tihraxy of Che t:heological ^tminary 
 
 PRINCETON . NEW JERSEY 
 
 'iff \W 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 William B. Sprague, D.D. 
 1839 
 
 

 B E F EMC 
 
 ? 1\T fT^ TUi 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNITARIANISM: 
 
 INCtllDlNG 
 
 ^ riXDICATION of the GEjYUIXE.VES9 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS: 
 
 IX A SECOND LETTER TO 
 
 LANT CARPENTER, LL D. 
 
 OccaTioned by his Letters addreiTed to the Author, 
 
 ENTITLES 
 
 '* Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel.'* 
 
 7 
 
 By DANIEL VEYSIE, B.D. 
 Rector of Plvmtree, Devon, 
 
 AND late fellow OF OSIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 EXETEli: 
 
 Printed by TREWMA.N and SON; 
 
 AND SOLD BY F. C. & J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD 
 
 J. PAgKJiR, OXFORD; TfiEWMAN AND DYER, EXETER; 
 
 GUTCH, BRISTOL, &C. &C. 
 
 1810. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 I 
 
 Introduction - 
 
 Unitarian doftrine, refpefting the perfon and 
 office of Chrift - - - - 5 
 
 Of the argument in favour of Unitarianifm, 
 from the topicks, ufually infixed upon by 
 the Apoflles, in their preaching - - I2 
 
 Of the fuppofed filence of all the Writers of 
 the New Teftament, (St. John excepted,) 
 refoefting a fupra-human nature in Chrift 20 
 
 Of the attempt to coUeft the doftrine of St. 
 John, not from what is contained in his 
 own writings, but from what is not 
 contained in the other books of Scripture 35 
 
 Cautions to be obferved in interpreting holy 
 Scripture - - - - - -41 
 
 Sxplanaticn of the firft fourteen verles of St. 
 John's Gofpel ----- 45 
 
 The pafiTages of Scripture, brought to prove 
 the fupra-human nature of Chrift, vindi- 
 cated from the forced interpretation of 
 the Unitarians ----- S3 
 
 Of the fcriptural declarations refpe£ting the 
 human nature of Chrift - - - 1 1 q 
 
e.Kcr.. 
 
 Of the exaltation of Chrift to a ftate of glory 1 1 6 
 Chiift, the objeft of religious adoration - 122 
 Of the dodlrine of atonement, and of the 
 fuppofed figurative language of holy 
 Scripture ------ 145 
 
 Of the argument againft a propitiation for fin, 
 from the benevolence of the Deity, and 
 from the ground of man's acceptance, as 
 in is declared by Mofes and the Prophets 
 in the Old Teftament, and by Chrift and 
 his Apoftles in the New - - - 157 
 Of the argument againft a propitiation for fin, 
 from its fuppofed inconfiftency with the 
 /;r^^(7/« of God's pardoning mercy - 165 
 Of the Gofpel fchemc of redemption, and the 
 efficacy of Chrift's death, according to 
 Dr.C. - - - - - - 173 
 
 Of the Epiftle to the Hebrews - - - ^79 
 Of the priefthood and offering of Chrift - 212 
 Vindication of the paiTagcs brought to prove 
 the doiftrine of atonement, by tlie blood 
 or death of Chrift - - - _ 229 
 Of the death of Chrift confidered as a ranfom 272 
 Conclulion ------ 075 
 
A 
 
 SECOJVJD JLETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 LANT CARPENTER, LL. D. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 JL O what a multiplication of 
 words does controverfy lead ! Who would have 
 imagined that a fmall Pamphlet of hardly more 
 than forty pages would have given rife to an an- 
 fwer of nearly nine times its fize ' I confefs that the 
 bulk of your volume at firll rather ftartled me : but 
 my furprize was fomevvhat abated, when, upon 
 taking a general view of its contents, I found that 
 it was compofcd of much extraneous matter, in 
 which the merits of the controverfy are not con- 
 cerned , and that you had not only undertaken to 
 anfwer tlie points to which my letter had called 
 your attention, but had alfo made me the vehicle 
 of conveying to the public your fentiments upon 
 other points of doftrlne, which I had not brought 
 into thedifpute : fuch as, the doftrine of the Tri- 
 A 
 
ftlty, the equality of the Son with the Farhe»% 
 vicarious punifhment, &c. &c. But what moft 
 rurprized me was, that you fhould ftill perfift in 
 deducing from the doflrine of fatisfadlion, pernici- 
 ous effedls and confequences, which I had fully 
 Ihewn could be imputed only to an abufe of the 
 doftrine, and to fuch a fenfe of it as I expreflly 
 difavowed. Surprized indeed I was at this circuni- 
 llance, which I could hardly have expedled from 
 a fair reafoner. At the fame time I was not dif- 
 pleafed ; as it fully convinced me that the dodrine 
 itfelf, fairly flatedand rightly underftood, is even 
 in the opinion of its adverfaries free from cvcrv 
 objeftion of the kind. 
 
 You telJ me that you did not difcover in mv 
 letter " any of that deep fcriptural refcarch and 
 " acquaintance with the arguments of the Unita- 
 " rians, which one was naturally led to expcft in 
 *' a Prffcrvatlve agahiji IJyiilar'uimfm.^'''^- 1 hat, 
 which you expelled to difcover, made no part of 
 my plan. I had rather in \iew a popular work, 
 the language and argument of which Ihould not be 
 above the reach of common underftandings, which 
 might tend to counterad the avowed deligns of the 
 Unitarians. I faw with concern their growing ac- 
 tivity, and their zeal for dilTeminating their tenets; 
 and I knew not how I could employ my time more 
 * Letters, page '2. 
 
either to the glory of God, or to the benefit of his 
 Church, than by contributnig my endeavours to 
 preferve men from opinions thus zealoufly difle- 
 minated. In doing this, my objedt was to fhevv, 
 that the commonly received doftrines, refpeding 
 the perfon and offices of the Saviour, have their 
 foundation in the Scriptures : and for this purpofe 
 I felefted a few paflages, which I brought forward, 
 " almoft without comment," from a conviftion 
 that- if they were fuffered to fpeak for themfelves, 
 their true meaning muft be obvious to the meaneft 
 capacity: and in this attempt, I truft, I have not 
 been wholly unfuccefsful. 
 
 Nor ought you to wonder at my total inatten- 
 tion to the Unitarian explanation of thofe paliages 
 of Scripture which I cited. Unitarians have, at 
 different times, given different explanations of the 
 fame paiTage. I have feen for inflance many Uni- 
 tarian explanations of the commencement of St. 
 John's Gofpel, (a pafTage of the highefl impor- 
 tance in the Unitarian controverfy,) all widely 
 differing from each other. If I had been inchned 
 to aft in the manner which you feem to have ex~ 
 pe£led, how in the midfl of fuch variety was I to 
 diftinguifh that which you would call the Unitarian 
 explanation? But now fince the publication of 
 your book, the cafe is altered. Unitarianifm 
 comes now before me in a tangible form : I can 
 
 A 2 
 
now lay my finger upon any one of your com- 
 ments, and fay, this is the true Unitarian explana- 
 tion: or at leaft (which is the fame thing to mc,) 
 this Dr. Carpenter accounts the Unitarian expla- 
 nation ; and I can proceed accordingly. 
 
 Before I advance further, I beg to "be under- 
 ftood, that in any thing which I may fay refpeft- 
 ing the Unitarian tenets, I mean nothing perfonal 
 to the Unitarians. Perfonalities are my abhorrence : 
 and though it is difficult for a man to be always 
 upon his guard, yet I hope, upon all occafions, to 
 abftain from them. And left I fhould be tempted 
 to tranfgrefs the rule, which I have thusfet to my- 
 felf, the prefent is all the notice which I fhall take 
 of the perfonalities (not always of the moft liberal 
 kind) refpe£ling the Church of England, and its 
 members, which with concern I have occalion- 
 ally obferved in your book. Such things may 
 pleafe the illiberal of one's own party : but as they* 
 contain no argument, they can be of no real fer- 
 vice to any caufc. The jicrfons of the Unitarians, 
 I profefs to hold in rcfpeft ; but. not fo their religi- 
 ons tenets. Much of what the title of my book 
 may feem to indicate, I openly avow:* 1 do not 
 think Unitarianifm a harmlcfs fyftem ; on the con- 
 trary, I cftcem it a pernicious herefy ; a dangerous 
 departure from the truth oftheGofpeJ; othervyile, 
 
 ^ * Letters, page ,"). 
 
•why (hould I think of providing a Prefcrvatht 
 againft it? or why ihould I now defend the Ortho- 
 dox caufe? 
 
 I fliall (for the prefent at lead) pafs over your 
 firft letter, which confifts chiefly of remarks rela- 
 ting to ourfelves perfonally. Some few things of 
 more general concern I Ihali have an opportunity 
 of noticing as I go along in their proper place. 
 
 The fecond letter begins with a defcription of 
 Unitarianifm : which you fay " I take in its more 
 " limited, and at prefent more common accepta- 
 " tion, as including not only the proper unity of 
 *' the Deity, but the proper (or fimple) humanity 
 ♦' of jefus."* The expreffion, " proper (or fimple) 
 ♦' humanity," feems to imply that the words //«//<? 
 and /irofier are fynonymous. But can this be your 
 meaning ? I myfelf believe that Jefus Chrill was 
 properly and truly a man, but I do not believe 
 that he w^as fimply and merely a man: nor can I 
 confent to receive the declarations of his /irojier 
 humanity as proofs of the 7?^///^ humanity. 
 
 Next follows your belief as an Unitarian, as far 
 as it refpedVs the perfon and office of our Saviour. 
 ^s to his perfon, you believe that he was a Man ; 
 and you tell us that you ufe the word man in the 
 plain and obvious fenfe, to denote " one, who was 
 " ftridly and properly fpeaking a human Being, 
 ♦ Letters, page 28. 
 A ^ 
 
*' who had no exigence before his liuman birth."* 
 Mere then you expreflly deny the pre-exiftence, 
 and you virtually deny the divinity of Chjift. 
 
 Your belief, as it refpefts the office of the 
 Saviour, may be thus Hated. He was appointed 
 *' to reveal the doctrines of free pardon and ever- 
 ** iafting life ; to point out the conditions by which 
 " thefe bleffings are to be acquired ; and to declare 
 •' the confequcnces of impenitence and difobedi- 
 *' ence." In proof of the divine authority, with 
 which he a£led, he was " empowered to work. 
 " miracles." In the execution of the commiffion 
 with which he was entruftcd, he " voluntarily 
 " fubmitted to a painful and ignominious death," 
 " and thus complet€d his part Sn the Gofpel fcheme 
 *' of redemption, or deliverance from the power 
 " of fin and death." But " God ralfed him from 
 *' the dead, as a proof of his divine authority, as a 
 " pledge" of the refurre£tion of his followers " and 
 " as an aflurance to all mc;i that he has appointed 
 " a day in which he will judge the world in right- 
 *' eoufnefs by him." Laftly '' God exalted him 
 *' to great dignity and power, which power, during 
 ** tlie age of the Apofllcs, was miraculoufly em- 
 *' ployed in diffufmg the privileges and bleflings of 
 « the Gofpel."! 
 
 In this profeffion of your faith, fomethingfceiiis 
 « Letters, page 29. J Page 28, 29. 
 
to he wanting : I do not fee the whole of what you 
 formerly profelled. You fay indeed that the Sa- 
 viour " fubmitted to a painful and ignominious 
 " death," but you do not add " as an atteftation 
 " of the truth:" nor are we any longer told that 
 God raifed him from the dead, " as an alTurance of 
 a future Hate of retribution."* You appear at 
 length to have perceived that your reference to 
 A6ls xvii. 30. 31. in fupport of this pofition, will 
 not bear you out :-f and therefore " a future ftate 
 *' of retribution" is very properly lowered down 
 into a day of Judgement. 
 
