consideration of those texts which ascribe 
 in a general sense equality with God, or divine power 
 and honours to Christ ; let us now turn 
 
 III. To the examinatu n of those which assert or imply that 
 particular divine attributes, or ivories, belong to him. 
 
 I . Omniscience is ascribed to Christ. 
 
 Matt. xi. 27. " All things are delivered unto me of 
 mv Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the 
 Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father save 
 the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal 
 him." 
 
 If in this passage the same omniscience be not 
 ascribed to the Son as to the Father, I am unable to 
 make out satisfactorily what the meaning of it is. In 
 the latter clause of the verse, men are declared to be 
 entirely dependent on the Son for that knowledge of 
 the Father which is revealed, — i. e., he only makes 
 this revelation. "Xo man hath seen God at any 
 time ; the only-begotten, who dweileth in the bosom 
 of the Father, he hath revealed him.'" John i. 18. At 
 the same time, I concede, it is possible, that the know- 
 ledge here spoken of may be merely that which is in- 
 tended to be revealed in the gospel. 
 
 John vi. 46. ''Because that no man hath seen the 
 Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." 
 The word \<ageat& here, does not mean to see icilh bodily 
 eyes, but icith the mental eye, — t. e., to know. What 
 but omniscience could be adequate to the knowledge 
 here predicated of Christ ? And is it a satisfactory ex- 
 planation of the text to say that the knowledge here 
 meant is simply that which is conveyed in the instruc- 
 tions of the gospel ? 
 
 In the same manner, the knowledge of the most in- 
 timate secrets of the human heart is ascribed to 
 Christ. John ii. 24, 25. " But Jesus did not commit 
 himself unto them, because he knew all men ; and 
 needed not that any should testify of man ; for he 
 
90 
 
 knew what was in man." John vi. 64, — " But there 
 are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew 
 who they were that believed not, and who should be- 
 tray him." 
 
 x\cts i. 24, — " And they prayed, and said, Thou, 
 Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show 
 whether of these two thou hast chosen." That Lord 
 (Kiwo?) here means Christ, seems to me very plain 
 from verses 21 and 22 (compare verse 6) of the con- 
 text. Besides, this is the common appellation of the 
 Saviour in the Acts of the Apostles. The appeal 
 made in this case, respects the choice of an Apostle. 
 " Show, Lord," say the Apostles, " which of these 
 two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this 
 ministry and apostleship." Is there any room to 
 doubt here, that the Apostles did appeal to the 
 same Lord who had chosen them, to designate who 
 should fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of 
 Judas ? 
 
 1 Cor. iv. 4, 5, — " For I know nothing by myself; yet 
 am I not hereby justified ; but he that judgeth me is 
 the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, 
 until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the 
 hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the 
 counsels of the hearts ; and then shall every man have 
 praise of God." That Lord (Kvcjo;) here means Christ, 
 is plain, both from the office of judging ascribed to 
 him, and from his coming to judgment. Without cit- 
 ing numerous other passages, which confessedly re- 
 present Christ as the final Judge of all the human 
 race, permit me here to ask, Is it possible for any 
 being who is not omniscient to judge the universe of 
 intelligent creatures ? Can he for thousands of years 
 (possibly of ages) be present everywhere, and know 
 what is transacted ; can he penetrate the recesses of 
 the human heart ; can he remember the whole charac- 
 ter and actions of countless myriads, so diverse in ta- 
 lents, temper, circumstances, and situation ; and yet 
 be finite — be neither omnipresent nor omniscient ? God 
 claims it as his distinguishing and peculiar preroga- 
 tive, that he knows the secrets of the human heart, 
 
91 
 
 Jer. xvii. 10 ; what then must he he who knows the 
 secrets of all hearts at all times, and in all worlds ? 
 If he be not God, the proof that the Father is God is 
 defective too ; and we have the question again to dis- 
 pute with the Manicheans, whether Jehovah be not it 
 limited and imperfect being. 
 
 "But," ) T ou will say, " Christ acts as Judge by de- 
 legated authority: Why not, then, by knowledge im- 
 parted to him ?" He does indeed act as judge by 
 delegated authority, because it is in his mediatorial 
 capacity that he acts as Judge ; but to act as Judge 
 is one thing, to be qualified for such an office is ano- 
 ther. Exaltation as Mediator constitutes him Judge 
 in that capacity ; omnipresence and omniscience out)/ 
 can qualify him for the duties of that station. x\nd 
 can omniscience be imparted? We may as well say 
 omnipotence or self- existence can be imparted. There 
 is and there can be but one God ; and a second omni- 
 scient being (omniscient simply by knowledge im- 
 parted), would force us into all the absurdities of 
 polytheism. 
 
 Rev. ii. 23, "And all the churches shall know that 
 I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts ; and 1 
 will give unto every one of you according to your 
 works." The same person speaks here who "was 
 dead and is alive," i. e. Christ (chap. i. 18). The 
 sense of the passage is too plain to need any com- 
 ment. 
 
 To conclude this head : When I compare such pas- 
 sages as those above cited, with the description of 
 divine omniscience, how can I doubt that the New 
 Testament writers mean to ascribe the knowledge of 
 all things to Christ? To say that whatsoever pertains 
 to God or man, is known by any being, is to predicate 
 omniscience of that being. Compare now with this 
 the knowledge which God ascribes to himself only, in 
 Jer. xvii. 9, 10, "The heart is deceitful above all 
 things, and desperately wicked ; who can know it? I 
 the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give 
 to every man according to his ways, and according to 
 the fruit of his doings." 
 
92 
 
 2. Divine power is ascribed to C/insL 
 
 Phil. iii. 21, — "Who shall change our vile body, 
 that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, 
 according to the working whereby he is able even to 
 subdue all things unto himself." 
 
 Compare now this passage, 1 Cor. xv. 26 — 28, 
 where the same language is applied to God the Fa- 
 ther. And if " to subdue all things to himself," 
 ( j-o-aja/ ra vravra lotvra) be not characteristic of omni- 
 potence in Phil, iii, 21, when applied to Christ, why 
 should it be when applied in verse 28 to the Father? 
 
 Heb.i.3, "Who, being the brightness of his glory, 
 and the express image of his person, and upholding 
 all things by the word of his power, when he had by 
 himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of 
 the Majesty on high." The word psgw, which is trans- 
 lated upholding, means preserving, directing, governing. 
 Thus Chrysostom, — psgw 9 says he Tto&grw, biemtrrwra 
 truyxgxray, — i. e. governing, preserving things perishable. 
 So the corresponding Hebrew 7 word, in Is. xlvi. 3, 
 lxiii. 9. 
 
 In John x. 18, Christ says, "he has power to lay 
 down his life, and to resume it again." In other places, 
 the resurrection of Jesus is ascribed to God, — Acts ii. 
 24, "32 : iii. 15 ; v. 30; 1 Cor. vi. 1-1 ; xv. 15. 
 
 In 2 Pet. i. 3, divine power (^/a fcmtfug) is ascribed to 
 Christ ; compare verse 16. 
 
 Most decisive, however, of divine power belonging 
 to Christ, are those passages above, which ascribe to 
 him the creation of the universe. This is the distin- 
 guishing characteristic of Jehovah. Jer. x. 10 — 16, 
 ts But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, 
 and an everlasting King. At his wrath the earth shall 
 tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his 
 indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods 
 that have not made the heavens and the earth, 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, and hath 
 stretched out the heavens by his discretion. When he 
 uttereth his voice there is a multitude of waters in the 
 
93 
 
 heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from 
 the ends of the earth ; he maketh lightnings with rain, 
 and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures. Every- 
 man is brutish in his knowledge ; every founder is con- 
 founded by the graven image ; for his molten image is 
 falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are 
 vanity, and the work of errors : In the time of their vi- 
 sitation they shall perish. The portion of Jacob is not 
 like them ; for he is the former of alt things; and Israel 
 is the rod of his inheritance : The Lord of hosts is his 
 name" 
 
 Acts xiv. 15, "Sirs, why do ye these things? we 
 also are men of like passions with you, and preach un- 
 to you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto 
 the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the 
 sea, and all things that are therein" 
 
 When I read such passages, and compare them with 
 the creative power ascribed to Christ, I cannot but ad- 
 mit, with the Apostle, "that he who built all things is 
 God." 
 
 3. Eternity is ascribed to Christ, 
 
 That those passages of Scripture, which speak of 
 Christ's existence before the creation of the world, do 
 not explicitly assert his eternity, I have already sug- 
 gested. But then it is difficult to conceive that they 
 do not imply eternity. " For," says Doederlein. (Inst. 
 Theol.i. p. 390), "to exist before the beginning of the 
 world, what can it mean but to exist from eternity?" 
 Passages of this nature are the following, — viz. John 
 i. 1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God, and the Word was God ;" I John i. 2, 
 "For the Life was manifested ; and we have seen it 
 and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal Life, 
 which was with the Father, and was manifested unto 
 us ;" John xvii. 5, " And now, O Father, glorify thou 
 me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with 
 thee before the world teas ;** John xvii. 24, "Father, I 
 will that they also whom thou hast given me be with 
 me where I am, that they may behold my glory which 
 thou hast given me ; for thou lovedst me before the 
 foundation of the world" 
 
9i 
 
 But specially do I apprehend that Rev. xxii. 13, is 
 decisive on this subject, — "I am Alpha and Omega, 
 the first and the last, the beginning and the end." 
 That it is Christ who here speaks, is clear; for, 1. In 
 the preceding verse he says, "Behold I come quickly." 
 2. In the 16th verse, the same person says, " I Jesus 
 have sent mine angel," &c. Now, the same descrip- 
 tion that is here applied to Christ is given of the eter- 
 nity of God, in chap. xxi. 5, 6; compare verses T^th 
 anil 3d. To know still more fully what this form of 
 expression means, we must recur to the OJd Testa- 
 ment, where we find it divested of its pe Ctrl far shape, 
 fn Is xliv. 6, Jehovah says, " I am the first and 1 am 
 the last ; and besides me there is no God," — i. e. eter- 
 nity distinguishes me from all that are falsely called 
 £ods. So in Is. xlviii. 12, after declaring that he will 
 not suffer his name to be polluted, nor give his glory 
 to another, he adds, " I am he (e. e. the true God) — I 
 am the first, and I also am the last." 
 
 Now, if the same things be asserted of Christ (as 
 plainly they are in the texts under consideration), how 
 can we avoid the conclusion, that the holy Apostle 
 meant to assert his eternal existence ? 
 
 4. Divine honours and worship are ascribed to Christ* 
 
 John v. 23, "That all men might honour the Son 
 even as they honour the Father." On this text I have 
 before remarked (page 90), in another connexion. 
 
 fleb. i. G, " Let all the angels of God worship him." 
 
 The word worship, it is said, has two significations, 
 - — viz. obeisance, and spiritual homage. This is true ; 
 and the first of these meanings often presents itself in 
 the Old Testament and (as 1 am willing to concede) in 
 the Gospels. Many who worshipped Christ, while he 
 sojourned among men — i. e. prostrated themselves be- 
 fore him — probably knew or acknowledged nothing of 
 his divine nature. But what shall we say of the angels? 
 Are the// ignorant of his true nature? And is not the 
 worship which they who are pure spirits pay, of course 
 spiritual, and not simple obeisance? 
 
 Phil. ii. 10, 11, " That at the name of Jesus, every 
 knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in 
 
95 
 
 earth, and things under the earth ; and that every 
 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to 
 the glory of God the Father." 
 
 " Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth," is 
 a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testa- 
 ment writers, for the universe (Vo <rav, or ra Tavra). What 
 can be meant by things in heaven, — i. e. beings in hea- 
 ven, bowing the knee to Jesus, if spiritual worship be 
 not meant ? 
 
 "What other worship can heaven render? And if the 
 worship of Christ in heaven be spiritual, should not 
 that of others, who ought to be in temper united with 
 them, be spiritual also? And when it is added, this 
 worship shall be "to the glory of God the Father," I 
 understand the sentiment to be, that Jesus, in his me- 
 diatorial character, is the proper object of universal 
 adoration ; but as this character has a peculiar con- 
 nexion with and relation to God the Father, so the 
 worship paid to Christ the Mediator should redound to 
 the glory of the Father as well as of himself. 
 
 Rom. x. 9 — 14, " That if thou shalt confess with 
 thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine 
 heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou 
 shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth un- 
 to righteousness ; and with the mouth confession is 
 made unto salvation. For the Scripture saith, Whoso- 
 ever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there 
 is no difference between the Jew and the Greek ; for 
 the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call uporr 
 him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
 Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him 
 in whom they have not believed? and how shall they 
 believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how 
 shall they hear without a preacher? 
 
 The Lord, on whose name they are to call, is plainly 
 Christ ; for he is the same in whom they are to believe 
 (verses 11 and 14). And this Lord (Christ) on whom 
 they are to call, and in whom they are to believe, is 
 Kvw; vavrw, universal Lord, and therefore able to be- 
 stow the blessings which they need. 
 
 h3 
 
96 
 
 Rev. v. 8 — 14, "And when he (i, e. Christ, see v\ 
 f>, /) took the book, the four beasts and four-and-twen* 
 ty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one 
 of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which 
 are the prayers of the saints. And they sung a new 
 song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book and 
 to open the seals thereof: For thou wast slain and 
 bast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every 
 kindred and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast 
 made us unto our God kings and priests : And we 
 shall reign on the earth. And I beheld and I heard 
 the voice of many angels round about the throne, and 
 the beasts and the elders : And the number of them 
 was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands 
 of thousands, — saying, with a loud voice, Worthy is 
 the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, 
 and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and 
 blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and 
 on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in 
 the sea, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and 
 « lory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the 
 throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever, And 
 the four beasts said, Amen ! And the four-and twenty 
 elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for 
 ever and ever." 
 
 If this be not spiritual worship, and if Christ be not 
 the object of it here, I am unable to produce a case 
 where worship can be called spiritual and divine. 
 
 The Apostles and primitive martyrs worshipped Christ; 
 and they recognize the practice of worshipping him 
 among other Christians. 
 
 Acts vii. 59, 60, "And they stoned Stephen, mak- 
 ing invocation faixahoufum) and saying, Lord Jesus, re» 
 ceive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried, with, 
 a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. 
 And, when he had said this, he fell asleep." 
 
 Now, here is a dying martyr, who is expressly said 
 to " be filled with the Holy Ghost," and to enjoy the 
 vision of the heavenly world, and of the Saviour who 
 was there — in his last moments, too— on the very verge 
 
97 
 
 of eternity — here is such a martyr committing his de* 
 parting spirit into the hands of the Lord Jesus, in the 
 very same language and with the same confidence with 
 which Jesus, when expiring upon the cross, committed 
 his spirit into the hands of the Father. This expiring 
 disciple also implores forgiveness for his murderers, 
 Of whom does he implore it? Of the same Lord Jesus. 
 Can a departing spirit be intrusted to any being, and 
 the forgiveness of sin be expected of him, who has 
 not omnipotence and supreme authority ? And can & 
 dying martyr, with his eyes fixed on the very vision of 
 God, and his soul filled with the Holy Ghost, ask and 
 pray amiss ? 
 
 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9, "For this thing I besought the 
 Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said 
 unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee ; for my strength 
 is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly, therefore, 
 will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of 
 Christ may rest upon me." 
 
 The Lord, whom Paul here besought, is plainly Christ; 
 for this same Lord, in answer to the Apostle's suppli* 
 cation, says, " My grace is sufficient for thee ; for my 
 strength 0? Suva/xis /twu) is perfected in weakness." Then 
 the Apostle immediately subjoins, "Most gladly then 
 would I rejoice in my infirmities, that the strerigth of 
 Christ (n dwa/xtg Xpmtov) may rest upon me." A clearer 
 case that Christ was the object of the Apostle's repeat- 
 ed prayer, cannot well be presented. 
 
 1 Thes. iii. 11, 12, "Now, God himself and out 
 Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto 
 you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound 
 in love one toward another, and toward all men, evjen 
 as we do toward you." 
 
 Can any distinction be here made between the rank 
 of those who are addressed by the Apostle? And does 
 not the 12th verse plainly show that the supplication 
 of the Apostle is specially directed to the Lord, i. e, 
 -Christ. 
 
 2 Thes. ii. 16, 17, "Now, our Lord Jesus Christ 
 himself, and God even our Father, which hath loved 
 us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good 
 
98 
 
 hope through grace, comfort your hearts and stablish 
 you in every good word and work." 
 
 Here the order of the persons to whom supplication 
 is made is the reverse of that in the last instance quot- 
 ed ; which shows that nothing depends on the order, 
 but that it was a matter of indifference with the Apos- 
 tle which was placed first, — the supplication being 
 equally addressed to the Father and to Christ. 
 
 Rom. i. 7> " To all that be in Rome beloved of 
 God — called to be saints — grace to you and peace, from 
 God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 Here the same blessings are solicited and expected 
 from Christ and the Father. (See the same formula 
 repeated 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2.) 
 
 Acts i. 24, " And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, 
 which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of 
 these two thou hast chosen." 
 
 That Lord here means the Lord Jesus, seems evident 
 from verses 21 and 22. It is the usual appellation, 
 moreover, which the Book of Acts gives to the Sa- 
 viour. (See above, p. 90.) 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 14, "The Lord reward him according to 
 his works!" Again, verses 1/ and 18, — "Notwith- 
 standing, the Lord stood with me, and strengthened 
 me ; that hy me the preaching might be fully known, 
 and that all the Gentiles might hear: And I was de- 
 livered out of the mouth of the lion. And the Lord 
 shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve 
 me unto his heavenly kingdom: To whom be glory 
 for ever and ever. Amen !" (Compare iii. II.) Usage 
 hardly admits a doubt here that Lord means Christ. 
 
 Nor can I separate from religious invocation, trust, 
 and confidence, such expressions as these (Acts iii. 6), 
 "Then Peter said, silver and gold have 1 none ; but 
 such as I have give I thee : In the name of Jesus 
 Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." Nor can I see 
 how the solemn adjuration by Christ (pXgetrui) which 
 the Apostle uses, Rom. ix. 1, 1 Tim. ii. 7> can be 
 separated from religious invocation or appeal. 
 
 We must add to all these instances of worship the 
 fact, that Christians were so habituated to address their 
 
99 
 
 supplications to Christ, that "they who invoke Christ" 
 became, it would seem, a kind of proper name by which 
 they were, in primitive times, designated as Christians. 
 
 Thus Paul (1 Cor. i. 2) addresses himself to all who 
 invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, IN every 
 PLACE. That the verb swhtaksu is an appropriate one 
 to designate the act of prayer, will not be questioned. 
 The literal translation of it is to invoke. The simple 
 meaning of the passage is, "I address myself to all 
 Christians.'' But, instead of using the name Chris- 
 tians directly, the Apostle uses a periphrasis, and says, 
 to atl the invokers of Christ, i. e. to those who pray to 
 him, meaning the same as uyiag, y.\r,roig, &c. in the con- 
 text. He has signified, too, that the practice of invok- 
 ing Christ was not confined to Corinth. He addresses 
 " those who pray to Christ in every place" O rravn ~o--u). 
 