 In your further illuftration of the office of 
 Chrift, I meet with much obfcurity and perplexity, 
 fo that it is difficult to difcover the meaning in- 
 tended to be conveyed. " The one great end and 
 " purpofe of the work and fufferings, the miracles 
 *' and refurreftionofour Saviour," you "believe to 
 " have been, that he might redeem us from all ini- 
 *' quity, and purify to himfelf a peculiar people zea- 
 *' lous of good works, Tit. ii. I4."§ In this pailage 
 of Scripture our redemption and purification are 
 afcribed to Chrift as his perfonal work: it is, not 
 that w£ might be redeemed and purified"; but, that 
 HE might redeem and purify us. But if, as you 
 Juft before afTerted, his part in the Gofpel fcheme 
 of "redemption was completed, when he fubmitted 
 »Disc. Page 6. f Letters, page 32. § Page 29, 
 A 4 
 
8 
 
 to death, I fee not how any fharc in the accom- 
 plifliment of tliis work can be afciihcd to his rcfur- 
 reftion. And, indeed, the Apoftle himfelf does not 
 introduce upon this occafion, cither the miracles 
 or the refurre<^ion of the Saviour; but afcribes the 
 whole to that one aft of Chrill, which he calls his 
 having given himfelf for us. But we are told that 
 in order " to accomphfli this great end, tliree moft 
 " important fubordinate ends or means were ac- 
 ** complifhed ; the mercy and forgivcnefs of God 
 "were aj/ivcd to repentant fanners, a flate ofre- 
 *' tribution was revealed, and the terms of pardon 
 " and everlafting happinefs declared:"* and you 
 are of opinion that the Scriptur-cs do not " tench 
 " any end of the milTion and death of Chrift, which 
 '*' is not included in thefe, or at leaft fubordinate 
 " to thcm."§ So then thefe are ends of the death 
 of Chrift : and they are alfo means for the accom- 
 plifliment of the great end : but if fo, they muft 
 have been accompliflied firft ; otherwife they could 
 not have been employed as means. Bui if thefe 
 were the meamhy which the Saviour accomplilhed 
 the work ot our redemption, how can they, or 
 any one or more of them, be at the fame time ends 
 of his death? Yet fo it is: and you go on to af- 
 firm that in your apprchenfion " tJie importance of 
 " the fufferings and death of Chrift,* in the Gofpel 
 • LcttLTs, puge '20. § Page 30. 
 
" fcheme of redemption, arifes entirely from their 
 " being neceJJ'ary means to the accompHlhment of 
 " one or more of thefe ends."* Tluis then you 
 ftate the cafe: The great end, which the Saviour 
 propofed to himfelf, in all that he did and fuffered, 
 was our redemption and purification; the means 
 which he ufed for the accomplifliment of this end, 
 were thefe thiee ; he gave to repentant finners an 
 afTurance of God's mercy and forgivenefs, he re- 
 vealed a flatc of retribution, and he propounded 
 the terms of pardon and cverlafting happinefs ; and 
 the means necelfary to the accompHlhment of one 
 or more of thefe means were his own fufferings 
 and death. Hence arifes entirely the importance 
 of Chrift's fufferings and death in the Gofpel 
 fcheme of redemption ; they were the means ot 
 accomplifliing the means by which the Saviour 
 effefted the purpofe for the accomplilhment of 
 which he fuftered and died ! This ftrange confu- 
 iion of means which are ends, and ends which are 
 means, perplexes one extremely, and makes it 
 difficult to unravel all the windings. 
 
 You afterwards ftate the importance of Chrift's 
 fufferings fomewhat more broadly, but with no 
 Jittle obfcurity. You rightly obfcrve that *' it 
 " would be prefumptuous in an erring mortal to 
 " fay, that the Supreme Being could not havt 
 * Letters, page 3». 
 A 5 
 
10 
 
 *^* appointed fome other means of effcfting thcfe 
 " purpofes:"* that is, as I underftand you to mean, 
 it would be prefumptuous in us to fay, that the 
 means for accomphfliing the redemption of man- 
 kind, could have been effected only by the death 
 of Chrift; — confequently the death of Chrift was 
 not abfolutely nccelfary. But it feems that if not 
 abfokitcly ncceflary, yet the circumflances of tlie 
 cafe made it become neceflary, or at leaft gives U3 
 fufficient reafon to affirm it to be fo : for thus you 
 argue : fince " we know from the event that thefe 
 " means uv;t appointed by God, and can perceive 
 ** from the circumflances of the cale, tlmt in t/iofe 
 " clrcumjianccs, tlie aifiirance and extenfion of the 
 ^' bleflings of the Gofp&l covenant required the 
 ■*' fufFerings and death of Jcfus, there can be no 
 ■*' hefltation in faying that the fufFerings and death 
 *' of Jefus were neccjjary in order to fulfil the gra- 
 •*' cious purpofes for which he came, and that 
 *' therefore his death was a yiccejfury facr'ificc for the 
 " redemption of mankind ; that is, for their dclive- 
 " ranee from the power of fin and death."§ The 
 c'lrcuniflanccs of the cafe, which gave to our Lord's 
 *lcath that importance which otherwife it would 
 not have had, are not exprclily flated, tiij near the 
 clofe of your book :.|| but tJicy are briefly thefe. 
 It feems that our Lord towards the conclufion of 
 • J^t.>rs, pagj« oO. § Ibid. |i Pa^e 2<)G-30v". 
 
11 
 
 ills minlftry, was by the mere courfe of events, 
 brought into fuch a Htuation, that if he had avoid- 
 ed death, he would either have deferted the objefts 
 of his miffion, without the fanftion of divine au- 
 thority, or at leaft he would not have purfued the 
 bcft method of accomphlhing them. He therefore 
 voluntarily (libmitted to death, as the heft and 
 moft efficacious means of forwarding and promo- 
 ting the great purpofe for which he came. Ac- 
 cording to this flatement, the death of Chiifl: ap- 
 pears not to have had any part afligned to it in the 
 original plan of man's redemption ; and therefore 
 it cannot with any propriety be laid to be cjfentially 
 neceflary : it appears at moft to have become, by 
 the caliial concurrence of circumftances, a mea- 
 fure of fitnefs and expediency. Neverthelefs this 
 fitncfsand expediency is magnified into requifition 
 and neceffity ; and4;he death of Clirift is, on this 
 account merely, afftrmed to be " a nec-Jfary facrifice 
 for the redemption of mankind." This redemption 
 of mankind you make to conf^ft wholly in their 
 deliverance from the /^ow^r of fin and death; and 
 are totally fllent as to any guilt from which they 
 need deliverance. It is true, we are all fubjefl to 
 the power of far, from which, thanks be to God, 
 we obtain deliveisnce through Chrifl:. jBut this is 
 not all: the fumer, as fuch, is a polluted creature, 
 tgiTenfive to God, and -finfit for communign w!t?i 
 ^6 
 
12 
 
 liim, and it is only by the blood of Chrift that }ie 
 is wafhcd and lanftified, and made an cbjc6l of 
 divine favour. I his I believe to be the doftrine 
 of the New Teftament: confequently what you 
 peremptorily deny to be Chvil\ian doflrine,* I 
 mofl: firmly hold ; namely, that the death of Chrift 
 propitiated God ; or reconciled God to Man. 
 
 It is the common praftice of Unitarians to 
 fuppofe that the topicks upon which the Apoftles 
 iifually infilted for the converfion of unbelievers, 
 place before us all the elTentials of Chrillianity, 
 and were the only points to which they required 
 the belief of their converts. I remember formerly 
 to have laboured through much to this purpofe in 
 a work of Dr. Prieftley ; and I perceive, Sir, that 
 you purfue the fame train of argument. You tell 
 us that from the account of Luke, in his invalu- 
 able narrative, it appears to you " next to certain 
 " that the iirll teachers of the Gofpcl propofed for 
 "the belief of their converts nothing but Unita- 
 " rianifm."t And prcfently after you add, "For 
 " myfelt when I examine A£ts x. 33-44, 1 feel con- 
 *' vinced that 1 polfefs all the elTcntials of Chrirtia- 
 " nity, and that as far as faith is concerned, I need 
 ** not fear the difapprobation of my Judgc."§ 'J'his, 
 Sir, is bold language; and it behoves vou to neg- 
 letH no means of afcertaining whether it be well 
 * U-t(trs, page ;5l. t Ibitl. § Page 3'2. 
 
13 
 
 founded. Of the Apoftolical fermons, recorded 
 by St. Luke in the Ads of the Apoilles, the greater 
 part were their firft addrefTes to the unbehevers, 
 whom they allayed to convert: and the topicks 
 upon which they infilled, were adapted to the cir- 
 cumllances of the cafe. The foundation of their 
 argument was commonly laid in the refurreftion 
 of Jefus from the dead. But the fuperftru(3"ure 
 which they raifed upon this foundation, differed 
 according as the perfons to whom they preached 
 were Jews or Gentiles. To the Jews, they in- 
 filled upon the refurreftion, as a proof that Jefus 
 was the Mefiiah or Chrift:* to the Gentiles that 
 he was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick 
 and dead :§ topicks peculiarly fitted to excite the 
 attention, and to fliew how nearly all. Gentiles 
 as well as Jews, were interefted in the Golpel. 
 But, Sir, will you contend that thefe firil addrelles 
 to the unconverted, mull or ought to contain all 
 the eflentials of Chriflianity ; every thing which 
 the confirmed Chrillian can be required to believe ? 
 Common fenfe demands a different conclufion. 
 And he mull be blind indeed who does not per- 
 ceive the difference between thefe fermons to the 
 unconverted, and St. Paul's addrefs to the Elders 
 of the Church of Ephefus, recorded in the fame 
 book.f 
 
 * See Acts ii. 22-36 and xvii. 2. 3. § See Acts xvii, 31, 
 t Acts XX. 18-35. 
 
14 
 
 So much for the Umtanamfin taught by lli« 
 ■*firft preachers of the GofpeJ. But becaufc you 
 refer particularly to St. Peter's addrefs to Corne- 
 lius, recorded in A£ls x. 33-44, 1 requeft you to 
 review with me this pafiage of Scripture, in order 
 lliat we may fee how far the cafe of Cornelius will 
 juftify the confidence with which you rely upon it. 
 Cornelius was by nation a Roman, and by pro- 
 feflion a Heathen ; but he was not an Idolater. 
 From his refidencc in Judea, he had imbibed the 
 knowledge of the true God, whom he religioufly 
 feared and devoutJy worfliipped. He was what 
 the Jewifh Doftors were accuilomed to call a 
 Proftiyte of the Gate: he had difclaimed Idolatry 
 and worlhipped the true God, the God of Ifrael; 
 but not having fubmitted to the rite of Circumci- 
 fion, and to the yoke of the Mofaical law, he was 
 without the pale of the Jewilh Church, and was 
 fliU accounted unclean, ajid unfit for the converfe 
 of a Jew. This devout man was fele£led by di- 
 vine Providence to be the firfl: among the Gen- 
 tiles, who (hould be admitted into the Church of 
 Chrift. He was therefore prepared -by a viiion to 
 attend to the dodrine which fliould be preached 
 to him by Peter: and Peter was prepared by ano- 
 ther vifion to fufpend his Jewiili prejudices, and 
 to obey the call of Cornelius. 
 