 Exactly in the same manner does Ananias describe 
 Christians, when the Lord Jesus bade him go to in- 
 struct and comfort Saul. Acts ix. 13, 14, " Lord," 
 said he, " I have heard of many concerning this man, 
 what things he has done (jotc dyioi; eov) to thy saints at 
 Jerusalem ; and even now he has a commission from 
 the high priest to bind all (rovg S'zr/.aXov/xivovc to ovo/.ca ca) 
 those who invoke thy name,"— i. e., Christians. Se« 
 the same thing repeated, verse 21st. 
 
 The very Heathen, in the primitive age of Chris- 
 tianity, little as they knew about Christians, discover- 
 ed that they made Christ an object of worship. Says 
 Pliny, in writing to Trajan,^ (Lib. x. Ep. 9/.) "They 
 (Christians) sing in social worship a hvmn to Christ 
 as a God." 
 
 Eusebius, too (Ecc. Hist. v. 2S), in writing against 
 the Artemonites, appeals to the ancient songs of 
 Christians, thus, — "Whatever psalms and hymns were 
 composed by faithful brethren, from the beginning, 
 praise Christ the word of God." Can any example of a 
 church in the apostolic age, who did not practise this 
 be produced ? 
 
 * Carmen Christo, quasi De<?, soliti esscr.t (i. e. Christiani). dicere 
 secum invicera, 
 
100 
 
 Did not the Saviour give his disciples a general 
 precept and encouragement, to make him the object 
 of prayer ? " If ye shall ask any thing in my name,' 1 
 ■ — ft. e., as my disciples, on my account, s-ard he to the 
 Apostles, "I will accomplish it" (eyw -ro/^cw). John 
 xiv. 13, 14. They appear to me to have understood 
 this, as directing that he should be regarded by them 
 as the special object of prayer. Hence, instead of 
 finding few or no examples of prayer to Christ, in the 
 history of the primitive Christians, as exhibited in the 
 New Testament, I find more of this nature than of any 
 other. 
 
 When I have contemplated the precepts which en- 
 courage prayer to Christ and the worship of him, both 
 by the inhabitants of the heavenly world, and by the 
 churches on earth, I then compare these things with 
 the exclusive worship and trust which Jehovah claims 
 to himself. Is. xlv. 22, 23, "Look unto me, and be 
 ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and 
 there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word 
 has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall 
 not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every 
 tongue shall swear." Is. xlii. 8, " I am the Lord ; 
 that is my name ; and my glory will I not give to 
 another, neither my praise to graven images." JeF. 
 xvii. 5 — 7? " Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man 
 that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and 
 whose heart departeth from the Lord. For he shall 
 be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when 
 good cometh ; but shall inhabit parched places in the 
 wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed 
 is the man who trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope 
 the Lord is." Matth. iv. 10, " Then saith Jesus unto 
 him, Get thee hence, Satan ; for it is written, Thou 
 shall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt 
 thou serve." 
 
 1 am ready now to ask, whether I can avoid coming 
 to the conclusion, either that Christ is truly divine, 
 inasmuch as he is so often represented as the object 
 of worship ; or that the sacred writers have mistaken 
 
101 
 
 this great point, and led us to that which must be con- 
 sidered as idolatry. And yet the worship of Christ is 
 placed, as it would seem, in opposition to that of 
 idols. 1 Cor. viii. 4 — 6. That Christianity utterly 
 and for ever renounces all idolatry — all polytheism — 
 in a word, every thing inconsistent with the worship of 
 one only living and true God — is a point so plain and 
 so universally conceded, that I shall not dwell for a 
 moment upon it. 
 
 ■Were it not that I fear becoming tedious, by detail- 
 ing my reasons for believing in the divine nature of 
 Christ, I should add a great number of texts, which 
 require us with all the heart to love him, to obey him, 
 to confide in him, and to commit ourselves to him, in 
 such a manner as I can never persuade myself to do, 
 with respect to any being, who is not God. The 
 New Testament tells me that my consolation, my 
 privilege, my happiness, must be derived from trusting 
 in Christ. But can 1 trust myself to a. finite being, 
 when I have an infinite, almighty, all-sufficient GOD to 
 whom I may go ? Shall 1 be satisfied with a mite, 
 when 1 can have the mines of Peru ? 
 
 I should also add those texts, some of which are 
 very striking ones, where, in the New Testament, the 
 very same things are applied to Christ, which, in the 
 Old Testament, are affirmed of Jehovah. Some of 
 these follow. 
 
 Is. vi. 5 — 10. Then said I, John xii. 37 — 41. But though 
 Woe is me ! for I am undone, be- he had done so many miracles be- 
 cause I am a man of unclean lips ; fore them, yet they believed not on 
 for mine eyes have seen the King, him ; that the saying of Esaias the 
 the Lord of Hosts. Then flew one prophet might be fulfilled, which 
 of the seraphims unto me, having he spake, Lord, who hath believed 
 alive co;d in his hand, which he our report? and to whom hath 
 had taken with the tongs from off the arm of the Lord been revealed? 
 the alrar. And he laid it upon my Theiefore they could not believe, 
 mouth, and said, Lo, this hath because that Esaias said again, He 
 touched thy lips, and thine iniquity hath blinded their eyes, and har- 
 is taken away, and thy sin purged, dened their heart ; that they should 
 Also 1 heard the voice of the Lord, not see with their eyes, nor under- 
 saying, Whom shall 1 send, and stand with their hearr, and be eon- 
 v.howill go for us ? Then said I, verted, and I should heal them. 
 Here am 1, send me. And he said, These things said Esaias, when he 
 Go and tell this people, Hear ye saw his glory and spake of HIM. 
 indeed, but understand not; and 
 
102 
 
 see ye indeed, but perceive not. 
 Make the heart of this people fat, 
 and make their ears heavy, and 
 shut their eyes ; lest they see with 
 their eyes, and hear with their ears, 
 and understand with their heart, 
 and convert, and be healed. 
 
 Mai. iii. 1. Behold, I will send Mark i. 2. As it is written m 
 my messenger, and he shall pre- the prophets, Behold, I send my 
 pare the way before me ; and the messenger before thy face, which 
 Lord, whom ye seek, shall sud- shall prepare thy way before thee, 
 derriy come to his temple, even the 
 messenger of the covenant, whom 
 ye delight in ; behold, he shall 
 come, saith the Lord of Hosts. 
 
 Ps. Ixxviii. 56, Yet they tempt- 1 Cor. x. 9. Neither let us tempt 
 ed and provoked the most high God, Christ, as some of them also tempt- 
 and kept not his testimonies. ed, and were destroyed of serpents. 
 
 It were easy to increase the number of such pas- 
 sages as these ; but I shall desist. Instead of that 
 want of evidence in the New Testament, with respect 
 to the divinity of Christ, of which you repeatedly 
 speak, and in strong terms, I find evidence almost 
 everywhere to illustrate and confirm the doctrine in 
 question. 
 
 Thus have I endeavoured to show that the New 
 Testament bestows upon Christ the appellation of 
 God, accompanied by such adjuncts as naturally, not 
 to say necessarily, lead us to understand this word in 
 its highest sense — that it attributes to him equality 
 with God — that it represents him as the Creator, Pre- 
 server, and Governor of the universe ; declares his 
 omniscience, his omnipotence, and his eternity ; and, 
 both by precepts and examples, exhibits Christ as the 
 object of prayer and divine worship, by the church in 
 heaven and on earth. To these conclusions do the 
 plain rules of exegesis necessarily conduct me. I am 
 sensible that allegations are frequently made, that we 
 receive our systems of belief from the creeds and con- 
 fessions of faith, which have descended from former 
 unenlightened and superstitious or philosophizing ages. 
 That some of our phraseology has been derived from 
 men who sometimes speculated too boldly, and substi- 
 
103 
 
 tuted names for ideas, I am ready to concede. I feel 
 the embarrassments that, on account of this, are occa- 
 sionally thrown in the way of inculcating truth at the 
 present time. Men are very apt to suppose that, if 
 you throw away the old terms or names > you reject 
 the old ideas also. Yet it can be only superficial 
 thinkers who will soberly believe this. It is in gene- 
 ral, therefore, a sufficient reason w T ith me for dismis- 
 sing phraseology, when it must, almost of necessity, be 
 misunderstood by the great body of men. Yet a sud- 
 den and entire revolution in the common technical 
 terms of theology, would be very undesirable ; be- 
 cause such a revolution must again lead, at first, to 
 other misapprehensions. I am willing, therefore, to 
 retain many terms, which have become venerable for 
 their antiquity, that I should reject without hesitation, 
 if they were now presented de novo. 
 
 I am not conscious of being led to the adoption of 
 Trinitarian views, or to the ascription of true and pro- 
 per divinity to Christ, by any creed or any human 
 authority on earth. Unless I am quite ignorant of 
 myself, the only influence which creeds and confes- 
 sions exercise over me is to modify my phraseology. 
 I take the language of theology as I find it ; and do 
 not venture upon the composition of a new nomen- 
 clature. 
 
 My sole business, these ten years past, has been 
 the study of the Bible ; and the study of it, in the 
 daily use of those principles of exegesis, which you 
 have, for the most part, so briefly and so happily de- 
 scribed. I began this study, as I believed, with a de- 
 sire to know what the Bible has taught. 1 have pur- 
 sued it with increased desire, with unabated ardour. 
 I have limited my studies to no one class of writers ; 
 but have solicitously endeavoured to seek for truth, 
 and to receive it thankfully, from whatever quarter it 
 might come. In particular, at least three quarters of 
 my time have been spent among writers of the Unita- 
 rian class, from whom I have received, with gratitude, 
 much instruction relative to the philology, the exegesis, 
 and the literary history of the Scriptures. I am accus- 
 
 I 
 
104 
 
 tomed to reject any explanation of the Scriptures that 
 is not founded upon the general principles of exegesis 
 which you have developed. Whether an orthodox or 
 heterodox use can be made of any interpretation, is 
 what I habitually endeavour to lay out of view when I 
 interpret the Scriptures. The simple question which 
 I desire to place before me is, "What has God said? 
 What has Christ taught ?" I aim at being guided by 
 the fundamental principles of explanation in all writ- 
 ings, when I pursue these inquiries in the Scriptures. 
 And when I come to a satisfactory answer, I regard 
 this as of divine authority — as real orthodoxy, in the 
 highest and best sense of the word. 
 
 I do not, indeed, regard the opinions of great and 
 good men, in past ages, as unworthy of attention and 
 even of reverence. If I read them with a proper tem- 
 per of mind, there are few of them who may not be 
 read with profit. The reasonings of Athanasius and 
 Augustine I can peruse with pleasure ; so I can those 
 of Calvin and Edwards. But I adopt no opinion because 
 they adopted it. The reasons of their opinion are the 
 object of my investigation : It is of but little interest to 
 me, to know simply that they believed this or that doc- 
 trine. And with the very same object, I read the oppo- 
 nents of these great men. I can say with truth, that 
 much more of my reading life has been spent among 
 the opponents of my sentiments, than among the friends 
 of them. Can you make the same affirmation? 
 
 After all, it is a principle by which, if I have any 
 knowledge of my own heart, 1 desire for ever to be 
 guided to " call no man master on earth." I would 
 place the decision of Scripture, fairly made out, immea- 
 surably above all human opinions. I regard the one 
 as the decision of an unerring God, the other as the 
 opinions of fallible men. 
 
 It is with such views and principles of reasoning 
 that I have come to the conclusions which have been 
 developed in these Letters. 
 
 And now, in concluding this Letter, permit me to 
 say, th?t as reason does not and cannot decide against 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, as explained in my second 
 
105 
 
 Letter, nor against the union of the divine and human 
 natures in Christ, the question whether these are truths 
 or not rests solely on the decision of revelation. What 
 then is that decision ? This question I have endea- 
 voured to answer. 
 
 I will now acknowledge that I was induced to un- 
 dertake the above examination, in consequence of the 
 challenge which you make (p. 9) in the following 
 words, — " We challenge our opponents to adduce one 
 passage in the New Testament, where the word God, 
 unless turned from its usual sense by the connex- 
 ion, does not mean the Father." I have accepted this 
 challenge, not, I hope, in the spirit of contest, but with 
 the desire of contributing, so far as lies in my power, 
 to develope what the New Testament does teach. I 
 have laboured to show, that the very reason, above alf 
 other reasons, why I believe Christ to be truly divine, 
 is because the connexion, when he is called God, ascribes 
 to him such attributes and works as leave me no room to 
 doubt that the New Testament writers meant to assert his 
 proper divinity. 
 
 After stating your apprehensions in regard to the 
 doctrine that Christ has two natures, the belief of 
 which, you affirm, is M an enormous tax on human cre- 
 dulity," you say (p. 14), " I am aware that these re- 
 marks will be met by two or three texts, in which 
 Christ is called God, and by a class of passages not 
 very numerous, in which divine properties are said to 
 be ascribed to him." Whether the number of texts 
 in which Christ is called God, amounts to no more 
 than two or three, it would be superfluous now to in- 
 quire, when they lie before us, and can easily be count- 
 ed. We can also judge whether the " class of pas- 
 sages " is " not very numerous, in which divine pro- 
 perties are said to be ascribed to him," with equal fa- 
 cility. It is too late, however, for you and me to rest 
 our faith upon the number of passages that inculcate a 
 doctrine. We have conceded the Bible to be of divine 
 authority. The simple question is, what, according to 
 the rules of interpretation in all other cases, does any 
 passage mean? This being ascertained, only two 
 
 12 
 
106 
 
 courses are before us, — the one, to receive its meaning 
 as the guide of our faith ; the other \ to reject its autho- 
 rity, and deny our obligation to believe the decisions 
 of the Scripture. If the New Testament does teach 
 that Christ is not really divine, but a finite creature, 
 and this can be made out by an unbiassed interpreta- 
 tion of it, I will either receive this doctrine- receive 
 it implicitly (for, if I am not deceived in respect to my- 
 self, I only desire to know what God has taught, in 
 order to believe it) — or else I will reject all claims to 
 inspiration in the sacred writers, and follow their in- 
 structions only so far as they coincide with my own 
 speculations. I am fully satisfied that there is no mid- 
 dle part here ; and that a man who investigates for 
 himself, extensively and independently, must eventu- 
 ally follow one or the other of these courses. 
 
 Convince me, then, that you apply the principles of 
 interpretation which you have laid down in an unbias- 
 sed manner, and that the Xew Testament does, accord- 
 ing to them, clearly teach that Jesus is not, and can- 
 not, be divine, and you will make me a convert to the 
 doctrines (at least some of them) which you embrace. 
 Where the Apostles lead me, I will go, or else re- 
 nounce all deference to them. While I have a being 
 also, I will cherish a grateful remembrance of any man 
 who shall convince me, by sound reasoning, that I am 
 in an error, and am wandering from the paths of life. 
 
 But you will allow me to say, what you will doubt- 
 less affirm of yourself, " I cannot be convinced, until I 
 am satisfied that my principles of interpretation are 
 wrong, and my application of them erroneous." You 
 have described (p. 14) in what manner you avoid the 
 conclusion drawn from those texts which call Christ 
 God, and which apparently ascribe divine attributes to 
 him. On the principles of exegesis there disclosed, I 
 shall remark in another Letter. I will at present say 
 only, that they appear to me far from being well esta- 
 blished. 
 
 Your candour will easily concede, that the positions 
 which I have just laid down are correct, and are such 
 as become every sincere lover of truth. I am very 
 
107 
 
 ready to grant that we ought not to expect to convince 
 you and your friends, by using reproachful epithets or 
 severe appellations. We cannot convince you, by ap- 
 pealing to our New England Fathers or their creeds — 
 to the ancient Fathers of the Church, or any body of 
 men whatever. You may always reply to us, " Are 
 not men fallible ? and have not the best of uninspired 
 men cherished some errors ? Give us the reasons why 
 our Fathers received the doctrines in question, and 
 then we will hear you. The fact that they did receive 
 them is a part of Church history, but certainly no theo- 
 logical argument. The Papal hierarchy is supported 
 by the Fathers ; and there never has been a sect in 
 Christendom who could not, sooner or later, make an 
 appeal to Fathers whom they respected." 
 
 Nor can we convince you, by a tenacious and unrea- 
 sonable opposition to all critical examination of the 
 New Testament, or by throwing out hints in our ser- 
 mons or writings, that critical studies belong only to 
 those who have a wish to be heretical or sceptical, or 
 by a forced and mystical explanation of various pas- 
 sages of Scripture, and converting them to the support 
 of sentiments which they never were designed to sup- 
 port. The sound rules of interpretation will soon 
 sweep away every vestige of such defective opinions 
 about the Word of God ; and orthodoxy must stand or 
 fall, by the simple decision of the Scriptures, inter- 
 preted according to the general laws of language. 
 
 On the other hand, you will as cheerfully concede, 
 too, that we cannnot be convinced by calling us hard 
 names — by misrepresenting our sentiments — by prov- 
 ing that Calvin helped to burn Servetus — by affirming 
 that our sentiments come from creeds and confessions 
 of human authority, fabricated by superstition and phi- 
 losophy — by representing us as gloomy, superstitious, 
 malignant, and unsocial — by appropriating to Unita- 
 rians all this kind and noble, and generous and exalt- 
 ed, and leaving to us the opposites of these virtues — 
 by affirming that we are desirous of infringing Christian 
 liberty and establishing an inquisition to defend our 
 sentiments, and exhorting others to resist such tyranny 
 
 13 
 
108 
 
 — or by representing us as admitting in words that 
 God is kind and paternal, while we think meanly of 
 him, and treat him as the Heathen did their Jupiter. 
 Such things may add fuel to the fire of controversy ; 
 but can the lover of truth and the Word of God be con- 
 vinced by them ? They are the arts indeed of contro- 
 versialists — and arts like them, I am sorry to say, are 
 not confined to any one party. Passion has more con- 
 trol over disputants than they are aware of. Zeal for 
 what they believe to be truth is what they think in- 
 spires them ; while perhaps their words or the spirit 
 of their representations "breathe out threatenings," if 
 not " slaughter," to their opponents. I hardly dare 
 trust myself to write this paragraph, lestl should catch 
 the spirit while I am describing it. I know, in some 
 measure, how frail I am ; but 1 think I do sincerely 
 disapprove of such a spirit, in whatever party it may 
 be found. 
 
 In consulting writers of different views and senti- 
 ments, one is grieved to find how much of this spirit is 
 indulged. 1 have seen it even in many great and good 
 men. Possessed of feelings naturally ardent, I feel 
 that there is reason to tremble for myself, lest I may, 
 in some respect or other, transgress the laws of Chris- 
 tian propriety in these Letters, and hinder something of 
 the conviction, in the minds of some, which they might 
 possibly produce. 
 
 In one thing we shall certainly be agreed: The so- 
 ber inquirer after truth must be convinced by reason 
 and argument. All else is nothing to him. And, where 
 these lead him, he will go. The path of truth is the 
 path of duty. The approbation of God for a sincere, 
 candid, honest, believing heart, is worth infinitely more 
 than all the honour which party-zeal can bestow, or 
 the world is able to give. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, 
 
 In my last Letter I endeavoured to offer reasons why 
 I believe that Christ is truly divine. You will very 
 
109 
 
 naturally expect me to take some notice of those texts 
 on which you would specially rely, to prove his inferi- 
 ority to the Father. This 1 must do ; but in as sum- 
 mary a manner as possible : Not because it would not 
 be easy to say much, even more easy than to write 
 briefly, and yet with perspicuity, but because there 
 would be danger of protracting the subject, and tiring 
 the patience of both writer and reader. 
 
 Let me begin, then, by stating certain things which 
 are intimately connected with the subject in question. 
 While 1 believe that Christ is truly divine, I believe 
 that he is as truly human — that he was a real man, and 
 lived, acted, suffered, and died as a man. He resem- 
 bled, however, man in his primitive state, i. e. Adam, 
 as he came out of the hands of his Maker. He was 
 pure and sinless ; but he possessed all the feelings and 
 all the innocent infirmities of human nature. I know 
 no proposition that can be proved from the New Tes- 
 tament if this cannot ; nor do I know of an opinion 
 more inconsistent with the whole history of Jesus than 
 that of the Docetse, who averred that Christ was a man 
 in appearance merely, and not in reality. 
 
 I regret that I am not able to find in your sermon 
 an intimation that Christ was truly and properly a man. 
 All that you appear to maintain is, that he was a being 
 distinct from the Father, and inferior to him. Perhaps 
 I must retract, therefore, my sentence against the Do- 
 cetse, lest I should seem to have treated your opinion 
 with severity. But the state of my mind, in regard to 
 the weight of evidence, I cannot retract. If the evi- 
 dence be not overwhelming that Christ was perfectly 
 a man, I cannot conceive it possible that any point in 
 theology or morals is capable of being established by 
 the language of the New Testament. 
 
 The Gnostics maintained, that from the Supreme Di- 
 vinity proceeded certain Eons, who were a kind of 
 lesser gods {dii mi?iores), and one of which (Christ) 
 created the world. This Eon descended upon Jesus 
 at his baptism and forsook him at his crucifixion. In 
 what important respect that opinion differs from this, 
 
110 
 
 which holds that Christ had a super-angelic soul united 
 to a human body, I confess I cannot see. The Soci- 
 nian theory seems to me incomparably more rational 
 and more tenable than any shade of the Arian hypo- 
 thesis. If the evidence be not complete that Christ 
 was really a man from his birth, actions, sufferings, 
 death, and affirmations respecting himself, then how is 
 it to be proved that Christ ever existed at all ? And 
 will any one refuse his assent to the proposition that 
 Christ possessed a divine nature because he cannot see 
 how a union of the divine and human natures could 
 take place, and yet believe that a human body was united 
 to a soul not human? To what order or class of beings, 
 then, does this new compound and strangely-mixed per- 
 son belong? He is not divine — he is not human, for 
 a human soul is surely essential to human nature — nor 
 is he angelic, for angels have no corporeal forms. Are 
 we to be freed from mystery, then, by such a theory ? 
 It seems to me if there be mystery in any theory which 
 has ever been proposed, respecting the person of Christ, 
 it may surely be found here. 1 will not say (as you do 
 about the twofold nature of Christ, in which we believe) 
 that " it is an enormous tax upon human credulity ," 
 but I can say, that it appears to me as much like such 
 a tax as any theory with which the Church has hitherto 
 been agitated. I can never bring myself to view it as 
 probable, in any degree, unless I find it in the Scrip- 
 tures. But there 1 find that the Logos, who existed 
 before the world was made, was God — that God who 
 created the universe. I cannot then admit him to be a 
 super-angelic being simply, until I amconvinced'either 
 that John was mistaken, or that his language has a 
 different meaning from that which it appears to have. 
 
 As to the theory, which maintains that Christ was 
 God's own proper Son, before the creation of the world 
 vof course before his incarnation), and God's own Son 
 in the same sense or in as real and proper a sense as 
 Solomon was the son of David, it is natural to ask, 
 first, Who, then, was his Mother? And, secondly, 
 How much does such a theory of Divinities in the 
 
Ill 
 
 Christian syst m differ from that which admitted a Jo- 
 piter and hfs progeny to be gods, among the Greeks 
 and Romans? 
 
 We do then (if you will allow me to use your own 
 expressive words, though applied by you in a connex- 
 ion somewhat different), k ' we do maintain that the hu- 
 man properties and circumstances of Christ, his birth, 
 sufferings, and death — his praying to God, his ascrib- 
 ing to God all his power and offices — the acknowledged 
 properties of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret " 
 them of human nature ; and to draw the conclusion, 
 that, whatever could be predicated of a real man, pious 
 and sinless, might be predicated of him. How would 
 he — how could he — have assumed our nature (except, 
 as the Docetce affirmed that he did, — viz. in appearance 
 only), unless every thing could be predicated of him 
 which properly belongs to man ? Accordingly, we 
 know that he increased in wisdom, stature, and favour 
 with God and man — that he ate, drank, slept, laboured 
 — was fatigued, hungry, thirsty — rejoiced and sympa- 
 thized with his brethren, wept, was in an agony — ■ 
 prayed, bled, died, was buried, and rose again. If 
 these things do not for ever exclude all hope of mak- 
 ing any shade of the Arian theory probable, 1 must 
 confess myself a stranger to the nature of evidence, and 
 to what the New Testament contains. 
 
 To return to my purpose. The proper humanity of 
 Christ being considered as an established fact, 1 have 
 one general observation to make on the principles of 
 exegesis, which are connected with it. 
 
 It is this : That in as much as Christ has truly a 
 human nature, every thing said of him in respect to 
 this nature must necessarily be spoken of him in a ca- 
 pacity, in which he is inferior to the Father. In a 
 word, as his human nature is inferior to the divine, so, 
 whatever has relation to it, or is predicated of it, must, 
 of course, be that which implies inferiority to the di- 
 vine. 
 
 Do you ask me how you shall distinguish when a 
 text speaks of Christ in respect to his human nature, 
 or in respect to his divine nature ? I answer, just as 
 
112 
 
 when you speak of a man, you distinguish whether 
 what is said relates to his body or his soul. When I 
 say Abraham is dead, 1 mean, obviously, his mortal 
 part. When I say Abraham is alive, I mean, ob- 
 viously, his immortal part. When the Evangelist 
 says that Jesus increased in stature and wisdom, and 
 in favour with God and man — that he ate, drank, 
 slept, prayed, suffered, died, and rose again — he ob- 
 viously means that his human nature did this. When 
 he affirms that the Logos is God, and made the uni- 
 verse, and when Paul says that he is " supreme God, 
 blessed for ever," I cannot help thinking it to be 
 equally obvious, that they predicate this of his divine 
 nature. The simple answer to your question then, is, 
 that we must determine which nature is described, by 
 what is affirmed concerning it. The subject is known 
 by its predicates. 
 
 To the remarks just made on the proper humanity 
 of Christ, and the principles of exegesis which result 
 from it, let me add, 
 
 Secondly, That the appellation Father is not always 
 used to designate that distinction in the Godhead, 
 which we commonly describe by calling it the first 
 person ; but that it is sometimes a general title of the 
 divine nature. (See Deut. xxxii. 6. Is. Ixiii. 16; 
 Ixiv. 3. Matt. v. 16, 48; vi. 4; vii. 11. John viii. 
 41.) In the same manner (Kug/os) Lord is applied 
 often to Christ in particular, and to God as a general 
 appellation. The Divinity is called Father, on ac- 
 count of that peculiar and provident care which he 
 extends to all the creatures of his power. He is 
 called Lord (Kvpio?), because of his universal do- 
 minion. 
 
 Proper attention to this obvious principle will ex- 
 plain several passages, which have been thought to 
 relate merely to what is denominated the first person 
 in the Trinity ; and to ascribe properties to him in an 
 exclusive manner. 
 
 Thirdly, There is another observation which I can- 
 not refrain from making here, and which seems to me 
 of great importance, in regard to our mode of think- 
 
113 
 
 ing and reasoning, on the subject of the distinction in 
 the Godhead. This is, that no terms, which are ap- 
 plied by the Scriptures to designate this distinction, 
 or to predicate any thing of it, can be supposed fully 
 and definitely to express what exists in the Godhead, 
 or what is done by it. The obvious reason of this 
 is, that the language of men (being all formed from 
 perceptions of finite objects, by beings who are of 
 yesterday, and whose sphere of knowledge is ex? 
 tremely limited) cannot possibly be adequate to ex- 
 press jully and definitely what pertains to the self- 
 existent and infinite God. How often do men forget 
 this in their reasonings about the Deity ! In some 
 things nearly all men agree in observing caution, with 
 regard to language which is applied to God. When 
 the Scripture speaks of his having eyes, ears, hands, 
 feet, &c, all men of a sound mind understand these 
 terms as figurative ; for the obvious reason that "God 
 is a spirit," and that things of this nature can be lite- 
 rally predicated only of human beings that have flesh 
 and blood. We mean to say, God sees, God /tears, 
 God moves, &c, when we attribute to him those mem- 
 bers which we employ in performing such actions. 
 And still, this is only the language of approximation 
 to full description. What corresponds in the infinite, 
 omniscient, omnipresent Spirit, to our seeing, and 
 hearing, and moving, &c, must necessarily be differ- 
 ent, in many important respects, from all these things 
 in us. 
 
 When we say " God is in heaven ; the Lord looked 
 down, or came down, from heaven ; Jehovah sits upon 
 a throne high and lifted up," — or when we predicate 
 any thing of him, which corresponds to the exaltation 
 and magnificence of earthly monarchs, — we understand, 
 of course, that this language is not to be taken lite- 
 rally, and as being fully adequate to the description 
 aimed at, but only as that of approximation. When 
 we say " God is angry ; God hates ; God scorns ; the 
 Lord will deride, will laugh, will frown, will abhor," 
 &c, do we predicate all these things of God in Sl 
 literal manner, or do we understand them all as con- 
 
114 
 
 veying to us an idea of something in the divine affec* 
 tions, actions, or mode of treating us, which corre- 
 sponds to something that is in men, or which they do? 
 The answer is very obvious ; and in all this use of 
 language, we apprehend or feel little or no difficulty. 
 At least, none but enthusiastic visionaries, who would 
 fain make heaven like earth, and God like them- 
 selves ; or ignorant men, whose thoughts are chained 
 down to objects of sense, as to be incapable of eleva- 
 tion above them, are embarrassed by such expressions 
 or substantially misapprehend them. 
 
 Are we not now prepared to advance one step far- 
 ther ? May we not say, when the Scripture speaks 
 of the Logos, as becoming flesh and dwelling among 
 us — of his dwelling in the bosom of the Father — of his 
 coming from God and being sent of him — of his hum- 
 bling himself, and taking upon himself the condition 
 of a servant, and other things of a like nature,— that we 
 are not to suppose this language is adequate to de- 
 scribe, fully and definitely, the incarnation of the 
 Logos, or his distinction from, or connexion with, the 
 Father ? If I may be allowed so to express my- 
 self, It is all language of approximation. It is so of 
 course, and necessarily, as it regards any description 
 of the manner of these things. Language, from its 
 very nature, must be inadequate to such descrip- 
 tion. It was not formed with such facts in view ; 
 and finite beings, with knowledge so limited as ours, 
 may well be supposed incapable of forming it, so as to 
 be adequate to the full and definite description of what 
 pertains to the Divinity. It may, nevertheless, express 
 enough to excite our highest interest, and to command 
 our best obedience, if we feel and act as rational be- 
 ings. And so much is undoubtedly accomplished in 
 the case which has just been stated. 
 
 The principle of exegesis here exhibited, had it been 
 early acknowledged, and generally regarded in prac- 
 tice, would have saved the world much dispute, and 
 two classes of men, in particular, much trouble. The 
 one of these are men who, while admitting the inade- 
 quacy of language, in other respects, fully and de- 
 
115 
 
 finitely to describe the Divinity, have taken it for grant- 
 ed here, that no such inadequateness was to be found, 
 and have sought to define and distinguish, until they 
 have overwhelmed themselves and their readers with 
 subtilties too tenuous for comprehension. The other, 
 hostile to the doctrine of a distinction in the Godhead, 
 have forced upon the expressions in question a sense 
 that was far-fetched, and which violence only could 
 make them to speak. It seems to me, that the path of 
 sound reason and common sense is the medium be- 
 tween these two extremes. I would not do violence 
 to the expressions in question, nor would I understand 
 them as fully and definitely describing what does exist 
 in -God, or is done by him. 1 believe they are the 
 language ofappt oximaiion ; that they signify something 
 which is in God, or something that has been done by 
 him, that corresponds to those things among men, 
 which would be described by similar language — some- 
 thing of the highest interest, of the deepest moment 
 to the v* elfare of the human race. And though it might 
 gratify my curiosity, and perhaps my pride, to know 
 something more of the divine constitution, or mode of 
 existing and acting, yet I can have no assurance, no 
 good reason to believe, that it would contribute at pre- 
 sent to facilitate my duties or increase my happiness. 
 I certainly have no good reason to suppose, that, in 
 the present state, I am capable of understanding such 
 subjects, beyond what is already revealed respecting 
 them. 
 
 Fourthly, The attentive observer cannot but notice, 
 that whether we contemplate God in his works or in 
 his word, we cannot fail of finding things which are be- 
 yond our comprehension or power of explanation. The 
 book of nature and of revelation, so far as they bring 
 to view the being, character, and designs of the self- 
 existent and infinite God, who created and governs the 
 world, must contain many passages of the meaning of 
 which we can never obtain more than a general and 
 imperfect knowledge. " We know but in part." 
 
 In offering, then, to the mind a view of what God is, 
 and what he has done, we do not expect (at least we 
 
 K 
 
116 
 
 cannot reasonably expect) that this view should be all 
 light, without any shade. Admitting that the Scrip- 
 tures are of divine origin and authority, the question 
 between us and Unitarians, in respect to what is re- 
 vealed about the divine Being, is not whether the view 
 which we suppose the Bible gives, is embarrassed by 
 no obscurities — is without a shade — or whether theirs 
 is such. The proper question is, Taking it for grant- 
 ed that what the Scriptures declare is true, which view, 
 on the whole, comports best with the language of the 
 sacred writings? — which is attended with the least em» 
 barrassment, all things considered? I well know, that 
 a moderate portion of sagacity will suffice to enable any 
 one to press many questions upon Trinitarians, that 
 are of difficult solution- many which are, in our pre- 
 sent state, incapable of any solution. But I believe 
 that the same degree of sagacity would enable one to 
 raise more formidable difficulties still in the way of 
 Unitarian sentiments. 
 
 In expounding texts of Scripture, therefore, which 
 relate to the present subject in dispute, I am not very 
 solicitous to give an interpretation which shall be above 
 all question or embarrassment, whenever it appears to 
 me that a different or contrary exposition will be at- 
 tended with still greater embarrassments. 
 
 With the preceding observations before us, let me 
 proceed to remark on some of the New Testament re- 
 presentations of Christ, which have been supposed to 
 present difficulties in regard to the views that Trinita- 
 rians defend. 
 
 Christ, in his mediatorial capacity, is, as I apprehend, 
 ever to be regarded as that complex person who may 
 be described as human or divine, — in like manner as 
 we may say of ourselves, we are mortal or immortal. 
 As Mediator then, it may be truly said, that by his 
 obedience he merited and obtained a high reward, — » 
 i.e., this is predicated of that nature which was capable 
 of obeying, and of being rewarded. So God is said to 
 have " highly exalted him, and given him a name above 
 every name." (Phil. ii. 9 — 11.) In a similar way, all 
 power is given him in heaven, and in earth ; i, e. he is 
 
H7 
 
 Constituted " head over all things to his Church." 
 (Matt, xxviii. 18.) Acting as such a head, " all ene- 
 mies are put under his feet;" (I Cor. xv. 25 — 2^.) And 
 this mediatorial dominion, when the work of a media- 
 tor is completed, will be resigned, at the final judgment. 
 (1 Cor. xv. 28.) 
 
 Of the same tenour are many passages. When God 
 is said to be the head of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), I under- 
 stand it of that nature, of which this can be predicated. 
 When Christ is called the image of the invisible God, 
 the brightness of the Father's glory and the express 
 image (^afaxr^) of his person, i. e. of him ; or the only 
 begotten of the Father, the Son of God ; God's own 
 Son ; God's beloved Son ; his dear Son, &c. ; 1 under- 
 stand all these as descriptions of his mediatorial nature 
 and station. I know indeed, that many of these texts 
 have been appropriated by some Trinitarians, to prove 
 the divine nature of Christ — in my apprehension, how- 
 ever, injudiciously, and without any solid reason. 
 Texts of this class may be found, — Matt. xvii. 5; John 
 i. 14, x.36, xiv. 10,ih\35 ; Col. i. 13; Heb. i. 5 ; Rom. 
 viii. 29, 32. 
 
 In Heb. v. / — 10, is a passage which has occasioned 
 much speculation. "Who in the days of his flesh, 
 when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with 
 strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save 
 him from death, and was heard in that he feared. 
 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by 
 the things which he suffered : And being made perfect, 
 he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them, 
 that obey him : Called of God an high priest, after the 
 order of Melchisedec." 
 
 If Christ had really a human nature, what is more 
 perfectly consonant with reason and piety, than that 
 he should act in the manner here described ; or than 
 that he should be exalted to glory, as the reward of 
 these actions, and be constituted the Saviour of his 
 people ? 
 
 It is certainly maoe difficult to satisfy the mind in 
 regard to John xiv. 28, — " My Father is greater O^wv) 
 than I." On examination, however, it appears not to 
 
 K2 
 
118 
 
 be the object of Jesus to compare his own nature with 
 that of the Father, but his condition. " If ye loved 
 me," said he to his weeping disciples, "ye would re- 
 joice that I said, I go unto the Father ; for the Father 
 is greater than I," — i. e., ye would rejoice that I am to 
 leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume 
 that " glory which I had with the Father before the 
 world was." You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to 
 bliss and glory with the Father. So, in Hebrew, greed 
 is used for a state of prosperity, a happy state. Gen. 
 xxvi. 13. 
 
 It is obvious here, that the whole text cannot be 
 consistently explained, without the supposition of two 
 natures, — the one which suffers and is depressd, in 
 which, too, that other nature acts, that was in a state 
 of glory with the Father before the world was, — i. <?., 
 from eternity. I cannot at all accede to the opinion 
 of those interpreters, who suppose that the glory here 
 spoken of is only that which the Father had decreed 
 from eternity that Christ should have, in consequence 
 of the promulgation of the gospel by him. The glory 
 spoken of is not one that will result from what is to 
 be done — it is a glory, i. e. a happiness or blessedness 
 which Christ had with the Father (~;c? tqv irareoa) before the 
 world was. On this passage the commentary of Kuinoel 
 may be consulted, who has defended this exposition, as 
 it seems to me, in a manner entirely unanswerable. 
 
 After all, it can be only in consequence of the pe- 
 culiar union of the Logos with Jesus, that his return to 
 the Father (so far as the Logos can be said to return) 
 can be spoken of; and only in reference to his humi- 
 liation-* that his leturn to glory can be expected. A 
 thousand questions can easily be raised, and as many 
 difficulties suggested ; but they all spring from constru- 
 ing the language literally, and not merely as language 
 which must, from the nature of the case, be that of ap- 
 proximation. 
 
 Mark xiii. 32 offers serious difficulties. " Of that 
 day and hour knoweth no man — no, not the angels 
 
 * 'SoOTM IXCMHfej gam* erasranwira, ^ He made himself void, he humlLd 
 himself." 
 