 'J he paffage, to which you refer, coiitaitis 
 
15 
 
 Peter's firfl: addrefs to Cornelius. He begins with 
 acknowledging his convidion, that a worfhipper 
 of the true God, was capable of the divine favour, 
 even though he did not belong to the common 
 wealth of Ifrael. He then proceeds to fpeak of 
 Jefus, concerning whom he enumerates things of 
 which no reiident in Judea could be ignorant ; fuch 
 as, his prophetical character, his preaching, his 
 miracles, and his ignominious death : to thefe he 
 adds his refurreftion from the dead; an event, lefs 
 notorious, but capable of abundant proof from the 
 teilimony of the Apoftles, his chofen witnefTes. 
 Thefe are all bare fa6ls, of which no purpofe is 
 expreffly afligned. The Apoflle then announces 
 the appointment of this Jefus, whom the Jews had 
 killed, and whom God had raifed from the dead, 
 to be the Judge of Quick and Dead. This, as I 
 before obferved, was the ufual topick upon which 
 the Apoillesinfifled in their addrelles to the Gen- 
 tiles. Laflly, the Apoflle difcourfes upon a topick 
 more immediately adapted to the cafe of Cornelius. 
 The Jews held that none were holy, and the people 
 of God, but fuch as were circumcifed and obferved 
 the law. They made legal righteoufncfs the in- 
 flrument of fandification ; without which even a 
 devout worfhipper, fuch as was Cornelius, was 
 unholy, and yet in his lins. But the Apoftle de- 
 clares that the Prophets all bear teilimony to ano- 
 
16 
 
 ther inftrumcnt of fanftification, even faith in 
 Chrift ; and that all who believe in him, and cm- 
 brace his religion, fliall, notwithflanding their 
 want of legal righteoufnefs, receive remiffion of 
 fins, and be numbered among the people of God. 
 This, Sir, as I conceive, is the full import of Pe- 
 ter's difcourfe to Cornelius. It is a difcourfe pe- 
 culiarly adapted to the circumflances of the cafe : 
 it pretends not to detail the effentials of Chriflianitv, 
 but merely holds out encouragement to a devout 
 Heathen to become a Chrifkian. The topicks in- 
 fifled upon, are not points of dodrine propofed 
 for the belief of a convert, but are arguments 
 urged for the converlion of an unbeliever. And if 
 fo, upon what a fandy foundation do you build 
 your confidence in the fufficiency of your prefent 
 Creed ! 
 
 When you come to view the fubiecfl: in this its 
 true light, you will not, I think, any longer be of 
 opinion that the Afts of the Apoftles afford almofl 
 a certainty, that the firfl Teachers of the Gofpel 
 propofed for the belief of their converts nothing 
 but Unitarianifm. Indeed, independently of tliLs 
 I fee no ground for fuch a fweening alTcrtion. Are 
 the do£trines contained in thefe Apoflolical Ser- 
 mons the peculiar doftrines of the Unitarians? 
 You do not pretend that they are : indeed the 
 whole tenor of your argument goes to fhew that 
 
17 
 
 the leading tenet of Unitarianlfm is, that Jefus was 
 limply a man. But where is it faid that the Apof- 
 tles propofed this as an article of faith to their 
 converts ? You will not aflert that it is any where 
 faid. Thefe are your words. " I do not mean to 
 " fay that the firft Teachers of the Gofpel often 
 " laid ftrefs upon our Lord's being truly and pro- 
 '* perly one of the human race, but that their 
 " preachings imply this, and contain nothing in- 
 " confident with it."* The next fentence ftates 
 the reafon both why the Apoflles did not infift 
 upon the fimple humanity, and alfo why Unita- 
 rians are now obliged to ptirfue a different con- 
 duct. " If the doftrines of two natures in the 
 " perfon of Chrift, and of his divinity and pre- 
 *' exillence, were as much unknown now, as I be- 
 *' lieve that they were in the times of the Apoilles, 
 " Unitarians would not be obliged to make the 
 ^'- Jimlile humanity of Jefus a part of their Creed." 
 When I had read thus far, I could not avoid fay- 
 ing to myfelf with fome aftonifliment, can Dr. 
 Carpenter be ignorant that the Gnoftic herefy pre- 
 vailed in the days of the Apoflles? But my afto- 
 nifhment was not a little increafed when I had 
 read the concluding part of the note, " It does not 
 appear that the Apoftles thought it neceflaiy to 
 ailert that jefus was really a man, (though tliey 
 * Letters, page 31. Note,+ 
 
18 
 
 reafoned from the faft) till the Gnoftics and Do- 
 cetas taught that he was a man in appearance only." 
 Then, exclaimed I, Dr. C. did know that the Gnof- 
 tic herefy prevailed in the ApofloHcal age; and 
 further that the Apoftles preached and wrote 
 againft it — how then could he alTert that the doc- 
 trines of two natures in Chrift, and of the divinity 
 and pre-exiftence, were unknown in the times of 
 the ApoHles? — Perhaps fome of our readers may 
 not know much of thefe Docctae. They taught, 
 as you rightly obferve, that Jefus Chrifl was a man 
 in appearance only: but you do not (at Icafl: in 
 this place) ftate the whole of their doftrine. 
 They taught alfo that he was really the Son of tlie 
 Supreme God, from whofe heavenly habitation he 
 defcended upon earth for the falvation of mankind. 
 Hence it appears that this ancient herefy is the 
 very reverfe of modern Unitarianifm. The Do- 
 cetse denied the humanity, but confefled the divi- 
 nity and pre-exiftence: whereas, if the Unitarian 
 doftrine be true, they ought to have denied the 
 divinity and pre-exiflencc, and have acknowledged 
 the humanity: and if fo, then, Sir, I contend that 
 the firfl: Teachers of the Gofpel, if they noticed 
 this herefy at all, were called upon to aflert, in op- 
 pofition to it, not the proper humanity merely, but 
 the fimple humanity. Now the Apoflle St. John 
 iunqueflionably had this herefy in view when in his 
 
19 
 
 fecond Epiftle he declares " Many deceivers v^re 
 ** entered into the world, who confefs not that 
 " Jefus Chrift is come in the flefh,"* And (left 
 you fhould object to my citing a pafTage from an 
 Epiftlc of queftionable authority) there are words 
 of the fame import in his firft Epiftle, " Every 
 fpirit that confelTeth not that Jefus Chrift is come 
 in the flefli is not of God."§ Here is an exprefs 
 aflertion that Jefus Chrift was truly a man. But 
 if to affirm the divinity and pre-exiftence had been 
 no lefs heretical than to deny the humanity, was it 
 not incumbent upon the Apoftle to oppofe the 
 former as well as the latter, and to affirm not only 
 that Jefus Chrift was truly a man, but alfo that he 
 was not more than man ? What then are we to 
 think, when the Apoftle not only does not do this, 
 but ufes language favourable atleaft to the opinion 
 which the Docetae themfelves entertained ? For 
 in the fame chapter in which he condemns thofe 
 who deny tha*: Jefus Chrift is come in the flefh he 
 has thefe words, " We have feen and do teftify 
 that the Father fent the Son to be the Saviour of 
 the world. Whofoever Ihall confefs that Jefus is 
 the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in 
 God. "I Surely, Sir, this can hardly be called 
 teaching nothing but Unitarianifm. 
 
 You now proceed to treat diftinftly, and in 
 'S.John, 7, § 1, John, iv. 3. J 1. John, iv. 14-15. 
 
20 
 
 order, of the Wo great branches of the Unitarian 
 doftrine; as it refpefts, i. the perfon or nature, 
 2. the office of JefiisChrift. 
 
 Refpefting the nature of JefusChrifl you enu- 
 merate four opinions,* all differing from each 
 other, and all oppoflng the Unitarian do£lrine. 
 Of thefe the principal, and indeed, as far as I know, 
 the only opinions which at prefent prevail, are the 
 Trinitarian and the Arian. Thefe differ widely 
 from each other ; but with this difference wc have 
 little to do in the prefent controverfy. I acknow- 
 ledge myfelf to be a Trinitarian ; but, in a contro- 
 verfy with an Unitarian, I am not called upon 
 to defend thedoftrines which diftinguiflime from 
 the Arian. The opinions of the Arian, refpeding 
 the nature of Chrill, fall vaflly fliort of what I be- 
 lieve to be the truth : but low as his opinion is, yet 
 if that, or even a lower than that, if nothing more 
 than the fupra-human nature of Chrif^ be proved 
 to be true, the Unitarian doilrine muft be falfe. 
 It follows that the true point in difpute between us 
 is, whether the nature of Chrift be fuperior to that 
 of man; and to this I Ihall principally attend in 
 the prefent argument. 
 
 You are aware that of all the writers of the 
 New Teftament, the Apoftle St. John is the mofl 
 i^ifavourable to the. Unitarian caufe, and you la- 
 ♦ Letters, page 34. 
 
21 
 
 Isour with no common induflry to make his evi- 
 dence neutral at leaft, if not decidedly for you. 
 Your reafoning for this purpofe is founded upon 
 tlie following aflumptions. i. "That at the time 
 " when the books of the New Tellament were 
 *' written, all was known by the Apollles which 
 " can now be known refpefting the nature of our 
 " Saviour; and that no one of the writers of the 
 *' New Teftaraent could be ignorant of what was 
 " then known." 2. " That the writers of the 
 " New Teftaraent did not compofe their refpedlive 
 " books with reference to each other, fo that all 
 " might together form one whole ; and that each 
 " wrote what was reqnifite for his particular pur- 
 " pofe without reference to what might in future 
 <' be written by others."* From thefe affump- 
 tions you argue, that if the nature of Chrift had 
 been fuperior to that of man, it feems next to ini- 
 poffiblethat three of theEvangelifts " fhouldhave 
 " written refpefting this illuftrious fupra-human 
 •' perfonage, not only without in any way declaring 
 *' his fuperiority in nature to other men ; but fo as 
 «' to "ive no room for the inference that they 
 " knew of fuch fuperiority."§ And in detailing 
 the doftrine of the Evangelifts refpefting this point, 
 you boldly aflert that " throughout the whole of 
 ^ St. Matthew's Gofpel there is not a hngle paf- 
 ♦ Letters, page 34, 35. § Page 38. 
 
22 
 
 *' fage, which Indicates that the Evangeliflthougtrt 
 *' our Saviour to have poflelTed any nature fupcrior 
 *' to that of man."* You make a fimilar obfer- 
 vation refpedling the Gofpcl of St. Mark ; affcrt- 
 ing " that this Evangehfl, who was the relation 
 " and difciple of Peter, and who is ufually thought 
 " to have compiled his narrative under the imme- 
 " diate diredion of that Apoflle, fays not one 
 " word which indicates that he regarded our Savi- 
 " our as havnig a nature above that of raan."t 
 Kefpe£\ing St. Luke's Gofpel your aflertion is 
 fomewhat more qualified. You fay " that it con- 
 tains nothing from which alone it could be inferred 
 that Jefus poflelTed a nature above human." And 
 again " there is not, I believe, through the whole 
 " of his Gofpel above one paflage (ch. x. 22.) 
 " which appears to indicate that he poflelTed a 
 " nature move than human ; and the appearance 
 " merely arifes from not diftinguifliing charafler 
 " or office from nature. "§ You next proceed to 
 the A6ts of the Apollles; concerning which you 
 thus fpeak ; " I confider it as indifputable, from the 
 " narrative of Luke, that the fum and fubflance of 
 " the Apoftles' preaching relative to do£lrine, 
 " both to Jews and to Gentiles, was, that jeius of 
 '< Nazareth was the Son of God and the Chrilt; 
 " that God raifcd him from the dead, and appointed 
 * LoUtrs, page 11. f Page 43. § I'agu 41. 
 