119 
 
 which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.'* 
 The day and hour are, according to some, the day of 
 judgment; but, as I apprehend (from comparing the 
 context), the day of vengeance to the Jews is meant. 
 To solve the difficulty presented, some have objected 
 to the reading ovfo 6 bw; (neither the Son) ; but, to sup~ 
 port this objection, there are no adequate authorities. 
 Others, with Hilary (de Trinitate ix.), say that not to 
 know is not to publish or declare. " Ea nescit, qua? aut in 
 tempore non sunt confitenda, aut non agnoscuntur ad 
 meritum." There is no doubt that the verb ynwfxa (to 
 know) sometimes has the sense of making known ; but a. 
 derivative of the verb £/&o (video, to see) is used here, 
 which does not bear such asense ; nor will the tenourof 
 the verse admit it. To say, " That day and hour no man 
 maketh known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the 
 Father," would be the same as saying that the Father 
 does make it known. But where has he revealed it? 
 After all, what more real difficulty presents itself in 
 this case than in that where Jesus is said to have in- 
 creased in wisdom ? Luke ii. 52. If he did possess 
 a nature really human, that nature was capable, of 
 course, of progressive improvement and knowledge. 
 And there is no proper method, as it appears to me, of 
 solving the difficulty, as the text stands, but by appro- 
 priating, as in other cases, the expression to that na- 
 ture of which the assertion made can be predicated. 
 
 John xvii. 3, "And this is life eternal, that they 
 might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
 whom thou hast sent." The true God here seems to 
 me, plainly, not opposed to, or contrasted with Christ; 
 but, as everywhere else, in case this expression is 
 used, oj)posed to idols. In the verse preceding Christ 
 says, " Thou hast given me power over Ahhflesh> that 
 thou mightest bestow eternal life upon ALL whom thou 
 hast given me," t. e. both Gentiles and Jews. He pro- 
 ceeds, — " This is eternal life, that they might know 
 thee, the only true God (the only God and true God, the 
 Greek is capable of being rendered, as to sense), and 
 Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Now, what is 
 there here different from that which we preach and in> 
 
 k3 
 
120 
 
 culcate every Sabbath? Do we not teach thai there is 
 one only living and true God? And that he sent his 
 Son to die for sinners ? And do we not insist that 
 eternal life is connected with the reception of these 
 truths? I really see no more difficulty here than in 
 the text, " God so loved the world that he sent his 
 only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
 should not perish but have everlasting life." 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 4 — 6, " 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 none other God but one. For though 
 there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or 
 earth (as there be gods many and lords many), but to 
 us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all 
 things, and we in him: And one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
 by whom are all things, and we by him." I have cited 
 several verses for the sake of introducing the context 
 From this it is plain that the one God, the Father, is 
 not here placed in opposition to Christ, but to the lords 
 many and gods many of the Heathen. If you insist 
 that the one God is in opposition to Christ, or excludes 
 him, then, for the same reason as Christ is the one 
 Lord O'S Kug/o;), you must insist that it is in opposition 
 to the Lordship (Ku^wjjs) of the Father ; and of course 
 denies the Lordship of Creation to him, It is plain, 
 however, according to my apprehension, that God and 
 Lord here are mere synonymes. (See verse 5th, where 
 Xsyo/Mvoi Qm is explained by ©so; xo/J.01 and K^/o/ cro?.Xo/). 
 Nothing is plainer than that Kvm; is a common title of 
 God in the Old Testament and the New. 
 
 Moreover, what is predicated of the one God and one 
 Lord, here is the same, — viz. they are the Author and 
 Preserver of all things. The use of the proposition 
 dia, in cases of this nature, has already been the sub- 
 ject of remark. 
 
 The nature of the whole case shows that the i\pos- 
 tle places the object of the Christian's worship in op- 
 position to the Heathen or idol gods. What, then, is 
 that object ? The one God the Father, and one Lord 
 Jesus Christ ; for whom are all things, and by whom 
 
121 
 
 are all things. The passage evidently holds out Christ 
 to be, in the same manner, the object of the Chris- 
 tian's worship as the Father is. And, as the Apostle 
 seems to me simply to assert the unity of God, in op- 
 position to idols, I am not able to perceive how the 
 divinity of the Saviour is impeached by it any more 
 than the Lordship of the Father is impeached by mak- 
 ing Christ the one Lord. To embrace my view of the 
 whole passage in a brief paraphrase : "Idols are no- 
 thing — there is but one God. There are indeed among 
 the Heathen such as are called gods {Xeyaftam 0=6/), who 
 comprise gods and lords many ; yet Christians have 
 only one object of worship — one God and Lord.'"' 
 
 John x. 25, 36, "If he called them gods, unto whom 
 the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be 
 broken ; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, 
 and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I 
 said, I am the Son of God ?" Christ had previously 
 said, "1 and my Father are one." At this the Jews 
 took up stones to stone him, u because, being a man, 
 he made himself God." It is perfectly clear that the 
 Jews frequently understood, or pretended to under- 
 stand, his affirmations respecting himself as amounting 
 to assertions that he was truly divine. In this case, 
 however, it is said that Jesus repelled such an inter- 
 pretation of his words by an explanation which shows 
 that he applied to himself the word God only in an in- 
 ferior sense. 
 
 I am not satisfied that the passage requires this exe- 
 gesis. The reply of Jesus is evidently argumentum 
 ad hominem. "If the Old Testament (the divine au- 
 thority of which you admit) calls them gods, to whom 
 the Word of God was addressed (Ps. lxxxii. 6) i. e. if 
 it call the magistrates of the Jews gods, is it not pro- 
 per that I, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent 
 into the world, should call myself the Son of God?" 
 If you are not offended when your Scriptures bestow 
 the title of Elohim upon civil magistrates merely, much 
 less is there reason to be angry when I, whom God 
 hath distinguished from all others, made preeminent 
 above them, and sent into the world on the designs of 
 
122 
 
 mercy, should call myself the Son of God. Verse 3/, 
 - — If 1 prove not the truth of these assertions by mira- 
 cles, then disbelieve them. Verse 38, — But, if 1 do, 
 believe the proof that may be drawn from my miracles, 
 that the Father is in me and I in him. Now, wherein 
 did Jesus explain away any thing which he had before 
 said ? The expression that the Father is in him and he 
 in the Father, I do not understand as asserting his di- 
 vine nature in a direct manner. It is a phrase which 
 is used to expres the idea that any one is (cojtjunctis* 
 nmusDeo) most nearly arid affectionately united with God. 
 (See 1 John iv. 16, where it is applied to Christians ; 
 also verses 12 and 13). 
 
 In the whole passage it appears plain to me, that 
 Jesus has not asserted any thing which could not be 
 predicated of himself as sustaining the office of Mes- 
 siah. He had called God his Father, and, as the Jews 
 Supposed, or seem to have supposed, in a peculiar and 
 appropriate sense. But it did not follow that by using 
 this term he meant to assert his divine nature. Ra- 
 ther the contrary appears. " Say ye of him whom the 
 father hath sanctified and sent into the world" i. e. the 
 Son of God, &c. Jesus does not undertake, then, to 
 answer the question here whether he is truly divine, 
 but simply to vindicate the language he had used a- 
 gainst the accusations of the Jews. "If your magi- 
 strates are called Elohim, is it presumption in me to 
 call myself the Son of God?" This leaves the ques- 
 tion unagitated as to his divine nature, but vindicates 
 the language which he had used against the malignant 
 aspersions of the Jews, by an argument drawn from 
 their own Scriptures. 
 
 It shows indeed, that the term "Son of God," does 
 not appropriately designate Christ as divine, but as 
 the incarnate Mediator — as him whom the Father hath 
 sanctified and sent into the world. Did the Father 
 sanctify and send into the world his Son as GOD, who 
 is infinitely perfect and immutable ? As Mediator, as 
 ^Messiah, Christ was sent into the world — as Son he 
 filled, and acted in a subordinate capacity — how, then, 
 can his being Son prove him to be divine ? Son of 
 
123 
 
 God indeed, by usage, has become a kind of 'proper 
 name ; and, in this view, designates occasionally a 
 distinction in the Godhead, which 1 believe to be eter- 
 nal. In this manner we very commonly use the term 
 now ; and in this way the Apostles sometimes use it. 
 (See Heb. i. 1 — 3) But this is, in Scripture, only an 
 occasional and secondary use of it. Commonly and ap- 
 propriately, it designates the incarnate Messiah as 
 born in a manner supernatural (Luke i 35, comp. iii. 
 38), as the special object of divine love. (Matt, xvii. 
 5. Col. i. J 3. John i i. 35), and as exhibiting the best 
 and highest resemblance of the Father (Col. i. 15. 
 Heb. i.^3. John i. 14, x. 38, xiv. 10.) Would theolo- 
 gians keep these ideas in view, I cannot help thinking 
 they might be able to understand each other better, 
 and to reason more conclusively. 
 
 I have thus summarily touched upon the principal 
 texts, which are employed by Unitarians, to oppose 
 the doctrines which 1 have been endeavouring to 
 defend. Whether I have violated the laws cf exe- 
 gesis in doing this, and whether you or I most de- 
 part from them, in explaining the texts which seem 
 to be at variance with the opinions that we de- 
 fend, must be left to the judgment of the intelligent 
 reader. 
 
 I must observe, however, before 1 close this Letter, 
 which concludes what I have at present to advance, in 
 respect to your sermon, that I do not omit making 
 observations on the rest of the sermon, because 1 ac- 
 cede to many things which you profess to believe, or 
 to the mode in which you have represented the senti- 
 ments of Trinitarians, in regard to various topics. I 
 might mention the manner in which you accuse us of 
 treating the moral attributes of God ; your appro- 
 priating to yourself and your party, by implication, 
 the exclusive belief in all that is amiable and excel- 
 lent in the Deity (pp. 15 — 18) ; your assertion that 
 the reproaches which you are obliged to encounter 
 are occasioned chiefly by your zeal to vindicate the 
 dishonoured goodness and rectitude of God (p. 18) ; 
 the manner in which you state our views of the atone* 
 
124 
 
 ment, and by implication appropriate to Unitarians 
 Only, many important things in which we all agree 
 {pp. 18- 21); the appropriation also to Unitarians only, 
 in a similar way, of many views respecting the love 
 of God, rational zeal in religion, and the benevolent 
 virtues ; and the intimations that we are opposed to 
 all that is excellent, and rational, and worthy of be- 
 lief. The manner in which you have treated these 
 topics, I do very much regret ; and I cannot think 
 that this is the way to convince opponents, or to ter- 
 minate disputes. If I have attempted to hold up you, 
 or Unitarians, to ridicule — if I have misrepresented 
 your sentiments — made any effort to use the argu* 
 mention ad invidiam — appealed to human authorities 
 to decide the question between us — or appealed to 
 any thing but the sober rules of exegesis — then I de- 
 sire to know it, and be humbled for it. I will not 
 say that I have not transgressed in any of these parti- 
 culars ; for who that knows the human heart does not 
 know that it is deceitful ? But, I can say sincerely, I 
 did not mean to transgress ; and that I will, with all 
 my heart, thank the man who, in the spirit of Chris- 
 tian love, will point out my error, and show me 
 wherein I have written in such a way as to endanger 
 or render repulsive the cause which I am advocating. 
 That cause I believe to be just; and 1 should regret 
 to employ any unfairness to defend it. What real in- 
 terest have we but to know the truth? And what but 
 simple argument can lead us to it? 
 
 I retire, then, from the field of review which the re* 
 tnainder of your sermon presents ; for, since the pres- 
 sure of my official duties, that cannot be abandoned or 
 neglected, is so great, I am compelled to relinquish 
 the idea, which I at first entertained, of pursuing the 
 investigation of the topics presented by the remainder 
 of your sermon. 
 
 I have but a few considerations to add, on the sub- 
 ject of the preceding pages ; which must be reserved 
 for another Letter. 
 
125 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, 
 
 In page 14th of your sermon, you inform us of the 
 method in which you explain those passages which 
 seem to speak of the divine nature of Christ. The 
 paragraph is as follows. 
 
 " I am aware, that these remarks will be met by two or three texts, 
 in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages, not very nu- 
 merous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him. To 
 these we offer one plain answer. We say, that it is one of the most e- 
 stabhshed and obvious principles of criticism, that language is to be ex- 
 plained according to the known properties of the subject to which it is 
 applied. Every man knows, that the same words convey very different 
 ideas, when used in relation to different beings. Thus, Soloman built 
 the Temple in a different manner from the architect whom he employed ; 
 and God repents differently from man. Now, we maintain, that the 
 known properties and circumstances of Christ, his birth, sufferings, and 
 death, his constant habit of speaking of God as a distinct being from 
 himself, his praying to God, his ascribing to God all his power and of- 
 fices, these acknowledged properties of Christ, we say, oblige us to in- 
 terpret the comparatively few passages, which are thought to make him 
 the supreme God, in a manner consistent with his distinct and inferior 
 nature. Is it our duty to explain such texts, by the rule which we ap- 
 ply to other texts, in which human beings are culled gods, and are said 
 to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and possess all things, and 
 to be filled with all God's fulness. These latter passages we do not 
 hesitate to modify, and restrain, and turn from the most obvious sense, 
 because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the beings to 
 whom they relate ; and we maintain that we adhere to the same princi- 
 ple, and use no greater latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages 
 which are thought to support the Godhead of Christ." 
 
 I must hesitate, however, to adopt this principle, 
 without examining its nature and tendency. On the 
 supposition that you admit the Bible to be a revela* 
 tion from God, as you aver, permit me to ask, whe- 
 ther it is the object of a revelation to disclose truths 
 which are not known, or are insufficiently established ; 
 or whether it is the object of a revelation to disclose 
 truths already known and established ? If you an- 
 swer, The latter ; then your answer denies, of course, 
 that it is a revelation. What the book of nature ex- 
 hibits, the Scriptures do not reveal. Is there, then, 
 any thing in the Scriptures, which the book of nature 
 does not exhibit ? If you concede this, then I ask, 
 How are we, on your ground, to obtain any notion of 
 
126 
 
 that thing which was unknown before it was revealed ? 
 — e. g. the resurrection of the body is revealed. Now 
 it is a known property of the human body to corrupt 
 and perish. Shall I construe a passage of Scripture, 
 then, in such a manner as to contradict this known pro- 
 perty ? If not, then I can never suppose the resur- 
 rection of the body to be revealed. I, however, do 
 construe the Scriptures so as to contradict this appa- 
 rently known property of the human body — following 
 the obvious assertion of the sacred writers, and not 
 allowing myself to force a constructive meaning upon 
 their language. Yet, if I understand you, I am at li- 
 berty " to restrain and modify, and turn the words 
 from their most obvious sense," because this sense is 
 opposed to the known properties of the matter of 
 which our bodies are composed. 
 
 The case is just the same, in regard to any other 
 fact or doctrine. What I know already of a thing is, 
 if you are correct, " to modify and restrain, and turn 
 from their obvious sense," the words which are em- 
 ployed in revealing it, because what is revealed, I 
 suppose to be at variance with some known doctrines 
 or properties. Is there not room here for great cau- 
 tion, and great doubt as to the correctness of your 
 principle ? 
 
 According to this principle, moreover, the Scrip 
 tures may be construed very differently by persons of 
 different degrees of knowledge. One man knows the 
 properties of things far more extensively than his 
 neighbour. He sees that what is revealed may con- 
 sist with known properties of things ; but his neigh- 
 bour, who lacks this knowledge, is unable to perceive 
 the consistency of revelation with what he knows ; 
 and this, because his knowledge does not qualify him 
 to judge, or because what he thinks he knows, he is 
 really ignorant of. The same text in the Bible, there- 
 fore, may be received by one, as a consistent part of 
 revelation, and rejected by the other. The measure 
 of a man's knowledge, consequently, cannot be a 
 proper test by which the meaning of Scripture is to be 
 proved . 
 
127 
 
 But you will say, "1 can never believe in the reality 
 of a revelation which contradicts my reason." I ac- 
 cede. And here is the very place where I find the 
 greatest difficulty with your theory of interpretation. 
 You do not seem to me to carry your objections back 
 to the proper place. If God manifest in theflish be an 
 absurdity — a palpable contradiction — " an enormous 
 tax upon human credulity," as you aver — then the 
 claims of the book which asserts this are no doubt to 
 be disregarded. What is palpable contradiction we 
 certainly can never believe. 
 
 But, in determining what the Scriptures have taught, 
 we have no right to say, that because any particular 
 doctrine is repugnant to our views, therefore we will 
 " modify and restrain, and turn from the obvious 
 sense," the words in which it is conveyed. The rules 
 of exegesis are not a mass of wax, which can be mould- 
 ed at pleasure into any shape that we may fancy. We 
 do as great violence to reason — to the first principles 
 of all reasoning — when we reject these rules, as when 
 we admit absurdities to be true. 
 
 In case an obscure term is used, I acknowledge that 
 clear passages relating to the same subject, are to be 
 adduced to ascertain its meaning. If Christ had been 
 simply called God, I should allow that this term might 
 be explained by its use as applied to inferior beings : 
 But when the sacred writers themselves have explain- 
 ed the meaning which they attach to it, by telling us 
 that Christ is the God who created and governs the 
 world — who is omniscient and eternal — the object of 
 religious worship and prayer — God over all, or su- 
 preme God (not to mention " the true God," and the 
 " Great God") — there is no law of exegesis, no me- 
 thod of interpretation, which can obscure their mean- 
 ing, that is not violence — an infringement of the fun- 
 damental principles of interpretation, and therefore an 
 abandonment of the first principles of our reason. It 
 does appear to me, therefore, that my only resort in 
 such a case is, to reject their authority, if 1 disbelieve 
 the doctrine. To say that they did not mean to teach 
 what they most obviously have taught, I cannot — must 
 
 L 
 
128 
 
 not — no book can be understood — no writer can be 
 interpreted at all — by such a rule of exegesis, without 
 forcing upon him the opinions of his readers. My 
 system of philosophy, we will say, differs from yours. 
 What you view to be a palpable contradiction and ab- 
 surdity, I view as rational and consistent. This, we 
 know, is not an uncommon fact. In reading a book, 
 then, that respects the subject of our differing opi- 
 nions, you hold yourself bound to construe it, so as to 
 save all that appears to you contradictory or absurd : 
 I interpret it just as its language obviously means, by 
 the common laws of exegesis, which do not depend on 
 my philosophy. This book, then, may have two dif- 
 ferent meanings, according to us, in the same pas- 
 sages. Is this so? Can it be? Or rather, are not 
 the laws of interpretation independent of you or me ? 
 If not, how can the meaning of any writer be ever ob- 
 tained ? 
 
 You and I differ as to what John has taught in the 
 first chapter of his gospel. I commence reading him 
 with the full conviction that I cannot determine a pri- 
 ori, in all respects, what the nature of God and Christ 
 is, and with the belief that John wrote what is a reve- 
 lation from heaven. 1 read John, and interpret him 
 just as I do any other author, ancient or modern, by 
 the general rules of exegesis, modified by the special 
 circumstances and dialect in which he wrote. 1 am as 
 well satisfied that he meant to assert the truly divine 
 nature of the Logos, as 1 am that he has made any asser- 
 tion at all. I receive this assertion, therefore, as de- 
 claring a fact which I ought to believe, and which, if I 
 admit his inspiration, I must believe. In the same 
 manner I treat all other passages which respect this 
 subject. I come in this way to the conclusion that 
 Christ is truly divine — that he has a human and divine 
 nature so united (I undertake not to tell in what man- 
 ner), that he speaks of either nature as himself. The 
 passages which seem to imply his inferiority to God, 
 I find to be capable of explanation without contradic- 
 tion, or doing violence to the language, by the obvious 
 fact, that lie has two natures united, which the sacred 
 
129 
 
 Writers seem to me so plainly to inculcate. In this 
 way, I find one consistent whole. I save the laws of 
 exegesis. 1 admit, indeed, on the authority of reve- 
 lation, doctrines which natural religion never taught; 
 but why should not a revelation teach something which 
 natural religion did not ? 
 
 Here, then, I take my stand. I abide by the simple 
 declarations of the New Testament writers, interpreted by 
 the common laws of language. My views reconcile all 
 the seeming discrepancies of description in regard to 
 Christ, without doing violence to the language of any. 
 1 can believe, and do believe, that the sacred writers 
 are consistent, without any explanation but such as 
 the laws of interpretation admit and require. 
 
 On the other hand, when you read the first of John, 
 you say, The known properties of Christ must modify 
 the description. How, then, are those properties 
 known ? By the same writer — the same authority — 
 the same revelation. But what can give to one part 
 of John's book any more credit than to the other part? 
 You will say you can understand better how Christ 
 can be inferior to God, than how he can be divine. 
 Granting this might be the case,isarevelation merely to 
 teach us things which are obvious ? or may it disclose 
 those which are most difficult, and cannot be discover- 
 ed by unassisted reason? If the latter, how can you 
 aver that Christ may not be revealed as a divine per- 
 son? To show a priori that this is impossible or ab- 
 surd, is really out of the question, The religion of 
 nature teaches nothing for or against this fact. The 
 simple question then is, What has John said ? — Not 
 what your philosophy may lead you to regard as pro- 
 bable or improbable. And I must be allowed to say 
 again, if John has not taught us that Christ is truly 
 divine, I am utterly unable, by the laws of exegesis, 
 to make out that he has asserted any thing in his 
 whole gospel. 
 
 If I believed, then, as you do, that a Saviour with a 
 human and divine nature, is " an enormous tax on hu- 
 man credulity," I should certainly reject the authority 
 - of John. To violate the laws of exeeesis, in order to 
 
 L 2 
 
130 
 
 Save Lis credit, I could regard, with my present view?, 
 as nothing more than striving to keep up a fictitious 
 belief in divine revelation. It is what I cannot do, 
 and what no man ought to do. It would be impos- 
 sible for me, with your views, to hesitate at all about 
 giving up entirely the old idea of the divine inspiration 
 and authority of the sacred books. How can they be 
 divine if they teach palpable absurdities? And that 
 they do teach what you call palpable absurdities, I feel 
 quite satisfied can be amply proved from the simple 
 application of the laws of interpretation. 
 
 You have, however, undertaken to vindicate your 
 method of construing the Scriptures, by intimating the 
 necessity of interpreting several seemingly unlimited 
 assertions, in respect to Christians, in the same way as 
 you do many in respect to Christ. "Recollect," you 
 say, "the unqualified manner in which it is said of 
 Christians, that they possess all things, know all 
 things, and do all things." And again, in order to 
 show how we may " modify and restrain, and turn 
 from the obvious sense," the passages that respect the 
 divinity of Christ, you say, " It is our duty to explain 
 such texts, by the rule which we apply to other texts, 
 in which human beings are called gods, and are said 
 to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and pos- 
 sess all things, and to be filled with all God's ful- 
 ness." 
 
 I have, already examined the manner in which the 
 Bible calls men gods. There is and can be no mis- 
 take here ; for, instead of attributing to them divine 
 attributes, it always accompanies the appellations with 
 such adjuncts as guard against mistake. It does not 
 call any man God; and then add, that the God is 
 meant who is the Creator of the Universe. 
 
 Nor does the New Testament anywhere call men 
 God. Will you produce the instance, unless it be in 
 the case of Christ, which is the case in question ? But 
 that the appellation here is bestowed under circum- 
 stances totally diverse from those in which it is ap- 
 plied to men in the Old Testament, is a fact too ob- 
 vious to need farther explanation. The Hebrew word 
 
131 
 
 Elohim had plainly a latitude more extensive, i. e. it 
 was capable of a greater variety of use than the Greek 
 word Q?o; {Theos, God). Can you produce from the 
 Greek Scriptures, i. e. the Xew Testament, an instance 
 where Qsog is applied to any man whatever? 
 
 In regard to the assertion, " that Christians are 
 made partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. i. 4), a 
 mistake about the meaning is scarcely possible. 
 " Whereby (*. e. by the gospel) are given unto us," 
 says the Apostle, " exceeding great and precious pro- 
 mises, that BY these ye might be partakers of the di- 
 vine nature." But how? He answers this question. 
 "Having escaped the corruption that is in the world 
 through lust." That is, by moral purification you 
 will become assimilated to God, or partakers of that 
 holy nature which he possesses. Does the context 
 here afford any ground for mistake ? 
 
 In 1 John ii. 20, Christians are said to have " an 
 unction from the Holy One, and to know all things." 
 In the preceding verse, the Apostle had been describ- 
 ing apostates who forsook the Christian cause, because 
 they were not sincerely attached to it. The case of 
 real Christians, who have an unction from the Holy 
 One, is different. They u know all things." And 
 what means this ? The sequel explains it. " I have 
 not written unto you," says he, "because ye know not 
 the truth; but because ye know it, and that no lie is of 
 the truth." To " know all things," then, plainly means 
 here, to know all that pertains to Christian doctrine 
 and duty, so as to persevere, and not to apostatize 
 from the truth, as others had done. 
 
 Is this, however, asserting (as you affirm in your 
 Sermon), in "an unqualified manner 9 that Christians 
 know all things ?" 
 
 In John xiv. 26, the Holy Ghost is promised to the 
 Apostles "to teach them all things, and to bring alt 
 things to their remembrance, whatsoever Christ had 
 said unto them." Again, John xvi. 23, the " Spirit of 
 Truth is promised to guide the disciples into all truth;" 
 and in 1 John ii. 2J, the anointing which Christians 
 have received, is said to " teach them all things." In 
 
 l3 
 
132 
 
 all these cases, the context leaves no room to doubt 
 that " all things essential to Christian doctrine and 
 practice " is meant. No person, I presume, ever un- 
 derstood these passages as meaning that the Apostles 
 or Christians should be endowed with omniscience. 
 
 Yet in the other case, where Christ is asserted to 
 be God, the context is such, that the great body of 
 Christians, in every age, have understood the sacred 
 writers as asserting that he was truly divine. Is there 
 no difference between the two cases ? You make 
 them indeed the same, in respect to the principle of 
 interpretation. To my mind, the difference is this, — 
 that, in the one case, the adjuncts yirevent you from as- 
 cribing omniscience to Christians ; in the other, they 
 lead you necessarily to ascribe divine properties to Christ, 
 unless you " turn their meaning from the obvious 
 sense," so far as to transgress the fundamental maxima 
 of interpreting language. 
 
 In 1 Cor. iii. 22, the Apostle says to the Corinthian 
 Churches, "All things are yours ;" and the same Apos- 
 tle speaks of himself (2 Cor. vi. 10) as " having no- 
 thing, yet possessing all things." In the first Case, the 
 context adds, "Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, 
 or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or 
 things to come— all are yours, and ye are Christ's," — 
 t. e., simply (when the phraseology is construed as 
 elsewhere), let no man glory in this or that particular 
 teacher ; all teachers belong to the Church ; and all 
 things in the present and future world will minister to 
 the good of the Church. Why should you covet ex- 
 clusive individual possessions, when you have an in- 
 terest in the whole ? Refrain, therefore, from the spi- 
 rit of jealousy and contention. 
 
 The second case is merely antithesis. The Apostle 
 evidently asserts (compare the context), that although 
 he has little indeed of this world's good, yet he pos- 
 sesses a far more excellent and satisfactory good, in 
 comparison of which all else is nothing. In the same 
 sense, we every day speak of a man's all, — meaning 
 that which he most desires and loves best. 
 
 I can no more see here, than in the other instances 
 
133 
 
 already discussed, why you should affirm that Chrfs- 
 tians are said, " in an unqualified manner, to possess 
 all things." 
 
 One expression still remains. In Eph. iii. 19, the 
 Apostle exhibits his fervent wishes that the Christians 
 of Ephesus might " be filled with all the fulness of 
 God." By comparing this expression, as applied to 
 Christ in Col. i. 19, ii. 9, with John i. 14, 16, and 
 Eph. i. 23, it appears evident, that, by the fulness of God, 
 is meant the abundant gifts and graces which were be- 
 stowed on Christ, and through him upon his disciples, 
 — John i. 16; Eph. i. 23. When Paul prays, there- 
 fore, that the Church at Ephesus might be " filled with 
 the fulness of God," he prays simply that they might 
 be abundantly replenished with the gifts and graces 
 peculiar to the Christian religion. But how does such 
 an affirmation concern the principle of exegesis in ques- 
 tion? 
 
 I am well satisfied, that the course of reasoning in 
 which you have embarked, and the principle now in 
 question, by which you explain away the divinity of 
 the Saviour, must lead most men who approve of 
 them, eventually to the conclusion that the Bible is 
 not of divine origin, and does not oblige us to belief or 
 obedience. I do not aver that they will lead you 
 there. You have more serious views of the import- 
 ance of religion than many, perhaps, of those who spe- 
 culate with you. Consistency with your present views 
 will afford strong inducement not to give up the di- 
 vine authority of the Scriptures. But are there not 
 some who embrace Unitarian sentiments, that have no 
 inconsistency to fear, by adopting such an opinion? 
 Deeming what you have publicly taught them to be 
 true, — viz. that it is "'no crime to believe with Mr 
 Belsham," who declares tflat the Scriptures are not the 
 word of God, — feeling the inconsistency (as I am cer- 
 tain some of them will and do feel it) of violating the 
 rules of interpretation, in order to make the Apostles 
 speak, as in their apprehension they ought to speak, 
 and unable to reconcile what the Apostles say, with 
 their own views, — will it not be natural to throw off 
 
134 
 
 the restraints which the old ideas of i e inspiration 
 and infallibility of the Scriptures impose upon them, 
 and receive them simply on the ground on which they 
 place any other writings of a moral and religious na- 
 ture ? 
 
 I make no pretensions to uncommon foresight, in re- 
 gard to this subject. I certainly do not say these things 
 with invidious designs, and for the sake of kindling 
 the fire of contention. Very far from it. On the con- 
 trary, I fear that the parties now contending here, will 
 not cease to contend, until this ground be openly 
 taken. For myself, I regard it as more desirable, in 
 many points of view, that the authority of the Scripture 
 should at once be cast off, and its claims to divine in- 
 spiration rejected, than that such rules of exegesis 
 should be introduced, as to make the Scriptures speak, 
 against their obvious meaning, whatever any party 
 may desire. Avowed unbelief in the divine authority 
 of the Scriptures can never continue long, as I would 
 fain believe, in the present day of light and examina- 
 tion. Such a state of things may pass away with the 
 generation who act in it : But it is a more difficult 
 matter to purge away the stain which Christianity may 
 contract by violated laws of interpretation. Those 
 who do thus violate these laws, may obtain and hold, 
 for a long time, great influence over the mass of peo- 
 ple who are not accustomed to examine, in a critical 
 manner, the nicer points of theology. If opponents 
 to this method of interpretation lift up the voice of 
 warning, the}' may not be heard. They are liable to 
 the imputation of bigotry, or illiberality, or ignorance. 
 But when men professedly cast off their respect to the 
 authority of the Scriptures, the case becomes differ- 
 ent, and the great body of plain and sober people will 
 revolt. 
 
 In making these observations on the nature and 
 probable consequences of that exegesis which ex- 
 plains away the Deity of Christ, I cannot think that I 
 am building castles in the air to amuse my own ima- 
 gination. For ten years past, I have been called 
 _ every week to duties which necessitated me to be c£tt- 
 
13o 
 
 versant with the history of interpretation, as it has 
 appeared in Germany, a country which, in half a cen- 
 tury, has produced more works on criticism and sa- 
 cred literature than the world contains besides. 
 About fifty years since, Sender, Professor of Divinity, 
 at Halle, began to lecture and publish on the subject 
 of interpretation, in a manner that excited the atten- 
 tion of the whole German Empire. The grand prin- 
 ciple, by which he explained away whatever he did not 
 think proper to believe, was that which has been cal- 
 led accotiunodation. He maintained that the Apostles 
 and the Saviour often admitted representations and 
 doctrines into their instructions, which were calcu- 
 lated merely for the purpose of persuading the Jews, 
 being accommodated to their prejudices ; but which 
 were not intended to be a real directory of senti- 
 ment. In this way, whatever was inconsistent with 
 his own views, he called accommodation ; and thus, 
 at once, expunged it from the list of Christian doc- 
 trines. 
 
 Sender's original genius and great learning soon 
 gave currency to his views in Germany, where a sys- 
 tem of theology and exegesis had prevailed, which, 
 in not a few respects, needed reformation. Since his 
 time a host of writers (many of them with exalted ta- 
 lents and most extensive erudition) have arisen, who 
 have examined, explained, modified, and defended the 
 doctrine of accommodation. The more recent method 
 of exegesis, however, in Germany, has been to solve 
 all the miraculous facts related in the Bible, by consi- 
 derations which are affirmed to be drawn from the 
 idiom and ignorance of antiquity in general, and in 
 particular of the sacred writers themselves. Thus, 
 with Eichhorn, the account of the creation and fall of 
 man is merely a poetical, philosophical speculation, of 
 seme ingenious person, on the origin of the world and 
 of evil. (Urgeschichte, passim.) So, in regard to 
 the offering up of Isaac by Abraham, he says, "The 
 Godhead could not have required of Abraham so hor- 
 rible a crime ; and there can be no justification, pal- 
 liation, or excuse, for this pretended command of the 
 
136 
 
 Divinity." He then explains it. "Abraham dreamed 
 that he must offer up Isaac ; and, according to the 
 superstition of the times, regarded it as a divine ad- 
 monition. He prepared to execute the mandate which 
 his dream bad conveyed to him. A lucky accident 
 (probably the rustling of a ram who was entangled in 
 the bushes) hindered it; and this, according to ancient 
 idiom, was also the voice of the Divinity." (Bibliothek. 
 Band i. s. 45, &c.) 
 
 The same writer represents the history of the 
 Mosaic legislation, at Mount Sinai, in a curious man- 
 ner. Moses ascended to the top of Sinai and built a 
 lire there — (how he found wood on this barren rock, 
 or raised it to the top, Eichhorn does not tell us) — a 
 fire consecrated to the worship of God, before which 
 he prayed. Here an unexpected and tremendous 
 thunder-storm occurred. He seized the occasion to 
 proclaim the laws which he had composed in his re- 
 tirement as the statutes of Jehovah, — leading the peo- 
 ple to believe that Jehovah had conversed with him. 
 Not that he was a deceiver, but he really believed that 
 the occurrence of such a thunder-storm was a sufficient 
 proof of the fact that Jehovah had spoken to him, or 
 sanctioned the work in which he had been engaged. 
 (Bibliothek. Band i. Theil. 1. s. /6, &c.) The pro* 
 phecies of the Old Testament are, according to him, 
 patriotic wishes, expressed with all the fire and ele- 
 gance of poetry, for the future prosperity and a future 
 deliverer of the Jewish nation. (Propheten, Biblio- 
 thek, Einleit. passim.) 
 
 In like manner, C. F. Ammon, Professor of Theo- 
 logy at Erlangen, tells us, in respect to the miracle of 
 Christ's walking on the water, that, " to walk on the 
 sea, is not to stand on the waves, as on the solid 
 ground, as Jerome dreams, but to walk through the 
 waves so far as the shoals reached, and then to swim." 
 (Pref. to edit, of Ernesti Inst. Interpret, p. 12.) So in 
 regard to the miracle of the loaves and fishes (Matt, 
 xiv. 15), he says that Jesus probably distributed some 
 loaves and fishes which he had to those who were a- 
 . round him, and thus excited, by his example, others 
 
137 
 
 among the multitude who had provisions to distribute 
 them in like manner. (P. 16.) 
 
 Thiess, in his commentary on the Acts, explains the 
 miraculous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pente- 
 cost (Acts ii.) in the following manner. " It is not 
 uncommon," says he, " in those countries for a violent 
 gust of wind to strike on a particular spot or house. 
 Such a gust is commonly accompanied by the electric 
 fluid, and the sparks of this are scattered all around. 
 These float about the chamber, become apparent, and 
 light upon the disciples. They kindle into enthu- 
 siasm at this ; and believe the promise of their Master 
 is now to be performed. This enthusiasm spectators 
 assemble to witness ; and, instead of preaching as be- 
 fore in Hebrew, each one uses his own native tongue 
 to proclaim his feelings." 
 
 1 have not followed the words through the whole, 
 but have given the substance of Thiess's views in my 
 two last sentences. Such was the outpouring of the 
 Spirit, and such the gift of tongues. 
 
 The same Thiess (Comm. on chap, iii.) represents 
 the miraculous cure by Peter, of the man who was 
 lame from his birth, in a very singular way. " This 
 man," says he, "was lame only according to report. 
 He never walked any ; so the people believed that he 
 could not walk. . . . Peter and John, being more saga- 
 cious, however, threatened him. ' In the name of the 
 Messiah,' said they, « stand up.' The word Messiah 
 had a magical power. He stood up. Now, one saw that 
 he could walk. To prevent the compassion of men 
 from being turned into rage (at his deceit), he chose the 
 most sagacious party, and connected himself with the 
 Apostles." 
 
 The case of Ananias falling down dead, is thus re- 
 presented by the same writer. " Ananias fell down 
 terrified ; but probably he was carried out and buried, 
 while still alive." 
 
 Heinrichs, however, who produces this Comment of 
 Thiess, relates another mode of explaining the occur- 
 rence in question, — viz. that Peter stabbed Ananias; 
 " which," says Heinrichs, " does not at all disagree 
 
133 
 
 with the vehement and easily-exasperated temper of 
 Peter." (Nov. Test. Koppianum, Vol. iii. Partic. ii. 
 pp. 355 — 35/, &c.) 
 
 Numerous systems of Hermeneutica, i. e. the Art of 
 Interpretation, have been written and published in Ger- 
 many, on this plan. Meyer, in a very laboured sys- 
 tem of Hermeneutica of the Old Testament, in two 
 large octavos, has a body of rules by which every thing 
 miraculous is to be explained away. He concedes 
 that there is the same objection to admitting any one 
 miracle, as to admitting all. He therefore rejects the 
 whole. So Bauer, in his Hermeneutica; and a multi- 
 tude of others. 
 
 In the course of the discussions which these prin- 
 ciples have excited in Germany, the question about 
 Christ's divinity has been entirely forgotten. When 
 the contest first began, this point, among others, was 
 warmly contested. But the fundamental questions, 
 whether the Scriptures are divinely inspired, and whe- 
 ther the doctrine of accommodation can be used in all 
 its latitude, in interpreting them, soon took the place 
 of this. Accommodation has been sifted, attacked, 
 defended, explained, moderated, modified, itself ac- 
 commodated ; so that at last it is nearly driven from 
 the ground, and the plain and simple rules of gram- 
 matical interpretation are triumphant among the best 
 part of the German critics. 
 