23 
 
 " him to be the Judge of all Men, and that thofe 
 " who believed in him and turned from their fins 
 " would receive forgivenefs."* I have already 
 had occafion to obferve that the preaching of the 
 Apoftles recorded in the Afts confifls chiefly of 
 their firft addrelles to unbelievers ; in which they 
 pretended not to detail all the eflential doftrines of 
 Chriftianity, but merely infilled upon fuch topicks 
 as were calculated for the converfion of their 
 hearers. From thefe dawnings of Gofpel light (as 
 we have already feen) you derive your own faith: 
 nor is this all ; but you boldly pronounce concern- 
 ing the faith of the Apoftles and their companions. 
 For thus you proceed, " And I confider it as fur- 
 " ther indifputable, that there is nothing in the 
 " A6ls which Cc?n juftify the opinion that Luke 
 " knew of the fuppofed faft that our Saviour was 
 " the very and eternal God, or even that he 
 " pre-exiftedin anature infinitely more excellent, 
 " or even that he exiftcd at all before his human 
 " birth. I think it alfo evident from his account 
 " that fuch opinions either were not known, or at 
 " leaft not believed by the Apoftles Peter and Paul 
 " after they had received the holy fpirit: and 
 " though we have not the fame pofitive evidence 
 " refpeding the belief of John ind the other Apof- 
 " ties, yet as they certainly knew of the preaching 
 * Letters, page 46, 
 
24 
 
 " of Peter to the Jews, and did not add any thing 
 " there to, I tliink I am authorized in concluding, 
 " that they alfo had the fame fcanty Cr^ed with 
 " Peter and Paul." That the full force of this 
 reafoning may not be loft by fo long a detail, I 
 will Hate it in brief. In the Apoflolical fermons 
 which we find in the A£ls, the doctrines ot the 
 divinity and pre-exiftence of Chviil: are not alferted : 
 therefore Luke who recorded thefe fermons, and 
 Peter and Paul who delivered them, knew not, or 
 believed not any fuch dodtrines. This is called 
 Jiojithe evidence ; which indeed is acknowledged to 
 be wanting in the cafe of St. John and the other 
 Apoftles : nevertheleis their faith could not be 
 different from that of Peter and Paul ; and there- 
 fore they alfo knew not or believed not thefe doc- 
 trines. All this, it muft be owned, is reafoning 
 very fafl . but it is the conchil'ion drawn from this 
 reafoning which :iioll: of alldefervcs our attention. 
 " My inference from thefe things is, that what the 
 *' Apollles have faid in their own writings cannot 
 " injufliceto Lnke, be interpreted fo as to fpeak a 
 *' different language from that ret orded in ihe Adls, 
 " if on comparing Scripture with Scriptuie it ap- 
 " pear that their words can be juftly interpreted 
 ♦' agreeably thereto." What a defence have we 
 here ofUnitarianifm, and of the mode of interpre- 
 tation ufually adopt(jd by Unitarians. And all 
 
25 
 
 derived from a chain of confequences, which may 
 be briefly ftated as follows. — The Apoflles, when 
 they hrfl began to preach to unbelievers, propofed 
 no other doftrines than thofe which Unitarians now 
 hold : therefore they never propofed any others to 
 believers : therefore no other are to be found in 
 their writings ; therefore all thofe paflages, in which 
 other doftrines are apparently taught, mufl be in- 
 terpreted in an Unitarian fenfe ! 
 
 Having thus conduced us- through the tliree 
 firft Gofpels, and the AiEls of the Apoftles, and 
 having told us that thefe contain nothing but Uni- 
 tarianifm, you flop to make a general reflexion, 
 in which you betray no little fear of St. John.* 
 " Let us for a moment fuppofe that the firft three 
 " Gofpels and the Acls had alone been preferved to 
 " us." — Sir, do 1 read aright? Can you feriouHy put 
 a cafe, which, if it had exifted, would have de- 
 prived us of more than lialf of the-lacred volume, 
 and then reafon from it as though it were a proba- 
 ble cafe ? Thanks be to God, the cafe does not 
 exift ; and who will fay that there has not been an 
 efpecial interpofition of Providence to prevent its 
 exiftence ? But let us hear the whole of your ar- 
 gument without further interruption. " Let us 
 " for a moment fuppofe that the firft three Gofpels 
 "" and the A£ls had alone been preferved to us — 
 ♦ Letters, page 47. See also page 69. 
 
*' ineftimable as the Gofpel of John and other 
 " parts of the New Teftament appear to us, will 
 " any one venture to aflert that without them the 
 *' fundamental truths of Chriftianity would have 
 *' been unknown, and that Matthew, and Mark, 
 *• and Luke, have not faid" enough to enable the 
 *' difciple of Jefus to pofiefs the faith which fanc- 
 *' tifieth and faveth? And yet this muft be main- 
 *' tained, or the fundamental truths of the Gofpel, 
 " and the faith required by the Gofpel in order to 
 " enjoy its bleffings, muft be very different from 
 *' what modern Creeds, and modern evangelical 
 *' preachers, teach tliem to be." I again repeat 
 that all reafonlng from a cafe which not only docs 
 not exift, but, for aught that we know, through the 
 efpecial interference of divine Providence, never 
 could exift, is weak: but the attempt to infinuate 
 that any part of the facred volume is unneceflarv, 
 and that the remaining part would have been of 
 itfelf fufficient, is not weak merely, but prefumptu- 
 ous, and even impious. Rather, Sir, let us con- 
 tend, that if the firft three Gofpels had been fuffi- 
 cient, another would not have been given ; or if 
 given, would not have been preferved : for divine 
 Providence does nothing in vain. If the Evange- 
 lifts Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have faid no more 
 than is implied in your account of them, I, for 
 oi\2; arm ven.'turous enough to alTert that their GoiJ- 
 
27 
 
 pels do not contain all the fundamental truths of 
 Chriftianity : nor is it to be expefted that they 
 Ihould: thefe Evangeliils had it not in view to 
 detail the whole of Chriftianity in fyftematic or- 
 der : their defign was merely to record the life of 
 Chrift upon earth, and efpecially the laft great 
 year of his miniftry in Galilee, and its accomplifh- 
 ment at Jerufalem. During this time he appeared 
 as a man, difcourfed as a man, afted as a man, 
 and died as a man; and in the fame nature he 
 both rofe from the dead, and afcended into hea- 
 ven. Accordingly in all thefe tranfaftions he is 
 reprelented as a man by the facred Hiftorians. 
 But we are not to infer from hence that they knew 
 of no higher nature, or that no higher nature was 
 at that time generally acknowledged. If indeed 
 there ever had been a time, when the Chriftian 
 Church had nothing but thefe Gofpels for their 
 inftrudllon, there might then have been feme 
 ground for fuch an inference. But there never 
 was fuch a time : long before any one of thefe 
 Gofpels was penned, and after they were all pen- 
 ned, the preaching of the Apoftles and their com- 
 panions was the regular and appointed means of 
 Inftrudion. Nor ought it to excite any allonilh- 
 ment that tliefe Evangelifts, and the facred writers 
 in general, of whom it may be obferved that they 
 eacli wrote upon fome particular occafion, and 
 
 B Z 
 
28 
 
 with fome profefled defign — it ought not, I fay, to 
 excite our ailonifliment that thele writers fhould 
 keep clofe to their point, and not go out of their 
 way to detail truths refpefting the nature of Chrift, 
 with which their fubjeft was not immediately con- 
 cerned, and which, if mentioned at all, could be 
 cxpefted to be mentioned only incidentally. Let 
 me add that thefe truths, however aftoniH-iing in 
 themfelves, were now, at the end of thirty years, 
 grown familiar to the Evangelifts : they were 
 moreover known to all, and believed by all ; 
 known and believed through the pcrfonal teaching 
 of the Apoftlcs. But when at length the Church 
 was about to be deprived of this perlbnal teaching, 
 it pleafed God to move the beloved Difciple to 
 write a Gofpel, not after the plan of the former 
 Evangelills, but with another defign ; a defigu 
 which would lead him to fpeak more fully and 
 cxprellly than had before been done, of the nature 
 of his Mailer ; that thus the Church in future 
 ages, might be in full pofiefTion of the whole doc- 
 trine of the Apoftles, upon this effential point. 
 And thus, even if no trace whatever of a fuperior 
 nature in Chrift could be found in the firfl three 
 Gofpels, nothing could be inferred from this cir- 
 rumftance againft the doftrine itfelf But is this 
 really the cafe? Are the Evangelifts as filent upon 
 this important point, as you labour to reprefenl 
 
29 
 
 Ihcm ? Truly they arc not. There Is at lead one 
 faft, narrated by two of them, which hangs lika 
 a mill-flone about the neck of your hypothefis. 
 And of this you appear yourfelf to be fo fenfible, 
 tliat you would wilHngly, if it were pofTible, ex- 
 punge it completely from the New Teftament : 
 I mean the miraculous conception, recorded in the 
 firft chapter of the Gofpel both of St. Matthew 
 and of St. Luke. 
 
 You admit that the firfl two chapters of St. 
 Matthew's Gofpel are generally believed to have 
 been written by that Evangelift, but in your own 
 opinion their genuinenefs is very doubtful.* And 
 fpeaking of St. Luke's Gofpel, you tell us that 
 " doubts have been entertained by many refpefting 
 " the genuinenefs of the two firfl chapters."^ You 
 do not flate from what caufe thefe doubts arofe, 
 nor by whom they were entertained ; nor indeed 
 do you feem inclined to fupport your own opinion. 
 But in order to obviate the mifchief, which fuch an 
 unfupported infiniration has a tendency to produce, 
 I muft be permitted to obferve, that the chapters 
 which contain the miraculous conception, are 
 found in all the MSS. and in all the verlions ex- 
 tant ;t nor can I find that their genuinenefs was 
 €ver in ancient times denied by any but Heretics, 
 
 * Letters, page 39. ♦ Page 44. 
 -f This 13 admitted by the authors of the " Improved version." 
 
 See their note upon Matt. i. 16. 
 
 ^3 
 
30 
 
 who, at the fame time, reje£led other parts of the 
 facred volume, which even the Unitarians ac- 
 knowledge to be genuine. The Ebionites who 
 held the fimple humanity, rejefted the two firll 
 chapters of St, Matthew;* but they rcjcftcd alfo 
 all the other Gofpels :|| and Marcion who held that 
 Chrifl was a man in appearance only, acknow- 
 ledged no Gofpel but St. Luke's, from which he 
 cut off the narrative of the miraculous conception. ^ 
 Such is the company, which that man mull be fain 
 to keep, who denies the genuinenefs of thefe por- 
 tions of the facred volume. You have therefore 
 done well in not preffing your doubts upon us ; 
 but in my judgement you would have done better, 
 if you had exprefled no doubt at all, in a cafe where 
 no doubt can be reafonably entertained. But 
 notwithftanding your doubts, you admit that the 
 firll two chapters of St. Matthew's Gofpel are ge- 
 nuine : and thus you proceed — " This Evangelift 
 " informs us that the birth of Jefus was miraculous ; 
 " but gives us no ground to fuppofe that the off- 
 " fpring of divine Power was poflefied of a nature 
 " diffeient from human nature; on the con- 
 
 *Epiph. Hser. 30. c. 13. 
 
 II Iren. adv. Haer. lib. 3. c. !1. Eus. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. c. 27. 
 Epiph. Haer. 30. c. 3. Tht-y also rejected St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
 J Epiph. Hser. 42. c. 9. See n\s$ Iren. adv. Hsr. lib, 3. c. 
 IJ, 12, 14. 
 
^ 1 
 
 " TRARY what is faid plainly implies, that Jems 
 ■^' firft began to exift in confequence of that exer- 
 " tion of divine Power.'"t How that which is 
 affirmed in the latter part of this fentence, can be 
 faid to be contrary to that which is denied in the 
 former part, I do not perceive. Sarely there might 
 be ground to believe, that the offspring of divine 
 Power was poffelled of a nature different from the 
 human, even if the Evangelill had ex[ircjjly laid 
 that he firfl began to exiil (as man) when the di- 
 vine Power was exerted. And indeed admitting 
 that the Evangelifts are filent refpefting the exift- 
 cnce of the Saviour in a prior ftate ; and therefore 
 that no proof of the pre-exiftence can be derived 
 from this miracle ; ftill I contend molt ftrenuoufly, 
 that the circumflances narrated prove in the 
 ftrongeft and cleareft manner that his nature was 
 fupra-human. He was the Son of God in a pecu- 
 liar manner, being conceived in the womb of a 
 Virgin by the operation of the Holy Ghoft, witli- 
 out the intervention of a human Father. And 
 can it for a moment be Ihppofed that this offspring 
 of divine Power was a mere man ? It cannot be : 
 he muft have been more than human ; he muff 
 have been, as the Evangelift, uling the language 
 of the Prophet, denominates him, Enuiianuel God 
 
 t Page 39. 40. 
 B4 
 
S2 
 
 Avitli \3s.* And what more is required to ovcr- 
 tJirow your hypothefis of the fimple humanity, 
 and to fhew that Unitarianifm is not the religion 
 of the Gofpel. 
 
 I fhall notftop to notice the other intimations 
 of tliis important do£lrine, which are to be found 
 in thefe Gofpcis: nor is it neceflary that I follow 
 you ftep by ftep in your examination of the Apol- 
 tolical Epifties, (St. John's exrepted,)| becaufe, as 
 I before obferved, other than incidental proofs are 
 not to be expected in any book profeffedly written 
 
 * I find in a note tlie following observations to shew that 
 the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, do wot o{ l/ieynseh'en 
 prove that he possessed a superior nature. " If it had pleased 
 " tiie Supreme Being to liave at once formed tlesus, witli all his 
 " powers of body and mind, precisely as tbey were at thirty 
 " years of age, the circumstance woulil have been at least as 
 *' miraculous as what is now supposed to have been the fact : 
 " yet would any one say that such a formation would ha\e 
 *' proved or even implied that Jesus possessed a naiure supe- 
 " rior to that of man? If so, then Adam was not strictly and 
 " properly a man. Besidesvthe birth of Isaac, of Samuel, 
 " and of the Baptist, was miraculous. And will any one say 
 "that they possessed a superior nature .' The cases are not 
 •* precisely parallel; but in both cases the miraculous agency 
 " of divine Power is the same." P. 40. 1 am almost ashamed 
 to point out the weakness of such reasoning. If Jesus hart 
 been formed in the manner here described, 1 should acknow- 
 ledge the miracle: but there is no reasoning from such a case 
 to one totally dissimilar. Adam was a man by creation; and 
 another person formed as Adam was, and with precisely the 
 same powers both of body and mind, would be also a man. 
 But the Saviour was not so formed. The birth of Isaac, Sam- 
 uel, and the Baptist, although wonderful, was not strictly out 
 of regular course of nature. But far ilifferent was the birth of 
 the Saviour. Indeed you yourself acknowledge that tlie cases 
 are not precisely parallel. 
 
 + See page 63-. 
 
with a different defign, and upon another lubje(ft. 
 Ifhall therefore atprefent only obl'erve refpeding 
 this part of your work, that I found in it much 
 bold aflertion, frequently unfupported, and fonie- 
 times totally unwarranted. The following is an 
 inrtance, which I the more readily go into, on ac- 
 count of its connexion with the fubjed juft now 
 difcuffed. Upon Gal. iv. 4. " When the fulnefs 
 of time was come, God lent forth hU Son, made ot 
 a woman," I find the following note, " That the 
 *' appellation Son of God has nothing to do with 
 " nature, but refers to charaaer or office, I Ihall 
 " Ihew in my next letter.''* Upon referring to 
 this letter, I do not fmd you quite fo politive . 
 neverthelels you venture to draw the following 
 conclufion from your fuppofed proofs of this pofi- 
 tion. " I think it evident from thefe and limilar 
 " parages, that there is nothing in the exalted ap- 
 " pellation Son of God, in any way implying that 
 " there was a peculiarity o'i nature in Jefus."|| It 
 excited my aflonifliment to perceive, that at t!ic 
 very time you ventured to make this aflertion, you 
 had before you Luke i. 35. " And the Angel an- 
 " fwered and faid unto her. The HolyGhoft fhall 
 " come \ipon thee, and the power of the Higlieft 
 *' (hall overfliadow thee: therefore alfo that 
 " holy thing which fhall be born of thee, fliali be 
 
 * Letters, paje 52. (' P^^^e 13S. 
 
34 
 
 *' called THE Son of God." It is beyond mv 
 
 imagination to conceive how, with this paflagc 
 
 ■ftaring you in the face, you could go on to aflert as 
 
 follows. " If any, negledling a widely prevalent 
 
 " Jewifh idiom, and interpreting the exprellion by 
 
 *' their own religious fyftem, maintain that the ex- 
 
 " preflion does refer to nature, it is incumbent upon 
 
 *' them to fhew the fcri/itura/ grounds of this pofi- 
 
 " tion. I think they will find none." Surely, 
 
 .Sir, the words of St. Luke above cited, aredecilive 
 
 as to this point. And what elfe is implied in the 
 
 words of the Apoflle more immediately under con- 
 
 fideiation: "God fent forth his Son, made of a 
 
 " I-Foman" or, as you render the latter claufe from 
 
 the "Improved verfion," born cf a Womau. A\- 
 
 \.\\o\\^\ born of a IFonum, he was nererthelefs the 
 
 Son of God, You indeed adopt the opinion of 
 
 the authors of the " Improved verlion," who aflert* 
 
 that " the phrafe ' born of a Woman,' bears no 
 
 " alhifion to the fuppofed miraculous conception 
 
 *' of Chrift :" but " is a common Jewilh phrafe to 
 
 " exprefs a proper liuman Being." In proof of 
 
 tiiis laft aflcrtion they produce five inflances, tiiree 
 
 from the LXX. and two from the New Teftament ; 
 
 not one of which bv your own confe/fion is in 
 
 point. And whoever upon the ground above fta- 
 
 tt'd is perfuaded that the title, Son of Gnd lias to 
 
 f See tlii-ir note upon xliU text, quutud in page 53, notc.!^ 
 
<lo with nature, not only may, but will diflcnt from 
 their opinion in toto. 
 
 But I haften to your fumming up of the evi- 
 tlence colledled in this examination, and to the 
 purpofe for which the examination itfelf was infti- 
 tuted. Thus you bcgin."^ " 1 have now bvietiy 
 " ftated what 1 believe to be a jull: view of the cvi- 
 *' dence of ail the writers of tlie New Teftament, 
 *' except that of the Apoftle John; and I feel no 
 " heiitation inaflerting, that no one of them in any 
 ** way teaches the proper Deity of the Son of God, 
 " ftill lefs that he is " the very and eternal God, of 
 *' one fubftance, power, and eternity with the Fa- 
 ♦' ther," — that ihe general tenor of their Writings is 
 " entirely Inconjijlent with thofe portions ; — and that 
 *' fome pajjliges are in direi^ o/i/iojitlon to them." 
 And thus with one bold ftroke of your pen, you 
 drive before you both the Arians and the Athana- 
 fians, and fliut them out completely from all in- 
 tercourfe with all the facred writers, St. John only 
 excepted. Thofe whofe opinions go only to tlie 
 rejeftion of the fimple humanity, you treat foni'- 
 what more moderately: " With refpetSl to the 
 *' lower fchemes which reje£t the fimple or proper 
 " humanity of our Saviour, I feel authorized by 
 *' my examination to maintain, that though a few 
 ** paflages occur, which, if thofe fchemes were 
 
 * Letters, pag« 1^. 
 B 6 
 
'^ /ircvionfly liroveclto be fcriptural, would counte- 
 *• nance them, yet they admit of a jull niterpretu- 
 " tion much more conformable to the general 
 '^ tenor of thofe writings, and moft flrongly fup- 
 '• ported by exprefs aQertions in other parts of 
 " them ; and that the evidence derived from thofe 
 " writings is therefore totally inadequate to prove 
 •' do£^rines which, lo lay the leail, are not con- 
 " liftent with the plain and obvious fenfe of the 
 " words of the writers in various parts." Nexc 
 follows your general conclulion againfl your op- 
 ponents. " And lince it is inconceivable that 
 " they" (i. e. the writers of the New Teftament, 
 St. John excepted,) " would leave a point fo 
 " ftriking, and, as moft will admit, fo momentous 
 *' as our L.ord's fuperiority in nature, to be derived 
 *' by inference merely, from a fmall number of 
 " paflages, which correftly admit of a different 
 " conftru6\ion, and in lome cafes require it, if we 
 *' conflder their connexion, 1 am juftified in allert- 
 " ing that thofe Apoftles and Evangelifts do not 
 " teach fuch fuperiority of nature ; and that there- 
 " fore from their evidence alone, there would be 
 " no fufficient reafon to receive this dodrine as 
 *' Chriftian dodrine." Let us attend to this rea- 
 foning a little. You admit that in this large por- 
 tion of the facred volume, there are pallages from 
 which our Lord's fuperiority of nature might be 
 
S7 
 
 inferred. Why then is not the inference made? 
 Becaufe it is inconceivable that the writers would 
 leave fo furprizing and momentous a dodlrine, if 
 true, to be derived, by inference m.erely, from a 
 few pafTages. You had before told us that if 
 either the Athanafian or the Arian doftrine, " re- 
 " fpedling the nature of Jefus, had been accordant 
 " with the matter of faft, we may reafonably ex- 
 " peiSl to find in every book, in which he is expreflly 
 '• fpoken of, fufficient reafon to believe that the 
 " writer was acquainted with it and believed it."* 
 Now I fliould have thought that in all cafes where 
 the writer was not profefledly treating of the na- 
 ture of ChrilT:, this reafonable expectation would 
 have been fully anfwered by his ufing language 
 from which the doftrine might be inferred : But 
 no fuch thing: he muft openly avow his belief of 
 it ; he muft maintain and teach it in the mofl di- 
 re£l and pofitive terms; otherwife it feems we 
 have not fufficient reafon to conclude that he 
 either knew or believed it: — that is, be the occa- 
 lion of an Apoftle's writing what it might, or let 
 the doftrine of Chrift's fuperiority in nature have 
 ever fo little immediate connection with it, though 
 this doClrine (admitting it to be true) muft now 
 at the end of fo many years be familiar to all tl^e 
 facred writers, muft have been generally known 
 
 * Page 35. 
 
and believed ; notwitliilanding all this, it is in- 
 conceivable that any writer would think it fuffiti- 
 ent to mention this doftrine incidentally, and in 
 words from which it might be inferred ; but he is 
 expefted to make an open avowal of his belief of 
 it in direft and poiitive terms. Surely, Sir, this is 
 cxpefting rather too much ; and then, becaufe this 
 unreafonable expeftation is not fully anfwered, all 
 the paiTages, in which this do£lrine is incidentally 
 mentioned, and from which it might be inferred, 
 are all to go for nothing — are all to be explained 
 away, and you think yourfelf juftiiied in aflferting 
 that no one of thefe writers teach any fuch doc- 
 trine! Thus peremptory is your decifion againft 
 your opponents: Nor is itlefs peremptory in your 
 own favour: for thus you proceed, " And further, 
 " fince in thofe writings there is nothing which, 
 " when interpreted by the connexion, and by other 
 " pafiages of the fame writer, is in any way incon- 
 " fiftent with the belief, that Jefus, the Son of 
 *• God, was ftriftly and properly fpeaking a Man, 
 *' who was appointed by God to execute a purpofe 
 *' of the utm-oil importance to the welfore ofman- 
 " kind," &c. &c. " and fince thefe things (and no- 
 ** thing more than thefe refpefting the Jiature or 
 " even dignity of Jefus) are taught in thefe writings, 
 ^' I feel myfelf authorized to aflert that, on their 
 *' evidence, Unitarianifm is the dod\rine of the 
 