 In the mean time, they have not returned to the 
 principles of their Lutheran Symbol. Very far from 
 it. While many of them allow that John, and Peter, 
 and Paul, did believe and teach the doctrine of 
 Christ's divinity and of the atonement, they hold 
 themselves under no obligation to receive them. De 
 Wette, who has recently published a System of Theo- 
 logv, and is Professor of the same at the University 
 of Berlin, maintains that the Pentateuch was com- 
 posed about the time of the Captivity ; that the Jewish 
 ritual was of gradual formation, accessions being made 
 to it by superstition ; and that the Book of Chronicles 
 (which is filled with scraps and inconsistencies) was 
 foisted into the canon by some of the priesthood, who 
 
139 
 
 wished to exalt their own order. His Beilrage, which 
 contained these sentiments, was published before the 
 death of Griesbach, and came out recommended by 
 him ; who says, " If you object to the young literary 
 adventurer (De Wette), that he has endeavoured to 
 bring Judaism into disrepute, my answer is, This is 
 no more than Paul himself has laboured to do." — (Pref. 
 to Beilrdge.) 
 
 In his book on the atonement of Christ (De morte 
 Chrisli expiatoria), he represents Christ as disap- 
 pointed that the Jews would not hearken to him as a 
 moral teacher simply ; which was the first character 
 he assumed. Christ, then, assumed the character of a 
 prophet, and asserted his divine mission, in order that 
 the Jews might be induced to listen to him. Finding 
 that they would not do this, and that they were deter- 
 mined to destroy him, in order not to lose the whole 
 object of his mission, and to convert necessity into an 
 occasion of giving himself credit, he gave out that his 
 death itself would be expiatory. 
 
 Yet De Wette holds a most exalted rank in Ger- 
 many. I doubt whether Germany can boast of an 
 Oriental scholar, or a literary man, who has more ad- 
 mirers than De Wette. 
 
 What shall we say now of De Wette ? That he is 
 not a Christian ? He would look with astonishment 
 on any man who would think of such an accusation, 
 and tax him with a great degree of illiberality and su- 
 perstition. 
 
 You are doubtless inclined, before this time, to say, 
 "What is all this to us ? We do not avow or defend 
 such opinions." True, I answer, — at present you do 
 not. A short time since, they did not : But as soon 
 as their numbers increased, so that they began to be 
 fearless of consequences, and their antagonists urged 
 the laws of exegesis upon them, they abandoned the 
 ground of defending the divine authenticity of the 
 Bible at once. A few years since, the state of theo- 
 logical questions in Germany, in many respects, was 
 similar to what it now is here. At present, the lead- 
 ing German critics (rejecting accommodation, and ca?t> 
 
 M 
 
110 
 
 lag off all ideas of the divine origin of the Scriptures), 
 are disputing with great zeal the questions, Whether 
 a miracle be possible? Whether God and nature are 
 one and the same thing ? (Schelling, a divine, is at 
 the head of a great party which maintains that they 
 are the same.) And whether the Jews ever expected 
 any Messiah ? Some time ago, many of their critics 
 maintained that no Messiah was predicted in the Old 
 Testament ; but now, they question even whether the 
 Jews had any expectation of one. It would seem 
 now, that they have come nearly to the end of ques- 
 tions on theology;. At least I cannot well devise what 
 is to come next. 
 
 It does seem to me, that it needs only a thorough 
 acquaintance with German reasoners and critics (a 
 tiling which is fast coming in), to induce young men 
 to go with them, who set out with the maxim, that 
 6fc to believe with Mr Belsham is no crime." No man 
 can read these writers without finding a great deal of 
 excellent matter in them, well arranged, and of real 
 utility. I venture to add, that no man can study them 
 thoroughly, and afterwards take up Priestley, Belsham, 
 Carpenter, Yates, Lindsay, or other recent English 
 Unitarian writers, as critics, with any pleasure. I 
 ought, perhaps, to except Cappe, who appears to have 
 studied diligently his Bible. He was evidently a lover 
 of Biblical study. But the incomparably greater ac- 
 quisitions of the German critics, in every department 
 of study, spread a charm over their writing, for the 
 lover of discussion and literature, that is not often 
 found in productions of this nature. I must add, that, 
 much as I differ in sentiment from them, and funda- 
 mentally subversive of Christianity as I believe their 
 views to be, I am under great obligations to them 
 lor the instructions they have given me ; and specially 
 for affording me so much satisfaction, that we need 
 nothing more than the simple rules of exegesis, and a 
 candid believing heart, to see in the Scriptures, with 
 overpowering evidence, all the substantial and import- 
 ant doctrines which have commonly been denominat- 
 ed orthodox* 
 
Ml 
 
 Such has been the impression on me from reading 
 German writers : And, with such impressions, I can 
 never regret the time that I have spent in studying 
 them. Abler advocates than they for the fashionable 
 philosophy of the day, which is endeavouring to ex- 
 plain away the peculiar doctrines of the Scriptures, I 
 do not expect to find. 
 
 Able, however, as they are, my mind returns from 
 the study of them with an impression more deep, ra- 
 dical, and satisfactory, than ever before, that the doc- 
 trines commonly denominated evangelical or orthodox , 
 are the doctrines of the Scriptures, and are the troth 
 of God. My views as to the exegesis of particular 
 tests, in some cases, have been changed by the study 
 of philology and interpretation. I should not rely for 
 the proof of doctrines now, on some texts which I 
 once thought contained such proof. But my impres- 
 sions of the real truth and importance of evangelical 
 doctrines, I can truly say, are greatly strengthened. 
 
 Before you pronounce sentence upon the German 
 expositors and critics, to whom I have referred above, 
 I trust you will give them a bearing. 1 should re- 
 joice to find that you are engaged in the study of 
 them: For a mind capable of reasoning and thinking 
 as yours, must necessarily, as it seems to me, come, 
 to the same conclusions with Eichhorn, and Paul us, 
 and Henke, and Eckermann, and Herder, and other 
 distinguished men of the new German school ; or 
 embrace with us the sentiments which are common- 
 ly denominated orthodox. I cannot refrain from add- 
 ing, that I do most earnestly hope and pray for the 
 latter. 
 
 You may be ready, perhaps, to express your sur- 
 prise, that I should commend the study of such wri- 
 ters as those whom I have quoted. I am well aware, 
 indeed, that the serious mind revolts at the glaring 
 jmpiety of such comments as those which I have pro- 
 duced : But, after all, if a man were to judge and 
 condemn these very writers by a few selections of 
 this nature, it would be hasty. On po ; nts which are 
 not concerned with the special doctrines of Chris- 
 
 M 2 
 
142 
 
 tianity — in illustrating critical and literary history, 
 philology, natural history, and grammatical exegesis 
 — in a word, every thing literary or scientific that per- 
 tains to the Bible — who can enter into competition 
 with recent German writers ? But it should be un- 
 derstood, that there are writers on these subjects in 
 Germany, who are what is denominated orthodox, as 
 well as those of a different character, such as I have 
 just mentioned. The lover of acute, thorough-go- 
 ing, radical discussion, will lose much, if he does not 
 cultivate an acquaintance with both these classes of 
 writers. 
 
 I know, indeed, that you are an advocate for unli- 
 mited research. For myself, I have long practised 
 upon this principle : And I cannot but think the cau- 
 tious fears of many of those with whom I agree in 
 sentiment, in respect to the limits of study, though 
 honourable to the spirit of piety which they cherish, 
 and indicative of real interest and concern for the pros- 
 perity of the Church, are not well-founded. The fun- 
 damental principle of Protestantism is, that the Bible is 
 the only rule of faith and practice. To know what the 
 Bible teaches, then, is the great object of all religious 
 knowledge. To understand this (as to acquire every 
 thing else), study and diligence are necessary. Men 
 are not inspired now, as the Apostles and primitive 
 Christians were, to understand all truth. Men are 
 imperfect, and have imperfect knowledge. No one 
 sect, party, or body of men, can claim absolute per- 
 fection of knowledge or virtue. And as a great many 
 points of inquiry (interesting and important ones too), 
 may be managed by men of sobriety, in the use of 
 only their natural intellect, and their resources of 
 learning, the man who loves the Book of God, and 
 desires the most extensive acquaintance with it which 
 he can possibly make, will not neglect their works, 
 nor any other source of knowledge within his power. 
 It was a noble maxim of a Heathen, " Fas estet abhosle 
 doceri;" We may receive instruction from an enemy. 
 Christians, too, often forget this ; and permit antipathy 
 to particular sentiments, to exclude them from all the 
 
143 
 
 profit which might be derived from a more enlarged 
 acquaintance with the writings of opponents. Believ- 
 ing, as 1 do, that many, who are arrayed against the 
 sentiments that I espouse, are not destitute of sense, 
 or of learning, and are not to be despised, I am in- 
 clined always to see how they vindicate their causA, 
 If I am not convinced by their arguments, I am render- 
 ed better satisfied with my own, and more able to de- 
 fend them by such an investigation. But if I could 
 not practise upon the noble maxim, u We may receive 
 instruction from an enemy" I would at least apply ano- 
 ther one to vindicate the study of the German writers, 
 and justify myself, for even recommending it, in pro- 
 per cases. I would say (as was said in a different con- 
 nexion and for a different object), " Egyptii sunt, s/w- 
 licmus ;" They are Egyptians, let us take their spoils. 
 Shall I not accept the good which they proffer me ; 
 and proffer me in a more scientific manner, and well 
 digested, lucid, established form, than I can elsewhere 
 find? Without hesitation, I answer, Yes. 
 
 I cannot help viewing the subject in another light. 
 Every student in theology, every Christian minister 
 ought to be established in the truth, and able to " con- 
 vince gainsay 'ers." How can he do this, if he does not 
 know what these gainsayers allege/ Is he to engage in 
 war against the foes of truth, without knowing the wea- 
 pons by which his enemies are to assail him ? It is a 
 mistaken system of education indeed, which teaches 
 him thus— which thrusts out a young man upon the 
 Church, unacquainted with the nature of its enemies' 
 assaults, and liable, of course, to become the victim of 
 the first powerful attack that is made upon him. With- 
 out any doubt, private Christians should have little or 
 nothing to do with all this ground of dispute ; but it is 
 a shame for a minister of the gospel, who has the op- 
 portunity, not to seize every advantage in his power, 
 to render himself as able as possible to defend the 
 cause which he has espoused. 
 
 I may venture to add a better authority still, to con- 
 firm these reasonings. An inspired Apostle has di- 
 rected Christians to "prove alt things ;" but to " hoick 
 
 M 3 
 
144 
 
 fast that which is good" How does he comply with 
 the spirit of this direction, who never examines any 
 views that differ from his own ; but settles down with 
 the full conviction that he is right, and that all who 
 differ from him are wrong? As no man now, is in- 
 spired, and no man, therefore, is free from some error, 
 does it not become those who are to be " set for the 
 defence of the truth," to examine, as far as it may be 
 in their power, the dissentient views of others, who 
 have called themselves Christians, and who lay claim 
 to an extensive understanding of the Word of God? 
 Such an examination will enlarge their views, and 
 render them more able to oppose error and defend 
 truth. 
 
 Such are my reasons for pursuing the study of Ger- 
 man writers, and commending the study of them. 
 Truth has nothing to fear from examination. If the 
 sentiments that I espouse will not stand the test of 
 investigation, then I will abandon them. I never shall 
 willingly embrace any sentiments, except on such a 
 condition. But, in respect to the study of the more li- 
 beral (so called) German writers, I fear no injury from 
 it in the end, to the sentiments denominated eva?igeli- 
 cal. Exegesis has come, by discussion among them, 
 to a solid and permanent science. That the Scriptural 
 writers taught substantially, what we believe to be 
 orthodoxy^ is now conceded by some of their most able 
 expositors. 
 
 There is another point of view in which the subject 
 may be regarded. The person who reads their works, 
 will see what the spirit of doubt and unbelief can do, 
 in respect to the Book of God, and where it will carry 
 the men who entertain it. It is indeed a most affect- 
 ing and awful lesson. But is there no reason to fear 
 that we are to learn it by sad experience ? Does not 
 the progress of the sentiments which you defend illus- 
 trate the nature of this subject ? A short time since, 
 almost all the Unitarians of New England were simple 
 Avians. Now, if I am correctly informed, there are 
 scarcely any of the younger preachers of Unitarian 
 sentiments who are not simple Humanitarians. Such 
 
145 
 
 was the case in Germany. The divinity of Christ Was 
 early assailed ; inspiration was next doubted and im* 
 pugned. Is not this already begun here? Natural 
 religion comes next in order ; and the question be- 
 tween the parties here may soon be in substance whe- 
 ther natural ox revealed religion is our guide and our 
 hope. 
 
 For myself, T must say, it is my conviction, that, the 
 sooner matters come to this issue, the better. Not 
 that natural religion is better in itself, than Unitarian- 
 ism : No. I believe Christianity, under any form, is 
 better than Deism. But the contest which is now car- 
 ried on here, will be more speedily terminated by 
 such an issue. The parties will then understand each 
 other ; and the public will understand the subject of 
 dispute. I cannot think that they do at present. It 
 is but very recently, that explicit declarations have 
 been made in print by you and your friends. And, 
 though with such views as I possess, I cannot help 
 feeling the most sincere regret that such sentiments 
 should be propagated, yet I can never do otherwise 
 than applaud that ingenuousness, which openly avows 
 sentiments that are more privately inculcated. I shall 
 be very ready to confess my apprehensions are quite er- 
 roneous, if the lapse of a few years more does not pro- 
 duce, in many cases, the undisguised avowal of the 
 German divinity, in all its latitude. 1 anticipate this, be- 
 cause 1 believe that the laws of exegesis, when tho- 
 roughly understood, and applied withoutparty bias, will 
 necessarily lead men to believe that the Apostles incul- 
 cated, for substance, those doctrines which are now 
 called orthodox. And as there will probably be not a 
 few who will reject these doctrines, my apprehension 
 is, that, to take the German ground, will, ere long, be 
 deemed both ingenuous and expedient. 
 
 Believing, however, as I now do, while my convic- 
 tions remain, I must act agreeably to them. I hope 
 I shall never be guilty of exercising an exclusive or 
 persecuting spirit. But, while my present views last, 
 I cannot look with indifference on the great contest 
 which is pending in this part of our country. I must 
 
146 
 
 regard the opinions, which you have avowed in your 
 sermon, to be fundamentally subversive of what ap- 
 pear to me to be the peculiarities of the Christian 
 system. If the doctrine of Christ's divinity and hu- 
 manity be not true, nor that of the vicarious sacrifice 
 of Christ, and pardon by it— if human nature be not, 
 of itself, entirely destitute of principles of holiness, 
 that may fit men for heaven, and does not need spe- 
 cial regenerating and sanctifying grace — then 1 know 
 not what there is in the Christian system, that very 
 much concerns our duty or our interest, which is not 
 taught by the principles of natural religion, nor what 
 there is for which it is our duty to contend. The 
 great question at present between you and me is, 
 What does the Bible teach on the subjects proposed ? 
 For our answer to this question, you and I stand ac- 
 countable to the Judge of quick and dead ; and, as 
 ministers of his gospel and interpreters of his word, 
 we are placed under an awful responsibility. If either 
 of us violate the reason which God has given us in 
 our inquiries — are led by partial views, by passion, 
 by prejudice, by thirst for popularity with our friends, 
 or a fear of reproach from those whom we are obliged 
 to consider as opponents — Christ will require from irs 
 an account of our conduct. When I think on this, 
 and look back and ask myself whether I have con- 
 ducted this whole dispute with a view to my account 
 and in the fear of God, I cannot but feel solicitude 
 Jest, through the deceitfulness of the human heart, 
 something may have escaped me which may prove 
 prejudicial, in some way or other, to the promotion of 
 real truth. If you see this, my dear Sir, tell me where 
 and what it is. We have no real interest but to 
 know, believe, and obey the truth. And, supposing 
 truth to be what it now appears to me to be, I cannot 
 believe otherwise than that you are endeavouring to 
 inculcate principles radically subversive of the gospel 
 of Christ. Will you do me the justice to believe that 
 I may have honestly formed such an opinion, with- 
 out taking my faith from creeds, or grounding it on 
 tradition ; and without the spirit that would establish 
 
14- 
 
 an Inquisition, or lord it over the consciences of men, 
 or treat you with disrespect ? 
 
 In a word, with those who have the convictions that 
 I possess, of the nature and importance of the gos- 
 pel system, it can never admit of a question, whe- 
 ther they are to make all the opposition in their 
 power (provided it be done in the spirit of Christian 
 candour and benevolence), to the prevalence of sen- 
 timents like yours. I cannot but view the question 
 between us as amounting to this, whether we shall 
 retain Christianity, or reject all but the name ? If I 
 am wrong, may the Lord forgive me, and grant me 
 better views. If you are wrong, my heart's desire 
 and prayer to God is, that the same blessing may be 
 bestowed on you. 
 
 Allowing that I and those with whom I act are sin- 
 cere in our belief, you yourself would say, that we 
 should be justly chargeable with the greatest incon- 
 sistency, did we not feel strong desires to resist the 
 innovations that are attempted in many important 
 points of our theology. Permit me to add, that real 
 charity may sometimes attribute strong feelings and a 
 deep interest on this subject, to ardent benevolence 
 towards those who differ from us, and whom we think 
 to be in a dangerous condition, rather than to party 
 zeal, blind credulity and ignorance, or an exterminat- 
 ing and injurious spirit. 
 
 And now, to bring these already protracted Letters 
 to a close, you will permit me respectfully and se- 
 riously to solicit that you would look back and review 
 the sermon which has occasioned these remarks. 
 Have you represented the sentiments of the great 
 body of Christians in this country correctly ? Have 
 you produced the real arguments on which they rely ? 
 Have you treated them with respect, with gentleness, 
 with tenderness ? Has your simple aim been to rea- 
 son with them, to convince them, and not to hold 
 them up in such an attitude as to excite disgust ? I 
 do not ask these questions for the sake of reproach, 
 or to wound your feelings ; but I cannot help think- 
 ing it a duty incumbent on you to ask thera. Look 
 
148 
 
 now, with a Christian eye, on the unhappy and dis- 
 tracted state of the Churches in this land, the glory of 
 all lands! When will our contentions- cease ! When 
 shall we bring a united offering to our common Lord, 
 if men who stand in eminent and responsible stations 
 treat those whom they profess to own as Christian 
 brethren, with severity, or in such a manner as to 
 wound their feelings ! 
 
 My dear Sir, I do think these are things whfcft, 
 when we enter our closets to lift up our souls to God, 
 we are all bound by sacred obligations to consider. 
 I do not bring these as charges against you ; but I 
 speak of the impressions which your discourse has 
 excited in the bosoms of those who espouse the sen- 
 timents which you condemn. If their impressions 
 are without reason, the wrong may indeed fall upon 
 them : But, in reviewing the manner in which yon 
 have treated some subjects in your sermon, is ther« 
 not more reason for those impressions than Christian 
 meekness and benevolence can approve ? When the 
 hours of excitement and the stimulus of party feeling 
 are gone by, you and 1 shall stand at the bar of that 
 Saviour who searches the hearts and tries the reins 
 of men. There we shall be obliged to account for 
 the manner in which we have conducted this whole 
 dispute. 
 