59 
 
 ** Gofpel." And thus all the writers of the New 
 Teftament, John excepted, are prelTed into your 
 fervice ; and if at any time they appear inclined to 
 fpeak a word favourable to the other fide, their 
 mouths are immediately Hopped, and they are 
 compelled to utter fuch words, and fuch only, as 
 you approve. But now comes the ra after-fir oke 
 of policy. " Is it then probable that the writings 
 ♦' of the Ajwjlle John alone declare the eflential 
 " truths of the Gofpel ? I do not afkif they teach 
 " any thing hiconjijient with thofe of the other 
 *' Apoftles, who had equally their commiffion 
 " from Jefus, and were equally partakers of the 
 " Holy Spirit; but, do they tcach^ do they even 
 *' imlily any thing additional to what we fliould 
 " learn from the others, feparate from the evidence 
 *' of John. I think not." — Here then is the un- 
 ravelHng of the whole plot; here is developed the 
 occafion of the previous examination of the other 
 writers: They arc firfl compelled to be filent, and 
 then their filence is made the pretence for impo- 
 ling filence upon St. John. And the advocates of 
 a fupra-human nature in Chrifl are in effect fhut 
 out from the whole New Teflaraent: they were 
 before deprived of thofe paflages which confeliedly 
 countenance their dodlrine, in the other writings, 
 unlefs they could previoufly prove this doflrine to 
 be fcriptural ; and now St. John is locked up from 
 
40 
 
 them, becaufe they cannot prove their doftru'fe 
 from the other writers: And thus in effed they are 
 called upon to prove their do£lrine to be fcriptural, 
 before they are permitted to derive any proof from 
 any part of the Scriptures. But let us attend to 
 the chain of proofs by which this total exclufion 
 is effeiSted. It is as follows. No writer of the 
 New Teflament, except St. John, avowedly and 
 explicitly teaches the dodlrine of ChriiVs fuperior 
 nature ; therefore they none of them teach it inci- 
 dentally and by inference; therefore they do not 
 teach it at all; therefore neither does St. John 
 teach it; therefore it is no where taught in the 
 New Teftament. 
 
 And now St. John being thus flripped of his Or- 
 thodox drefs, an Unitarian garb is provided for him, 
 which he is compelled to put on; and we prefently 
 find that the famous paflage, Johni. i. — 14, upon 
 which we rely with fo much confidence, is pro- 
 nounced, in your opinion, not only not tohe "in- 
 " confiftent with Unitarianifm," but even " to 
 " teach the proper" (that is the fimple) " huma- 
 " nity of the Logos !" Is this pofiible ! Surely, 
 Sir, the Unitarian contrpveriialift is pofleficd of a 
 kind of alchemy — whatever he touches, immedi- 
 ately becomes gold ! He can extraft the precious 
 drops of Unitarianifm from the driefi: and tougheft 
 Orthodoxy ! Let a paflage be apparently ever io 
 
41 
 
 obflinate and unfavourable to the Unitarian caufe, 
 yet let the Unitarian take it in hand ; let him put 
 it into his literary alembic ; and let him diilil in a 
 inenftruum, flrong in proportion to the ftubbornnefs 
 of the materials to be a£led upon ; and then the 
 pure fpirit of Unitarianifm will be fure to afcend 
 and come over, while the dregs of Orthodoxy will 
 remain at the bottom a mere caput mortuum ! 
 But let not the Orthodox Chriftian defpair. Truth 
 is great, and will in the end prevail. The mate- 
 rials decompofed fhall again be compounded, and 
 the meaning of the Apoftle will come out more 
 pure and bright from the ordeal which it has fuf- 
 tained. 
 
 Before I enter upon the wofk of interpretation, 
 I beg to premife that the firft thing to be done in 
 order to a right underftanding of an author, is care- 
 fully to obferve the end or defign with which he 
 wrote, and the means which he has employed for 
 the accomplifhment of his end. If we pay no 
 regard to thefe circumflances, we Hiail frequently 
 miftake the meaning of a writer, and fhall blun- 
 der moll egregioufly. I am induced the rather to 
 infift upon this, becaufe I do not perceive it among 
 the rules which you have laid down at the com- 
 mencement of your third letter:* and you will 
 permit me to obferve, that it was for want of due 
 • Page 138. 
 
4*2 
 
 attention to this rule, that you yourfelf converted 
 arguments urged for the convi£lion of unbelievers, 
 into points of do£lrine propofed for the belief of 
 converts; that you made the filence of the Apoftles, 
 -refpefting our Lord's fuperiority of nature, an ar- 
 gument for their ignorance or difbelief of anyfuch 
 do6lrine ; and that you pronounced incidental 
 proofs of this dodrine to be no proof at all. Nor 
 fhould we attend only to the general defign and 
 intention of the writer ; but alfo to the fcope of 
 each particular part, and to its connexion with 
 the reft. You will perhaps tell me that you have 
 yourfelf provided for this cafe in yourfixth rule;* 
 which fets forth that " no meaning of any word or 
 " phrafe can be the juft one, which does not fuit the 
 *' connexion." If we both mean the fame thing, 
 let us enquire whether upon alloccafions you have 
 obferved your own rule. St. Paul, i. Cor. viii. 4-6, 
 declares the vanity of Idols, and contrafts the faith 
 of Chriftians, who believe in one God and one 
 Lord, with that of the Heathens, who acknow- 
 ledge Gods many, and Lords many. " We 
 " know," fays he, " that an Idol is nothing in 
 " the world, and that there is none other God but 
 " one. For though there be that are called Gods, 
 " whether in heaven or in eartli, (as there be 
 " Gods many, and Lords many,) but lo us there 
 » Page 139. 
 
43 
 
 '* IsbutoneGod, the Father, of whom arc all tbihgs 
 " and we in him ; and one Lord Jefus Chrift, by 
 " v/hom are all things, and we by him." This pofi- 
 tion " to us there is but one God," you, being to- 
 tally inattentive to the fcope of the Apoftle's rea- 
 loning, convert in one place into an argument 
 againft the Trinity ;* and in another place, into an 
 argument againft the divinity of our Saviour. f 
 *' This paflage" you fay upon the latter occafion 
 " appears to me an irrefragable proof that Paul 
 " believed that one perfon only is God, and that 
 " perfon, the Father, the Father of all, the Father 
 *' of our Lord Jefus Chrift." Your argument, as 
 it ftands at prefent, is partial, extending only to 
 the firft claufe of the paflagc. Let me beg you to 
 carry it into the fecond claufe ; and in the fame 
 manner as yon have already proved that *' one 
 " perfon only is God, and that perfon, the Father," 
 you will then prove that one perfon only is Lord, 
 and that perfon, Jefus Chrift." The argument, if 
 •good at all, is equally good in both cafes. To us 
 there is but one God, the Father: therefore Jefus 
 Chrift is not God. Again : To us there is but one 
 Lord, Jefus Chrift : therefore God the Father is 
 not Lord. Such is the confequence of inattention 
 to the fcope of a writer's argument: We fliall be 
 in perpetual danger of mifapplying his words to a 
 » Page 54, f Page 1C8. 
 
44 
 
 pii rpofe foreign from his defign, and of drawing from 
 them confequcnces to be rejected with abhorrence. 
 In defending the doftrine for which I am con- 
 tending, I fhall make no apology for purfuing a 
 courfe the veryreverfe of thai, by which you have 
 thought fit to alTail it. You divide the writers of 
 the New Teftament into two clafTcs ; in the for- 
 mer of which, ftand all, except St. John; in the 
 latter, St. John alone. You begin with the for- 
 mer, and contend that they no where- teach the 
 fupra-human nature of Chrift, becaufe they no 
 where diftinftly and explicitly aflert it; and then 
 you infer that it is no where taught by St. John, be- 
 caufe it is improbable, that he fhould teach a doc- 
 trine which is not taught by the other Apollles and 
 Evangelifls. The fallacy of this reafoning, I have 
 already, as I hope, fufficiently expofed ; and have 
 Ihewn in oppofition to it, that dire(5t and explicit 
 proofs of any doftrine are then only to be expec- 
 ted, when the view of the writer is dire6led towards 
 fuch doftrine : but that a writer, who has another 
 obje£l in view, can be expefled to furnifh only in- 
 cidental proofs. I beg further to obferve by the 
 way, that the direft and principal proofs being 
 once eftablifhed, the incidental and indireft be- 
 come the flrongeft confirmation that can be ima- 
 gined. Hence it follows, with refpe£t to the doc- 
 trine in queflion, that the firfl clais of writers may 
 
45 
 
 teach It Incidentally, notwithflanding they had 
 another objeft principally in view ; and that St. 
 John may teach it explicitly, notwithftanding the 
 other writers teacft it only incidentally. I propofe, 
 therefore, to begin with the Gofpel of St. John, 
 and fliall firft {liew that it contains pofitive and ex- 
 plicit proofs of the doaHne in difpute ; and hav- 
 ing thus previoufly proved that this do6lrine Is a 
 fcriptural one, I fhall then avail myfelf of thofe 
 other proofs, whether direa or incidental, which 
 are to be found in the other books of the New 
 Teflament. 
 
 You have, I think, rightly flated the defign 
 of St. John's Gofpel, when you affirm* that it 
 was written agreeably to his own exprefs aflertion, 
 " to convince men that Jefus is the Chrift, the 
 " Son of God."t But when you affert that thefe 
 words refer, not to naiurc,huttio office,^ I am con- 
 flrained to differ from you. For I am perfuaded 
 that the Apoftle here refers ^o certain heretical 
 opinions, which at that time prevailed, refpeaing 
 the nature of Chrift, from which his Gofpel afted 
 as a prefervative. If we go back to the days of 
 the Apoftles, we fliall be at no lofs to difcover 
 what thcfe opinions were. I have already had 
 occafion to mention the Docet^e, who held that 
 * Pasre 7.5, note.* f John xx. 31. 
 § Letters, page 75, and m\. 
 
46 
 
 the Chilli, the Saviour of the world, was, as to his 
 nature, really the Son of God, and a man only in 
 appearance. Befides thefe, there alfo flouriflied, 
 at the fame time, a Gnoftic Heretic, named 
 Cerinthus, who did not, as the Docetae did, deny 
 the reality of the human nature, but held, that 
 the Saviour confifted of two natures, the divine and 
 the human: that in refpeft of his human nature, 
 he was Jefus, the fonof Jofeph and Maryj and in 
 refpeft of his divine nature, he was Chrift, the Son 
 of God. He further held, that when Jefus was bap- 
 tifed, Chrift entered into hhn in the fhape of a dove, 
 and departed from him juft before his crucific- 
 tion, leaving the man Jefus to fuffer alone.* Ex- 
 travagant as thefe blafpemies appear, they undoubt- 
 edly prevailed even in the Apoftolicalage ; and in 
 St. John's firft epiftle, there are frequent allufions 
 to them, as in ch. ii. 22. " Who is a liar, but he 
 *' that denieth that Jefus is the Chrift ;" and again 
 in ch. iv. 15. " Whofoever (hall confefs that Jefus 
 " is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he 
 ** in God ;"alfoch. V. i. " Whofoever be Heveth that 
 •' Jefus is the Chrift, is born of God." And this 
 may ferve as a key to the meaning of the Apoftle in 
 the paflage above cited, in which he declares his 
 intention and deftgn in writing his Gofpel : it was 
 
 • Ircnaeus adv. Haer. lib. i. cap. 25. See also Moshtim's 
 Eccks. Hist. «ent. 1. part 2. chap. 5.§ 16". 
 
 I 
 
47 
 
 to arreft in their progrefs the heretical opinions of 
 Cerinthus, that men might not be led by them to 
 fuppofe that Jefus and Chrift are two dillin£l per- 
 fons— the former, a Man, the latter, the Son of God ; 
 but that, on tlie contrary, they may believe that 
 Jefus and Chrift are one perfon ; or, as the Apof- 
 tle himfelf expreffes it, " that Jefus is the Chrifl, 
 the Son of God." In confirmation of this fenfe of 
 the words, if it wants confirmation, it may be ob- 
 ferved, that in the earlieft ages of the Church it 
 was believed that fuch was the intention of St. 
 John in writing his Gofpel, as appears from the 
 teilimony of many of the Fathers.* The fame 
 was alfo the opinion of a perfon, whofe authority 
 with forae Unitarians may perhaps be even greater 
 than that of the ancient Fathers, I mean the late 
 Dr. Prieflley. 
 