 O my dear Sir ! this is no trifling matter. We are 
 immortal beings ; and our eternal destiny is in the 
 hands of that Redeemer about whose dignity and 
 glciy we are contending. 
 
 When I think on this, I cannot but apprehend that 
 the question between us is of deep and radical interest, 
 as it respects our eternal salvation. If the God whom 
 I am bound to adore, has not only revealed himself 
 in the book of nature, but has clearly disclosed his 
 glory in the gospel of Christ, and 1 mistake after all 
 a revelation so clear, — or, induced by party feeling or 
 erroneous philosophy, reject the testimony which he 
 has given, — the mistake must be tremendous in its con- 
 sequences — the rejection will justly incur the divine 
 displeasure. With all this subject, however, fully 
 
149 
 
 before me, I do not hesitate' — I cannot doubt respect- 
 ing it. When I behold the glory of the Saviour, as 
 revealed in the gospel, I am constrained to cry out 
 with the believing Apostle, " My Lord and my God !" 
 And, when my departing spirit shall quit these mortal 
 scenes, and wing its way to the world unknown, with 
 my latest breath I desire to pray, as the expiring 
 martyr did, " Lord Jesus receive my spirit!" 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 TWO PASSAGES ADDED BY PROFESSOR STUART, 
 
 In a late edition of his Letters (pages 23 and 28J, arc 
 introduced in this Jortn, instead of being inserted in the body 
 of the Work. 
 
 By comparing the preceding paragraph (page 23) with thesamc 
 in the Former editions of this work, the reader will see that some 
 of it is modified, to avoid the ambiguity which seemed to be 
 chargeable upon the former editions, or changed, to correct 
 that which, if literally taken, would be erroneous. I had said 
 that " the word person was introduced into the creeds of an- 
 cient times, merely as a term which would express the dis- 
 agreement of Christians in general, with the reputed errors 
 of Sabelliug, and others of similar sentiments :" And although 
 I certainly did not mean to say that such a use of it was uni- 
 versal, and without exception, as I well knew the phrase had. 
 been variously and loosely used by some of the Fathers, yet 
 I prefer to remove the ambiguity of the phrase by a limita- 
 tion which, so far as I have been able to examine, seems more 
 accurately to correspond with the state of the case. My be- 
 lief is, that the leading and most influential Fathers and coun- 
 cils of antiquity did use person as I have now stated. 
 
 As the text stood in former editions of this work, it would 
 appear as if I meant to say that the Nicene Fathers, in their 
 Symbol, had used the word person in the sense alleged. This, 
 however, I did not mean to say, — although it will appear on 
 examination, perhaps, that I might have safely said it. I 
 admit that my expression is of a dubious nature, or even that 
 it will convey the sense which the Reviewer has given to it. 
 I meant to say, that the Fathers who belonged to the Nicene 
 Council, the divines of that age, in their writings, used the 
 
152 APPENDIX. 
 
 word person to designate a distinction in the Godhead, in op- 
 position to the opinions of Sabellius, and others of like senti- 
 ments with him. 
 
 The Reviewer, however, in the "Christian Disciple," in ad- 
 monishing me of an error in respect to this, has perhaps him- 
 self fallen into one. He says that the Nicene Creed contains 
 neither the word v-TroffraMg nor TzoGoj'zrcv { whereas, if he had 
 read the Creed four or five lines beyond what I have quoted, 
 he would have found it anathematizing those " who affirm that 
 the Son is of a different hypostasis (wrotfTatfews) from the Fa- 
 ther." The sense of v-rroffraffic here, however, some may in- 
 cline to think, is not that of person, but of substance simply. 
 But Basil, and in like manner Bishop Bull, have contended, 
 perhaps triumphantly, for the meaning of person. — Bul-1. 
 Opp. p. 11-i, &c. 
 
 The only question of any importance at issue on the pre- 
 sent topic is, Did the ancient Fathers use the word person, 
 in respect to the Godhead, to designate beings so distinct, as 
 to have only a specific unity, as the Reviewer, after Whitby 
 and others, has asserted ? or did they use it to designate a 
 distinction in the Godhead, in opposition to sentiments like 
 those of Sabellius, and with the acknowledgment of the nu- 
 merical unity of the Godhead ? The question, of course, is, 
 Did the leading and most influential divines and councils 
 maintain the one or the other of these views ? If the former, 
 then my allegation is incorrect ; if the latter, then the sub- 
 stance of what I have hitherto said upon this subject has not 
 been disproved. 
 
 It were easy to occupy a volume with the discussion of this 
 subject; but my limits necessitate me to be very brief. I 
 begin with an inquiry into the meaning of l^oGrutsig. 
 
 The Antenicene Fathers used this word, perhaps, com- 
 monly in the sense of ovaia, substance or essence. But some 
 used it to signify person, or distinction in the Godhead. In 
 consequence of the word being differently used by different 
 writers, and in reference to diverse heresies, great disputes 
 arose in the Church about it. At first, the orthodox Fathers 
 in general strongly objected to itrocrrafjiz as applied to desig- 
 nate a distinction in the Godhead, because they averred that 
 it meant substance or essence ; and to assert that there were 
 three substances in the Godhead, they said, was antiscriptu- 
 ral. Thus Dionysius Romanus (about a. d. 250) reprobates 
 those " who separate the Divinity into three different hypos- 
 tases" (Advers. SabalL, as cited in Athanas. decret. Synod. 
 
APPENDIX. 153 
 
 Nic. p. 220.) And again, " They preach as it were three 
 Gods, dividing the sacred Unity into three hypostases, diverse 
 and altogether separate from each other." 
 
 So Athanasius (Epist. ad Antioch.) says, "We speak of 
 one hypostasis, — deeming hypostasis and ouffta, substance, the 
 scn?ie." 
 
 The opposition to hypostasis, in such a sense, was general 
 in the Latin Churches, because they translated both •wxocraci? 
 and oixna. substantia, substance ; and they refused to say that 
 there were three substances in the Godhead. 
 
 How far Origen, and others of his school, were implicated 
 in the condemnation passed by them upon such a use of hy- 
 postasis, does not certainly appear. Origen maintains three 
 hypostases ; but, that he asserts them in such a sense as to 
 exclude numerical unity of essence and attributes in the God- 
 head, I have not seen satisfactorily evinced. 
 
 After the Sabellian opinions were propagated in the Church, 
 many of the Greek Fathers maintained, in opposition to them, 
 that there were three hypostases in the Godhead. Conten- 
 tions soon arose about this phraseology, because it was deem- 
 ed by some to imply too much. These contentions were in 
 some measure composed, however, by the Synod of Alexan- 
 dria (a.d. 362), at which i\thanasius was present, who de- 
 cided that " any one was at liberty to aver that there was but 
 one hypostasis in the Godhead, provided the threefold dis- 
 tinction therein was preserved, or to maintain three hypos- 
 tases, provided that only one substance was meant." (Har- 
 douin, Tom. I. 734.) 
 
 About this time, in order to avoid the ambiguity of hypos • 
 tasis, the Greeks began to substitute ffgoafcraw, person, in imi- 
 tation of the Latin persona, which was used in the Western 
 Churches. The classical use of both the Greek and Latin 
 word, is indeed quite different from the ecclesiastical one. 
 But c^orai/ and persona evidently assumed a technical use 
 in the Churches. After the Synod of Alexandria, the Greek 
 Church used both v-octum; and Kzoffwrov in the same sense — 
 as did the Latins persona and hypostasis — in respect to the 
 subject in question. 
 
 It remains now, after having given this sketch of the history 
 of vxogtcuji; and xzo<?oj-ov in the Greek Church, and persona 
 and hypostasis in the Latin, to show that a distinction in the 
 Godhead was designated by them, which was deemed consisl- 
 ent with numerical unity of substance and attributes, and 
 
 N 2 
 
154 APPENDIX. 
 
 was not intended to designate person in such a sense as ad- 
 mitted only specific unity. 
 
 It will of course be seen that this question does not regard 
 the use of vvroaraffic, in the classic sense of substance or essence, 
 • — a sense which some of the Fathers gave to it, when they 
 affirmed that there could be but one hypostasis in the God- 
 head ; but the use of hypostasis to designate person or dis- 
 tinction in the Godhead. In a word, when the Greek Fathers 
 use hypostasis or crooffwxov, for a distinction in the Godhead, 
 or the Latins persona or hypostasis in the same way, do they 
 use them so that we must fairly understand them as admitting 
 a numerical unity of essence or attributes, or only a specific 
 unity of the Godhead ? 
 
 That a uniformity among the Fathers, in the use of these 
 terms, existed without exception, and that no inconsistency 
 or inaccuracy in respect to the use of them can be found, is 
 more than any one would undertake to prove, who knows 
 how loosely many of the Fathers have written, and how lit- 
 tle the study of accuracy, in the use of language, prevailed 
 among them. Making only proper allowances for this (al- 
 lowances which must be made for modern as well as ancient 
 times), I think it can be shown that the view which I have 
 given, in the paragraph of my Letters that occasioned this 
 discussion, is substantially correct. 
 
 Tertullian, the earliest Father who presents us with the 
 terms person and Trinity (Lib. advers. Prax. c. 2), in a pas- 
 sage quoted hereafter in these Letters more at length (See 
 page 28), seems plainly to use the word person in the sense 
 which I have attached to it. His antagonist Praxeas denied 
 that there was any distinction in the Godhead, or any except 
 a verbal one. " This perversity (i. e. of Praxeas) thinks it- 
 self," says Tertullian, " to be in possession of pure truth, 
 while it'supposes that we are to believe in one God, not 
 otherwise than if we make the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
 the self-same, — as if all were not one, while all are of one, — 
 viz. by a unity of substance." 
 
 Farther on, he says, "I call him (the Logos) a person, and 
 pay him reverence." And again, " We are baptized into the 
 persons (of the Godhead) severally, by the use of their several 
 names." 
 
 The key to this language is plainly to be found in the opi- 
 nions of Praxeas, which denied any distinction in the God- 
 head. Tertullian means to assert it ; to do which, he uses 
 
APPENDIX. 155 
 
 the \von\ person and persons, while he expressly acknowledges 
 a unity or substance. That this unity is numerical; and not 
 specific, seems to me to be plainly indicated by the manner 
 in which he expresses himself, — which is equivalent to say- 
 ing, " About the unity of the Godhead as to substance, we do 
 not dispute with Praxeas — we only maintain that there is a 
 distinction, which we call person, not inconsistent with such 
 a unity." 
 
 In regard to Origen, it has generally been thought that he 
 maintained nothing more than a specific unity in the God- 
 head, while it is beyond a doubt that he asserts the existence 
 of three hypostases. (See Com. in Johan. p. 24.) To as- 
 certain in every case the exact meaning of words, in a writer 
 who uses them so carelessly (sometimes, to appearance, in- 
 consistently) as Origen does, would be a task difficult indeed 
 to be performed. That he believed in the doctrine of the 
 eternal generation and divinity of the Son, can scarcely be 
 doubted, when the various assertions which he has made on 
 this subject are compared together. (See Bulli opp. pp. lOo, 
 &c) That the three hypostases, which he predicates of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, do not imply persons in the 
 sense of the word which is now common, may be inferred 
 probably from what he says of the indivisibility of the divine 
 nature. " God," he says, " is altogether incorruptible, and 
 simple, and composite, not divisible." (Lib. iv. coat. Cels. p. 
 169.) Again, " The only begotten, God our Saviour, the 
 only begotten of the Father, is Son by nature, not by adop- 
 tion. He is born of the mind of the Father, as the will of 
 the mind. For the divine nature is not divisible, i. e. of the 
 unbegotten Father, ihat W2 should think the Son is begotten by 
 anj division or diminution of his substance." (Lib. 2, in Johan. 
 as cited by Pamphilus in Apolog.) 
 
 While Origen, therefore, maintains the doctrine of three 
 hypostases, or persons, he does it in such a sense as consists 
 with the indivisibility, — i. e. the numerical unity of the God- 
 head. Bat, to explain, or to justify all his speculations 
 about the generation of the Son, is what I shall by no means 
 attempt. 
 
 Cyprian, cotemporary with Origen, has little in his writings 
 which concerns the present question. In his letter to Jubia- 
 nus, however, after mentioning the Father, Christ, and the 
 Holy Spirit, he says, " These three are one ;" and he after- 
 wards speaks of Christ's " commanding to baptize iato the. 
 full and one (adunata) Trinity." 
 
 n3 
 
156 APPENDIX. 
 
 Lactantius (about a. d. 300), speaking of the Father and 
 Son, says, " To each belongs one mind, one spirit, one sub* 
 danced (Lib. 4. c. 49.) 
 
 The testimonies of the Antenicene Fathers, to the eternity 
 of the Son, may be seen in the works of Bishop Bull, above 
 referred to ; but as they have not a determinate bearing 
 upon the point in question, I pass them over. 
 
 Omitting the minor Fathers, let us come to the Nicene 
 Creed, the collected sense of the great body of the Church 
 at the beginning of the fourth century. This declares the 
 Son to be kftoover/og, consubstantial, with the Father. Does 
 this exclude or imply numerical unity of substance? 
 
 The meaning of the word oftoowttog must be here investigat- 
 ed. Originally it was applied to things which belong to the 
 game species or have the same nature. Thus Aristotle calls 
 the stars OfLooixSia, consubstantial ; and Crysostom (Horn. if5, 
 in Gen.) says that Eve was consubstantial, o/xoouovos, with 
 Adam. So the Pseudo- Justin, in opposing some of Aristotle's 
 doctrines, says, " In respect to a rational nature, angels and 
 demons are consubstantial" 
 
 This word, however, was so seldom used by ecclesiastical 
 writers, before the Council of Nice, in relation to the distinc- 
 tion in the Godhead, that the introduction of it has (though 
 erronously) been ascribed to that Council. But Origen (a. 
 d. 230, Dial. cent. Marcion.) calls the Logos consubstaiitial / 
 and Dionysius of Alexandria (a. d. 250) repeatedly uses the 
 same appellation in respect to Christ. (Suicer in g/zgouc/cj.) 
 
 Eusebius of Cesarea, one of the Nicene Fathers, in addres- 
 sing his Church about the Symbol of the Council of Nice, 
 defends the use of the word consubstantial in their Creed, by 
 saying that " he knew of some ancient, learned, and renown- 
 ed doctors in the Churches who used it." (Athanas. Epist. 
 ad Afr. T. I. p. 987.) 
 
 It would seem, that before the Council of Nice, 'he word 
 IfiMvSios had already come (as it certainly afterwards did), to 
 signify, as many used it, a numerical unity of substance. In 
 such a sense, it compares with o/zG-ra-p/o; of the same Father ; 
 ofjwymz, of the same nation ; o/xo^vyo?, under the same yoke. 
 Those who held to the doctrines of Sabellius, however, and 
 Paul of Samosata, seem to have abused the word, in order 
 to perplex their opponents, It was on this ground that the 
 Council of Antioch (a. d. 263) rejected the application of it 
 to the Son, — not because they disbelieved, as the Reviewer 
 would seem to intimate, the divine nature of Christ, The 
 
APPENDIX. 157 
 
 epistle, which six leading Bishops of that Council addressed 
 to Paul of Samosata, before his excommunication, says, " that 
 the Son is God, not by foreknowledge, but in sub- 
 stance and hypostasis we profess and preach." (Bib- 
 
 lioth. max. Pat. Tom. hi. p. 349.) Athanasius, stating the 
 reason why this Council rejected the word bfuxuffiog, says, 
 that " Paul of Samosata affirmed, that if Christ were con- 
 substantial with the Father, then it necessarily followed that 
 there were three substances — one prior, and two posterior — 
 derived from it. To avoid this sophism," adds Athanasius, 
 " those Fathers very properly said that Christ was not con- 
 substantial" — i. e. that the Father did not hold such a rela- 
 tion to the Son as Paul supposed. (Athanas. Opp. T. I. 
 p. 919.) A similar account of the rejection of consubstantial 
 by this Council is given by Basil. (Opp. T. iii. Epist. ccc.) 
 
 After all, however, it would seem that the ancient and 
 modern writers, in their discussion of this subject, have mis- 
 taken the meaning of the Council of Antioch ; and that they 
 merely denied that Christ xara aaczot, as to his human nature, 
 was consubstaatial with the Father. (See Doed. Inst. Vol. i. 
 § 115. c. and J. \Y. Feverlein, de Concil. Antioc. there cited.) 
 
 Neither Athanasius nor Basil, two of the most zealous 
 and able defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity among all 
 the ancient Fathers, intimate, so far as I have been able to 
 learn, the least suspicion that the Council of Antioch were 
 Unitarians. It is very clear, from the passage above cited, 
 that this Council believed in the divinity of Christ : And 
 since these Fathers lived so near the time when the Council 
 in question was held, and were so jealous as well as earnest 
 on the subject of Christ's divinity, it scarcely admits of a 
 doubt, that the conclusion of the Reviewer in regard to the 
 sentiments of this Council, is erroneous. 
 
 Thus much for b/Moo-j<nog, before the Council of Nice. In 
 the Symbol which they drew up, the word was inserted after 
 much discussion and consideration. IVIany members of the 
 Council were afraid that the same use might be made of it 
 which Paul of Samosata had made. It was not until "after 
 many questions and answers, and accurate investigation of 
 the meaning of the term," says Eusebius, in writing an ac- 
 count of the Nicene Creed to his Church, " that it was ad- 
 mitted. Those who defended it," he goes on to say, " aver- 
 red that it signified that the Son was of the substance of the 
 Father, but not a pa?i (or division) of the Father. To this 
 
158 APPENDIX. 
 
 sense," continues be, " it seemed proper we should assent.*' 
 (Soc. Ecc. Hist. L. I. c- 8.) 
 
 In the same Epistle, Eusebius says, that Constantine the 
 Emperor, who was President of the Nicene Council, replied 
 to some of the Bishops, who made inquiry respecting the 
 meaning of c/Aooixfioc, that " by it he did not mean that the 
 Son was of the Father by any corporeal affections, nor by 
 any division or separation (owrero/xij) • for it was impossible 
 that an incorporeal, intellectual, immaterial, nature, should 
 admit of corporeal affections (*. e. division or separation) ; 
 but the thing was to be understood of a divine and incom- 
 prehensible manner," i. e. manner of relation between the 
 Father and Son. 
 
 It seems to me quite plain, that the explanations of Euse- 
 bius and Constantine, serve to show what they did not mean 
 by o/tdfiutfios 1 , — viz. that they did not mean to impugn the nu- 
 merical unity of the divine substance, as they object to all 
 idea of separation or division. Specific unity, however, not 
 only admits, but demands a separation, which destroys nu- 
 merical unity. 
 