 Having this clue to guide us to the Apoftle's 
 meaning, I may now proceed to the commence- 
 ment of his Gofpel ; to the explanation of which 
 nothing more is ncceffary than a plain ftatement 
 of the errors which he there opposes. The names 
 X070J (the Word) ^ovoy£v>if (the Only-begotton) 
 a>.Stix (Truth) C"^» (Life) and others, which occur 
 . in St. John's Gofpel, occupy a diftinguilhed place 
 in every branch of the Gnoflic herefy, and among 
 
 *lren. adv. Haer. lib. iii. c. 11. Epiph. Haer. 51. c. 12, 
 Jerom. Cat. Script, Eccles. 
 
48 
 
 others in that of which Cerinthus was the founder. 
 The Gnoftics in general, taught, that the Supreme 
 Father had dwek from all eternity in the fuhnefs 
 of Hght and bhfs; — that his habitation became, in 
 procefs of time, Hocked with a progeny of celef- 
 tial Beings, called yEowj, whom they enumerated by 
 pairs, the one male, the other female ; — that thefe 
 pairs wepe produced by fucceffive emanation ; — 
 that the firft pair, (^avoysm and ocXrMstx (the Only- 
 begotten and Truth) proceeded immediately from 
 the fupreme Father and his female affociate, tv^oix 
 (Thought) ; — that from this original pair pro- 
 ceeded a fecond, named Aoyor jfnd ^uj-n (the Word 
 and Life), from this fecond pair a third, and io 
 on in what St. Paul, with reference to this very 
 herefy, calls " endlefs genealogies."* They con- 
 fidered the flrft great Caufe as all pure and perfedl : 
 but they conceived that the emanation mufi: be 
 lefs pure and perfect than the fource from which 
 it emanated ; and that, confequently, after a fuc- 
 ceflion of emanations, it will becon^ie very imper-, 
 feft, and will at length bear little refemblance to 
 its fource. They further held, that the vifible 
 world was created by an JEon, far removed from 
 the Supreme Father, and even cut off from all 
 communion with him. This -i^on they called 
 Dcmiurgus\ and Cerinthus in particular, taught, 
 • I.Tim, i. 4. 
 
49 
 
 that he was a malevolent fpiiit, and the God of the 
 Jewiih nation; and that it was to deliver mankind 
 from his tyranny, that the celeftial JEon, Chrift, 
 defcended and entered, in the manner above de- 
 fcribed, into the Man Jefus. 
 
 In the above llatement are contained the prin- 
 cipal pofitions, which the Apoftle oppofes in this 
 part of his Gofpel. It is plain, from the forego- 
 ing account, that the Gnoftic vEons had a begin- 
 ning ; that in particular, the Logos did not pro- 
 ceed immediately from the Supreme God, but from 
 the Only-begotten of the Supreme; that confe- 
 quently he exifted apart from the Supreme God, 
 and was as to nature inferior. In the firft and fe- 
 cond verfes, the Apoftle oppofes tliefe errors, by 
 declaring, that when the things which were made, 
 took their beginning, the Logos was then exifiing ; 
 that he was exifiing, not apart from God, but 
 with God ; and that he was not of a nature inferi- 
 or to God, but was himfelf God. " I. Inthebe- 
 " ginning was the Word, arid the Word was with- 
 " God, and the Word was God. 2. The fame was 
 " in the beginning with God." The Apoftle next 
 oppofes the opinion, that the vifible world was 
 created by the JEon Demiurgus, declaring, that 
 the Logos himfelf was the Creator. " 3. All things 
 " were made by him ; and without him was not any 
 " thing made that was made." lie then rejcfts 
 c 
 
50 
 
 the notion that ^^v? (Life) was a female ^^on, 
 aflociated with the Logos, declaring that Life was 
 not diflin£l from the Logos, but was in the Logos, 
 who was at the fame time the Light or inftrudlor 
 of mankind. 4. 5. " In him was life, and the life 
 " was the light of men. And the light fliineth in 
 " darknefs, and the darkncfs comprehended it not." 
 From this appropriation of the term Light to the 
 Logos, the Apoftle takes occafion to fpeak of John 
 the Baptift, who had been exalted by fome of his 
 followers into a celeflial JEon, and had been cal- 
 led the 'Apoftle of light.' The Evangel ill oppofes 
 thefe pofitions by declaring, that John was a man, 
 and was not himfelf the light, but was fent to bear 
 witnefs of the light. 6. 8. " There was a man 
 " fent from God, whofe name was John. The 
 " fame came for a witnefs, to bear witnefs of the 
 " light, that all men through him might believe, 
 " He was not that light, but was fent to bear wit- 
 " nefs of that light." The Evangelift now returns 
 to the Logos, whom he declares to be the true 
 light, and the Creator of the world; but that ne- 
 verthelefs the world which he had created, was ig- 
 norant of him, and would not receive him. 9-1 1. 
 -* That was the true light, which lighteth every 
 '' man that cometh into the world. He was in the 
 " world, and the world was made by him, and the 
 " world knew him not. He came unto his own, 
 
.51 
 
 ** and his own received him not." " But" (pro- 
 
 " ceedsthe Apoftle, 12. 13.) " as many as receiv- 
 
 *' ed him, to them gave he power to become the 
 
 " Sons of God, even to them that believe on his 
 
 " name : which were born, not of blood, nor of 
 
 *' the will of the flefh, nor of the will of man, but 
 
 " of God." Lallly, in oppofition to the Gnoftic 
 
 conceit of two diftindl and feparate natures, the 
 
 Apoftle ftates the incarnation of the Logos, giving 
 
 us to iinderftand, that the giver of life and light 
 
 was not a celeftial ^on, who had alTumed the 
 
 appearance of a man, or had merely joined him 
 
 felftoaman, for the purpofe of enlivening and 
 
 enlightening mankind, but was himfelf man, and 
 
 that he became fo by afluming our nature, and 
 
 veiling his divinity within a body of fiefh. 14. 
 
 " And the Word was made man, and dwelt among 
 
 " us, full of grace and truth." Nor by this af- 
 
 fumption of human nature was his divine glory 
 
 wholly obfcured : it was manifefted on many oc- 
 
 cafions, and efpecially upon the holy mount; 
 
 where it was beheld in all its luftre by three of his 
 
 Difciples, who were convinced both by it, and by 
 
 a voice from heaven, that he was the true 
 
 /xovoyEv*)?, or the Only -begotten. " And we beheld 
 
 " his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of 
 
 " the Father."* 
 » See Michaelis Introd. to the New Test. vol. 3. part I, 
 chap. 7- § 5. 
 C 2 
 
52 
 
 i am bold to affirm that the above rnterpretatron 
 confidered at leaft in a general point of view, a:nd 
 in refpeft of its great and leading features, con- 
 veys a juft and accurate reprefentation of the 
 Apoftle's meaning. It is throughout eafy, natural, 
 and confident; it impofes no new fenfe upon any 
 of the Words; it does no violence to the conftruc- 
 tion in any part; moreover it falls in with the 
 avowed defign of the Apoftle ; and it is agreeable 
 to the opinions which were prevailing at the time; 
 laflly, it is no n.w interprelation, in framing which 
 the mind of the Apoftle was not at ail confulted; 
 but was acknowledged by believei-s, in the earHeft 
 times, by whom it has been handed down to us 
 as the true and undoubted fenfe of this important 
 paflage. 
 
 • From the preceding enquiry it appears, that 
 theApolile in this part of hisGofpel, teaches un- 
 equivocally and explicitly the incarnation of the 
 divine Logos; and it further appears from the 
 whole tenor of his Gofpel, that the incarnate 
 Logos is the perfon, of whom he afterwards fpeaks 
 under the name and charaftet of Jefus the Chrift, 
 the Son of God. And thus this paflage furnifhes 
 decifive proof of the divinity and pre-exiflence of 
 our Saviour. It proves alfo moll incontrovertibly 
 that the beloved Difciple, St. John, was not, as 
 
 you have laboured to ,reprefent him, an Unitarian, 
 
6S 
 
 For when the Heretics had afciibed to the Saviour 
 a fiipra-angelic nature, what Unitarian would go 
 about to confute them by afcribing to hin^ a nature 
 flill higher, even the divine nature?* And lincc 
 v;^e mufl not afcrlbe one faith to St. John, and 
 another to his fellow Apoftles, and tlieir compa- 
 nions, it follows that if St. John was not an 
 Unitarian, then neither were the other writers of 
 the New Teftanient, Unitarians. Confcquently 
 though their fubjeft might not lead them to main- 
 tain avowedly and explicitly the doftrine in quef* 
 tion, yet we may reafonably expc6t to £nd in 
 their wrifmgs paffages, in which this do6trinc is 
 taught incidentally, and from wliich it may be 
 inferrt:d. And thus the whole of the NewTefla- 
 ment is unlocked and laid open to us; and we are 
 now at liberty to derive our proofs from any part 
 or book, in which, as we conceive, it is either ex- 
 preflly afferted, or incidentally taught. 
 
 I fhall now confider, in order, the feveral paf- 
 fages which I have brought forward in the Prefer- 
 vative, as proofs of the divinity and pre exigence 
 of our Lord; and fhall vindicate them from the 
 forced interpretation, which Unitarian ingenuity 
 has attempted to fix upon them. 
 
 * I forbear to press this argument further at present, having 
 already insisted uyoh it at lar^e, in a sermon preached before 
 the University of Oxfortl, entitled, '* '{he doctrine of St. 
 *' John, and tiic faith of the primitive Church, not Unitarian." 
 
 C3 
 
54 
 
 John i. I. 3. 14, 
 
 r. " In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 *' Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
 *' 3. All things were made by him, and without 
 ** him was not any thing made that was made. 
 " 14. And the Word was made flefh, and dwelt 
 *' among us." 
 
 According to the above interpretation of this 
 paflage, the Apoflle, in the firfl: claufe of the firft 
 verfe, explicitly alTerts the pre-exiftence, and in 
 the laft claufe, the divinity of the Logos; to whom 
 in th'e third verfe he afcribes the creation of the 
 world; and of whom in the fourteenth verfe he 
 affirms that he became incarnate, and dwelt amon^ 
 us in our nature. In order to make way for ano- 
 ther interpretation, you propofe to render the 
 beginning of the firfl verfe (ev »px*! m Ixoyos) as fol- 
 lows, " At the beginning he became, or was ap- 
 pointed the Logos."* a rendering which, as I 
 conceive, will not meet with many advocates, 
 even among the Unitarians. It is on many ac- 
 counts inadmiflible. It makes the -^rfl fentence 
 in the original to be a fubjeftlefs propofition, 
 whofe predicate is a common word, having the 
 article prefixed ; and is therefore to be taken in a 
 limited fenfe, without any other word, going before 
 or accompanying it, by which it can be limited. 
 * Letters, page 77. 
 