 The presumption, then, from these explanations, against 
 the doctrine of mere specific unity being taught in the Ni- 
 cene Creed, is pretty strong. It is very greatly increased, 
 however, by the explanations which this Creed received 
 fifty-six years afterwards, by the second ecumenical, or ge- 
 neral Council, assembled at Constantinople, by order of 
 Theodosius the Great, in order to restore peace to the 
 Churches, which were rent by the Arian dispute, and spe- 
 cially to settle and establish the Nicene Symbol of faith. 
 After meeting, and agreeing to receive and recommend the 
 Nicene faith, with some small additions, made to oppose some 
 new heresies which had arisen, they sent a Synodic Epistfe 
 to the Western Synod of Churches, who were to meet at 
 Rome ; in which they state, that, in accordance with the 
 Nicene Creed, and " the most ancient faith, and agreeable 
 to baptism, they believe in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, — so namely, that there is one divinity, power, 
 and substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; who pos- 
 sess equal dignity and coeternal dominion ; who exist in 
 three most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons ; — so 
 that the pest of Sabellius shall have no place, which con- 
 ' founds the persons, and takes away their appropriate quali- 
 ties ; nor the blasphemy of the Eunomians, Arians, and op- 
 
APPENDIX. 159 
 
 posers of the H< \y Spirit prevail, which destroys ihe sub- 
 stance and nature and divinity of the uncreated, consubstan- 
 tial, and coeternal Trinity, by introducing a posterior nature, 
 of a different substance, and created." (Theodoreti. Ecc. 
 Hist. L. v. c. 9.) 
 
 What in the Creed is expressed by consuustaniial, they 
 have here called " one [fliag] divinity, power, and substance, 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Gnost ;" which is a direct, and 
 (as it appears to me) unequivocal assertion of numerical unity, 
 and has so been understood, as far as I have learned, in all 
 succeeding ages of the Church. It cannot admit of a doubt, 
 I think, that they aimed to express the opcw&ov of the Ni- 
 cene Fathers, by the /x/a; ouffiag of their Epistle ; and if so, 
 then it is clear that they interpret the Nicene Creecf £§ 
 teaching numerical unity of substance, divinity, and power, 
 i e. substance and attributes, in the Godhead. 
 
 In this ecumenical Council were one hundred and fifty or- 
 thodox Bishops assembled, besides a number who were at- 
 tached to the sentiments of Macedonius. It is generally 
 conceded that their decision gave an establishment and a 
 uniformity to the Christian faith, about the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, which remains, even to the present time, among the 
 generality of Christians. This decision was so short a period 
 after the Nicene Council, that some Bishops present at Nice, 
 might be, and probably were still living, and not improbably 
 present at Constantinople. At any rate, the Fathers of the 
 Council of Constantinople can hardly be supposed to be 
 ignorant of what the Nicene Council meant to express by 
 
 C/AOOUfflOg. 
 
 That the great body of Catholics and Protestants have 
 maintained the numerical unity of the Godhead, will not, I 
 suppose, be called in question. As little can it be called in 
 question that the great body of them have supposed that the 
 Council of Nice meant to assert it. This Dr Mrnscher con- 
 cedes, in his very able attempt to show that the Nicene Fa- 
 thers meant to assert nothing more than a specific unity of 
 the Godhead. (Untersuch. uber den Sinn der Nic. Glaub.) 
 Very few of the elder Theologians, in modern times, have 
 called it in question, that the Nicene Cree.\ implies numeri- 
 cal unity ; and these have always been contradicted. Not 
 only so, but some of the great masters of ecclesiastical 
 lore have very recently avouched the opinion in question. 
 Schroeckh, that consummate master of Church history and 
 patristical learning (Kirchcn Greschich. v. 344), says, in re* 
 
160 APPENDIX. 
 
 fcrence to the meaning of bftoovctiog in the Nicene Creed, u It 
 cannot be doubted that by this word no specific unity is meant, 
 but a numerical unity in respect to being." So Walch, in his 
 celebrated History of Heresies, has decided (2 Th. s. 24) ; 
 and Stark, in his History of Arianism (Berlin, 1786, 1. Th. 
 s. 306, 307), has given the same opinion. I will not say 
 there is no appeal from men of such distinguished learning 
 as these ; but I may say, that what they pronounce in an 
 unqualified manner to be true, in a case which they have 
 fully examined, when confirmed by general opinion, in all 
 ages, and b}' very express and (as it seems to me) satisfac- 
 tory evidence in ancient times, may at least be asserted by 
 me, without any special rashness ; and may be said to be 
 plain from Church history. 
 
 Tne bearing of this investigation about numerical unity, as 
 implied or excluded by o/xoq-jsvoj, upon the question how the^ 
 Fathers used the word person, is very evident. A numerical 
 unity being acknowledged, person can be used in reference 
 to the Godhead, by no considerate man, in the same sense in 
 which it is applied to men. It designates a distinction in the 
 Godhead — a distinction, of course, in opposition to those who 
 maintain that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are in all 
 respects identical, so far as they are divine. And when the 
 Fathers use person, can they use it but in M opposition to 
 Sabellians and others of similar sentiments?" Most certain- 
 ly the Arians did not deny that Father and Son were two 
 hypostases. They maintained it in such a high sense as to 
 exclude numerical unity of substance. When the Council 
 of Constantinople affirm, therefore, that " God exists in three 
 most perfect hypostasis or perfect persons," they evidently 
 mean to oppose Sabellius, as they proceed to say, " So that 
 the pest of Sabellius shall have no place, which confounds the 
 persons, and takps away their appropriate qualities — nor the 
 blasphemy of the Eunomians, Arians, and opposers of the 
 Holy Spirit prevail, which destroys the substance, and na- 
 ture, and divinity of the uncreated, consubstantial, and co- 
 cternal Trinity, by introducing a posterior nature, of a dif- 
 ferent substance, and created." The latter clause here is as 
 if they had said, The Arians, &c. make two substances, na- 
 tures, &c. of Christ and the Father, and the Macedonians 
 explain away the being of the Spirit ; but we maintain nu- 
 merical unity [fuoa ovrtav) of substance or being, in opposition 
 to these. 
 
 Such an explanation, by these Fathers, of what the Ni« 
 
APPENDIX. 1G1 
 
 cere Council meant to oppose, seems to me to Indicate that 
 the Reviewer is not correct when he intimates that the Ni- 
 cene Fathers had not any particular reference to the errors of 
 Sabellius. To oppose Arius was, no doubt, the special ob- 
 ject of the Council. But then, in forming a creed, they na- 
 turally had reference to the disputes of the times in general. 
 Dr Munscher admits this. " The Nicene Council," says he, 
 "recognized (vorfand), as decided, the doctrine of the Church, 
 that the Son of God is called God, and is entitled to divine 
 honours. They recognized also the decision established in 
 opposition to the Noetians and Sabellians, that the Son or 
 Logos is a proper hypostasis." (Untursuch. &c.) " Cer- 
 tainly," says Bishop Bull (opp. p. 114), "it is most clearly 
 evident (liquidissimo constat) that the Nicence Fathers, in 
 their creed, meant to impugn other heresies besides the 
 Arian." He proceeds to say what is very evident, to be 
 sure, that many things are contained in the Creed which the 
 Arians did -not deny at all, and which must therefore refer 
 to other sects. 
 
 I have proceeded as far in this examination as my present 
 limits will allow. If I have justified the shape of the para- 
 graph which the Reviewer has animadverted upon, given in 
 the present edition, my special object is answered by this 
 investigation. 
 
 Be this, however, as it may, as the great body of Trinita- 
 rians, since the Council of Constantinople, to say the least, 
 have maintained the numerical unity of the Godhead, and as 
 3Ir Channing cannot be supposed to have attacked the Tri- 
 nitarianism of the Fathers, but of the present day, — so the 
 substance of all that was aimed at in the paragraph of the 
 Letters under consideration, stands unimpeached. Trinita- 
 rians of modern times, maintaining the numerical unity of 
 the Godhead, cannot, unless Mr Channing supposes them to 
 be most unreasonably self-contradictory, maintain that person 
 does apply or can apply to the Godhead, in the latitude in 
 which he understands it. The real question, therefore, as to 
 the justice of his attack upon their opinions, is not affected 
 by the sense in which the Fathers used the word person. 
 The investigation of this question, however, may not be with- 
 out some use. It may at least provoke a more diligent exa- 
 mination of the subject, than has hitherto taken place among 
 us. Should this be the case, the interests of truth may be 
 promoted by it. 
 
162 APPENDIX. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER III. 
 
 After finishing the above Letter, your " Note for the second edition " 
 came to hand. But as it seemed to me that most which it contained 
 had already been anticipated, I did not think it of importance to change 
 the shape of the Letter, and adapt it to your Note as well as Sermon, f 
 was still less inclined to this, because 1 had endeavoured, as far as pos- 
 sible, to avoid giving any personal shape to the controversy; knowing 
 how bitter and irrevelant to the original subject, all controversies soon 
 become, when personalities are admitted. 1 have not the most distant 
 design of saying any thing with a view to wound your personal sensibi- 
 lity ; but I do feel, and 1 ought to feel, a deep interest in addressing the 
 understanding and reason of a man who, by his weight of character, 
 sobriety of mind, and eminent talents, has acquired so much influence 
 in society as you have. And, in order to do this with propriety, I have 
 endeavoured, as far as possible, to throw the whole subject into the 
 shape of a discussion respecting principles ; and to avoid that form of 
 writing which too commonly involves personal reflection. 
 
 Will you now permit me, in this informal way, to add a few things, 
 which the perusal of your Note has suggested to me? 
 
 I am unable to reconcile the first passage of your Note, with another 
 in the body of your Sermon. In the former, you say, " We are told 
 by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, the same being 
 as the Father, and that a leading end of Christianity is to reveal him 
 in this character." In the 4atter you say, " According to this doctrine 
 (i. e. the doctrine of the Trinity), there are three infinite and equal 
 persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has 
 his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love 
 each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's so- 
 ciety. They perform different parts in roan's redemption, each having 
 his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The 
 Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and 
 is not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. 
 Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different 
 consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing 
 different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do 
 not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a lofs 
 to know how three minds or beings are to be formed." 
 
 But how can Trinitarians maintain that Jesus Christ is the "same 
 being as the Father," when a prominent trait of their doctrine is, that 
 there is a distinction between him and the Father? You yourself repre- 
 sent them as holding this distinction to be equal to that which exists 
 between two different men. This indeed is incorrect; but it is equally 
 so to represent them as holding that Jesus Christ is the "same being as 
 the Father," if you mean by this, in all respects the same. 
 
 Nor can I see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if Christ 
 were " the same being as the Father, .... we should expect to hear 
 him continually spoken of as the Supreme God." Tor,Jirst, are we to 
 receive the Book of God as it is, or are we at liberty to insist that it 
 must be conformed to our expectations ? and secondly, if Christ was 
 
APPENDIX. 163 
 
 truly man (a point as certain as that Christ ever existed), and was 
 conversant in the human nature with men. how, in a book which gives 
 us the history of what he said and did during his incarnation, should we 
 expect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God? The 
 reasonableness of such an expectation seems to be at least very ques- 
 tionable. 
 
 In truth, the sacred writers do not appear to me to write as con- 
 troversialists, on the subject of Christ's divinity. It is the way with 
 men, who have extravagant views of the importance of any particular 
 subject, to be ever dwelling upon it, and taking occasion to introduce 
 it as often as possible. Thus I have heard some preachers, who will 
 not utter a single public discourse, or offer a single prayer, without 
 letting it be known of all men, that they are champions for the doctrine 
 of the Trinity. I have heard others, who never fail to let their hearers 
 know that they are emancipated from the thraldom of the dark ages ; 
 and have thrown off the shackles of creeds and confessions, and forms 
 imposed by ignorant and bigoted men ; that they are enlightened and 
 reasonable Christians ; and that their audience are bound in duty to be- 
 come their imitators. The holy Apostles, however, possessed, as 1 must 
 believe, none of the spirit which prompts to either of these courses. 
 They did not view the subjects in a distorted and sectarian light. The 
 edifice of truth — the temple of the living God — rose under their hands 
 not only into a lofty and magnificent structure, but into one which was 
 as conspicuous for symmetry as for grandeur. 
 
 All parts of Christian doctrine held their proper place in the system 
 which they taught. Why should they then be continually speaking of 
 Christ as supreme God, when (as 1 verily believe), they expected no 
 professed follower of Christ to call this doctrine in question ? John 
 seems to have had opponents to it in his eye, when he wrote the first 
 verse of his gospel ; but, excepting this, I do not remember another 
 passage of the New Testament which has this aspect of opposition to 
 gainsayers, in regard to the divinity of Christ. The Apostles doubtless 
 expected to be believed, when they had once plainly asserted any thing. 
 That they are not, is indeed to be lamented ; but it cannot be charged, 
 to their fault. They felt (what we feel now), that very frequent, strong, 
 and direct asseverations of any thing are apt to produce a suspicion in 
 the minds of a hearer or reader, that the peison making them has not 
 arguments on which he relies, and so substitutes confident affirmations 
 in their room ; or that he is himself but imperfectly satisfied with the 
 cause which he defends ; or that he has sinister motives in view. For 
 myself, I confess I am inclined to suspect a man of all these, who makes 
 very frequent and confident asseverations. 
 
 I am the more satisfied, then, that the New Testament treats the sub- 
 ject in question as one which was not controverted, and as one which 
 was not expected to be called in question. My conclusion, from the 
 Apostles' mode of treating it, is, I acknowledge, quite different from 
 that which you draw, as slated in your Sermon and Notes. But, with 
 my present views, I must think it to be more probable than yours. 
 
 In regard to what follows in your Note, most of% has been antici- 
 pated. I will touch upon only a few points. 
 
 With respect to the passages which we adduce in proof of Christ's 
 
164 APPENDIX. 
 
 divine nature, you observe, that the "strength of the Trinitarian argu- 
 ment lies in those in which Jesus is called God." This may be true ; 
 but it lies in them, as I have from the first endeavoured to show, not 
 simply because the name God is given to him, but because those things 
 are ascribed to him as God, which no being but the Supreme God can 
 perform. My whole argument is constructed on this ground .- Your whole 
 Note, on the ground that we draw our conclusion simply from the fact, 
 that the appellation God is given to Christ. 
 
 What you say respecting the argument in favour of Christ's divine 
 nature, from the name given him in Matt. i. 23, accords in the mam with 
 my own views. To maintain that the name Immanuel proves the doc- 
 trine in question, is a fallacious argument ; although many Trinitarians 
 have urged it. Jerusalem is called "Jehovah our righteousness:" Is 
 Jerusalem therefore divine ? 
 
 V» hy should you say, in the third paragraph cf your Note, that, in 
 looking through " Mathew, Mark, and Luke, you meet with no instance 
 in which Christ is called God?" Are there no proofs here of his 
 omniscience, of his omnipotence, of his authority to forgive sin, of his 
 supreme, legislative right ? And are not these things better proof of 
 his divine nature than a mere name can be ? Why, moreover, should 
 such an invidious distinction be implied, to the prejudice of John's writ- 
 ings and of the Epistles? Do you not admit all the New Testament 
 to be of divine origin and authority? Of what importance, then, is it, 
 whether the doctrine of Christ's divinity is found in one part or ano- 
 ther? Besides, if any disciple could know who the Lord in reality 
 was, has any one a better claim to be considered as knowing it than 
 John, the disciple "who leaned on Jesus' bosom?" 
 
 You have passed the whole of John i. 1, with merely commenting 
 on the name. &eo$. My dear Sir, can you expect to satisfy candid in- 
 quirers with this ? Are you not bound to tell us how this Logos (word) 
 could create the worlds (ra rravra, the universe), before this text is dis- 
 posed of? You must tell us how creative poicer — the highest, the dis- 
 tinguishing act of Deity, which constitutes the characteristic and pro- 
 minent feature of the true God, in distinction from all false gods 
 (Is. xl. 40, and onward) — can be delegated? When you can explain 
 this, then you will bring us upon ground where we shall be unable to 
 controvert the Gnostics, who denied that the Jehovah of the Old Tes- 
 tament is the Supreme God. Inferior power, they maintained, was 
 competent to create the world. What less do they who ascribe crea- 
 tion to Christ, and yet reject his Divinity? 
 
 Why should you pass over all that on which we rely for proof, and 
 touch only that on which we do not profess to place confident reliance? 
 I mean, why should you descant on the 7iame God, and say nothing of the 
 attributes and works ascribed to him who bears this name ? If we should 
 argue in the same manner with you, ought we to expect to convince 
 you ? Much less could we acquit our consciences of our obligation to 
 represent the opinions of others fairly to the world, should we publish 
 any thing by which we should endeavour to make them believe that 
 all the evidence in favour of a particular doctrine held by many Chris- 
 tians consisted in that very thing on which they did not rely ; or at most, 
 id that which constituted merely but a part of their grounds of belief. 
 
APPENDIX. 165 
 
 The simile from Plato and Socrates, I must think, is less happily 
 chosen than your fine taste and cultivated mind commonly lead you to 
 choose. In the same hreath that you say, " Plato was in the begin- 
 ning with Socrates, and was Socrates," you add, " that whoever saw 
 and heard Plato, saw and heard, not Plato, but Socrates, and that as 
 long as Plato lived, Socrates lived and taught -." That is, your first 
 sentence would either be not at all understood, or understood, of 
 course, in a sense totally different from that which you meant to con- 
 vey, unless you added the commentary along with the sentence. John 
 has indeed added a commentary ; but this is, as he means to call Christ 
 the god who created the universe. Of this commentary you have 
 taken no notice : But of this you are bound to take notice, if you mean 
 to convince those who differ from you, or to deal ingenuously with 
 those whom you design to instruct. 
 
 On the texts, John xx. 28, Acts xx. 28, Rom. ix. 5, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 
 Hcb. i. 6, and John v. 20, 1 have already said what I wish to say at 
 present. The remarks in your Note do not seem to call for any new 
 investigation. 
 
 You say (near the close of your Note), that you have " collected all 
 the passages in the New Testament in which Jesus is supposed to be 
 called God." The foregoing Letter, however, does represent us as 
 supposing that there are still more in which he is called God, — although 
 I have omitted many in which a multitude of Trinitarians have sup- 
 posed that Christ is called God, Why should you affirm this, when 
 nearly every book on the doctrine of the Trinity, that ever has been 
 published by Trinitarians, will contradict it ? 
 
 You repeat also the assertion here, " that in two or three passages, 
 the title (of God) may be given him (Christ) ; but in every case, it is 
 given in connexions and under circumstances which imply that it is not 
 to be received in its highest and most literal sense." 
 
 Eat in no single instance have you noticed the " connexions and cir- 
 cumstances," in which the appellation God is bestowed on Christ. 
 Can you reasonably expect your thinking readers will take this asser- 
 tion upon credit ? Are you not bound to prove to these same readers, 
 hy the Scriptures, interpreted according to the universal laws of explaining 
 liuvian language, that the New Testament writers have not ascribed to 
 Christ creative power, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, divine 
 worship, divine honours, and eternal existence ? What are names in this 
 dispute ? Show that these attributes are not ascribed to Christ, and 
 you make us Unitarians at once. You ought not to take the advan- 
 tage of representing our arguments as consisting in that on which we 
 do not place reliance ; and then intimate to your readers, " This is all 
 which Trinitarians have to allege in their own favour." Dispute can 
 never be terminated in this way. Meet fairly and openly the points in 
 debate. Many of your readers are certainly too intelligent, and tco 
 conscientious, to be satisfied with any other course. Any other does 
 not become your high character and distinguished talents. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
56 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 tun i E^ 
 
 0M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
X