S5 
 
 It alfo gives to the verb of exiftence a new fenfe, 
 for which indeed you cite the authority of 
 Schleufner ; but Upon examination, I cannot find 
 in the places to which you refer,* any fuch fenfe. 
 The meanings given to e'^<-' by Schleufner, in No, 
 2. 2St ex'ijlo, orior, or'iginem habro^ nafcor: to arife, 
 ox proceed from., but not to become — and in No. 9. 
 agnofcor, habeor, esfilmor, reputor^ dcclaror, celebror: 
 to be accounted ox pronounced; but not to be ap- 
 pointed. "If this rendering be not fatisfadory," 
 you offer us another : " At the beginning the Word 
 " was (or became) fo ;" that is, the Word was tlie 
 Word; which you explain to mean, " He, who 
 *' was the Word, became fo (or was appointed to 
 " be the Word) at the beginning, viz. of the Gof- 
 " pel difpenfation, which commenced at the bap- 
 " tifm of Jefus."§ A rendering no lefs inadmiffi- 
 able than the former ; if for no other reafon, yet 
 becaufe it takes the verb of exiftence in the fame 
 flrange fenfe as before. The lafl claufe (>'«' ^^o^ w 
 ^070$) you propofe to render "And the Word was 
 " a God."t This rendering can be juftified only 
 upon the ground, that in the original, ^£3^- is with- 
 out the article: upon which great ft refs has fre- 
 quently been laid, and by no one more than by 
 yourfelf. In your difcourfe I find you afierting that 
 the words now under confideration " Ihouldbe fo 
 *lbi'J, uote.* § Ibid, f Page 156. 
 C4 
 
56 
 
 ** rendered as to mark a cinirK^Ion, which, in this 
 ** Jttuation, is a^ plain as the Greek language could 
 •• denote it, between the application of the word 
 " God to the Supreme Being, and to any one to 
 *' whom, according to the cuftomary ufage of the 
 " Jews, it may corre£\ly be applied, but not in 
 " the abfolute fenfe of it."* The unwarranted 
 afiertion which I have marked in Italics, you af- 
 terwards thought proper to retrad : for at the back 
 of the advertilement prefixed to your difcourfe, I 
 find the following note: ** Page 55. note on John 
 " i. I. — It is not meant to aflert that ^eos cannot 
 *' agreeably to the laws of the Greek language, be 
 *' here taken in the abfolute fenfe; but that 
 *' it may be taken in its relative fenfe ; that the 
 ^* abfence of the article, according to the ufage 
 " of the Evangelift, decidedly favours the latter, 
 '* (fee particularly ch. x. 34. 35.) and that there- 
 " fore we ought to be determined in our rendering 
 «< of ^(oi by the analog^ of Scripture." By the 
 abfolute fenfe ofthe word ^los I fuppofe you mean 
 its higheft or proper fenfe as denoting the Supreme 
 God — ^by its relative fenfe I fuppofe you mean its 
 lowefk and m.ofl improper fenfe, as importing 
 nothing divine, but denoting a creature only above 
 his fellow creatures i)7 rank and [lower. What you 
 mean by being " determined in our rendering of 
 * Discourse, page 55, note ou John i. 1. 
 
57 
 
 «< Sfo.c by the analogy of Scripture," I do not pre- 
 tend, to divine ; and therefore will not attempt to 
 explain ; only upon the whole I think I may fafely 
 underftand you to mean, that ^sqs, notwithfland- 
 ing the abfence of the article, may be taken in its 
 higheft fenfe ; neverthelefs, in the prefent inftance, 
 it ought to be taken in its loweft fenfe. I have 
 ftatcd that much ftrefs has bee-n laid upon the ab- 
 fence of the article in this place: and, Sir, if you 
 fhould ftill entertain any partiality for your firft 
 fentimeats upon this point ; or if you even think 
 that the prefence of the article would have been 
 of advantage to us, I beg to obferve, that if the 
 article had been prefixed to ^eo^, the words ought 
 not to have been rendered (as they are rendered in 
 our tranflation, ^nd as we contend they ought to 
 be rendered) " the Word was God :" for in order 
 to give them this meaning, the abfence of the 
 article is even necelTary, But you will tell me, 
 that the words may be rendered " the Word was a 
 "God." I acknowledge that they may: but I 
 make this acknowledgement only upon one con- 
 dition, that ^ios is a common word, fignincaet of 
 many things of the fame kind. We may truly fay 
 that John is a man : why ? becaufe there are more 
 men than one: there a,re many men, of whom 
 John is one. In like manner, if we may lay, that 
 the Logos is a God, it muft be becaufe there are 
 c5 
 
58 
 
 more Gods than one ; and thus the unity of the 
 Godhead, for which the Unitarian boafts himrdf 
 fo ftrenuous an advocate, is completely cut up by 
 his own interpretation. 
 
 But here you will remind me of the two fenfes 
 of the word ^tos, its highefl or proper fenfe, and 
 its loweft or improper fenfe ; and will contend that 
 it is here ufed, in its improper fenfe, to denote one 
 who, as to nature, was a mere man, but as to 
 office, was highly exalted ; and " was to us a God, 
 " the reprefentative of the moft high." But, Sir, 
 where is this fliid ? or why is it introduced upon 
 tlie prefent occafion ? I allow that the Hebrew 
 Q'^n /^^ isfometimes in the Old Teftament, ufed 
 to denote judges and magiftrates; and in the 
 tranflation of the palTages in which it is fo ufed, or 
 with expiefs reference to thefe paffages, tl'.e Greek 
 '^-=3' may be ufed in the fame fenfe. But, Sir, will 
 you venture to fay, that it was ever foufed by any 
 Greek writer, exprefHng his own fentiments in 
 that language ? If you know of any fuch inftance, 
 Ibeg you to produce it. Behdesthe Apoftle con- 
 fededly afes ^"^ in its proper fenfe, both immedi- 
 ately before, and immediately after the paflage in 
 queftion. And is it to be fuppofed that in the 
 very fame breath he would ufe the fame word in a 
 fenfe fo very different, and withal fo foreign to 
 the idiom of the language in which he was writing, 
 
D9 
 
 without neceffity, and without giving the fmalleft 
 intimation of his defign ?* 
 
 But you will tell me, that though the words 
 are Greek, yet the phrafeology may be Jewilh ; 
 and you contend that the expieffion here is " ac- 
 " cording to the cuftoraary ufuage of the Jews." 
 I have aheady faid that fuch a manner of expref- 
 fion may be found in the Scriptures of the Old 
 Tellament; but that it was a manner in common 
 ule among the Jews, in the days of the Apoflles, 
 I pofitively deny. It is your part, who firll made 
 the alTertion, to prove it if you can. But even if 
 you could prove it, what has Jewifh phrafeology 
 to do in the prelent cafe ? The Apoftle was not 
 writing among Jews, nor to Jews, nor for Jews; 
 he is not detailing the difcourfe of a Jew ; nor is 
 
 * An attempt has been made to destroy the force of this 
 objection, by rtpl) ing, that in tbe28'h chapter of Ezekiel, 
 there are two verses, the second and ilie ninth, in each of 
 which the word ~£oy is ajiplied in a sitnilar manner, to denote 
 the true God and the Prince of Tyre See pa^e 120, note.* 
 The weakness of tliis replv will be made sufficiently a|jparent 
 by a bare recital of these two verses. "2. Son of Man say 
 " unto the Prince of 'i'yre, 'J'hus saith the Lord God, be- 
 " cause thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said 1 am a 
 " God, I sit in the seat of Goii, in the midst of the seas; yet 
 '* thou art a man and nut God, tiuiuuli tliou set thine heart 
 *•' as the heart of (Jixl: — 9. AVilt thou yet say before him that 
 " slayeth thee, I am God.'' i)ut thou shall he a n)an, aii'l not 
 " God in the hand of him that slayeth thee." Who does not 
 perceive that the title God is here applied not in its improper 
 fcense, to denote a man of superior rank and ))ower ; but in 
 its proper sense, to denote God in opposition to man: thoutjh 
 no more than Man, the Prince of Tyre, had impiously calletl 
 himself God. 
 
 c6 
 
GO 
 
 lye defcrlbing Jewifh cuftoms or manners. How 
 abfuid then to talk of " Jevvifh phrafeology," 
 which, if the Apoftle had ufed upon this occalion, 
 would probably have been intelligible to hardly 
 one in a hundred of his readers. And when it is 
 further conlidered that the perfons, among whom 
 the Apoftle was writing, were Heathens, who had 
 been in the conftant praftice of deifying men, was 
 it not upon your own principles incumbent upon 
 Irim fludioufiy to avoid a phrafeology, wliich, if 
 it muft not be-underftood literally, could not fail 
 of being mifunderftood, and mifapplied by the 
 perfons for whofe ufe it was intended ? Let me 
 bring to your recolleftion the manner in whi^h 
 you j^ftify this very phrafeology upon another 
 occalion. Our Lord had permitted Thomas to 
 addrefs hin, as God, without any rebuke or 
 iiotice.* Thus you juflify the appellation. " Em- 
 *' ploying the Jewilh idiom, Jefus zvas a God, as 
 " being the reprefentative of God, as being one ' to 
 " whom the word of God came :' and a Jewifli 
 " difeiple, one, who from his infancy, was im- 
 " bued with the ftridefl ideas of the unity and 
 '* unrivalled fuprcmacy of God, and accuftomed 
 •* by the fcriptural ufage of the appellation God 
 "to great latitude in the employment of it, could 
 "not be mifunderftood, by perfons of his own na- 
 * John XX. 'J8. 
 
61 
 
 *' tion, in employing it when addrefling one of 
 " whom they faw abundant proof that to him the 
 " word of God came, that he was to them the 
 " reprefentative of the mofl high."* By this very 
 juftification, you virtually condemn the ufe of 
 this appellation, under circumftances totally diffi- 
 milar, and where a mifunderftanding of its true 
 fenfe might reafonably be expe£led. And what 
 other could be expefted from the perfons among 
 whom, and for whom the Apoflle was writing ? 
 'Would they not naturally conclude from the 
 Apoftle's language, that fince the Saviour, in whom 
 they believed, was not truly and properly God, 
 he mufl at leaft be a deified man? It is, more- 
 over, ufelefs to infift upon Jewilh phrafeology in 
 this place, .which, if it were to be admitted, would 
 little avail your caufe. You will not, I fuppofe, 
 contend that this fuppofed Jevv'ifh phrafeology is 
 confined to the word^foj; but will admit that it 
 pervades the whole fentence at leaft. Now, Sir, 
 there is a Jewifh .as well as a Gnoftic meaning to 
 the word Xoyo.c, In hojy Scripture the creation of 
 the world is afcribed tolhe Word : as Pf. xxxiii. 
 6. " By the Word of tlte Lord were the heavens 
 " made." And I need not inform you that " the 
 " Word" is often fupplied in the Chaldee Para- 
 phrafe, when in the Hebrew there is nothing 
 * Letters, page 87. See also page l6o. 
 
62 
 
 correfponding with it. Thus Is. xJ v. 12. " I have 
 •' made the earth, and created man upon it," is 
 in the Chaldee Paraphrafe, *' I by my word have 
 ♦' made the earth," he. ; and again Is. xlviii. 13. 
 *' My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth," 
 is in the Chaldee, " By my word I have laid the 
 " foundation of the earth." The following are 
 inftances of the fame kind, Gen. iii. lo. " I heard 
 " thy voice in the garden." Chal. " I heard the 
 " voice of thy word in the garden." — Ex. xix. 17. 
 *' And Moies brought forth the people out of the 
 " camp to meet with God." Chal. " to meet with 
 " the word ofGod." Job xlii. 9. " So Eliphaz, &c. 
 *' went and did as the Lord commanded them," Chal. 
 " as the word of the Lord commanded them." — lb. 
 " The Lord alfo acce-ted Job." Ch. " The word of 
 " the Lord accej-ted Job."— Pf. ii. 4. " The Lord 
 " (Ch. the word of the Lord) fliall have them in 
 " derifion." If tlici^fore the palTage is to be inter- 
 preted agreeably to what you choofe to call Jewifh 
 phrafeology. I contend that the perfonality and divi- 
 nity of the Logo-;, are moll clearly alierted in it : fo 
 that even upon this ground there is no reafon to 
 fuppofe that '^sos is ufed in any but its proper fenfe. 
 Your interpretation of the third and fourteenth 
 verfes, is a mere adaptation of the Apoftle's words, 
 to your previous interpretation of the firft verfe: 
 and if this cannot be maintained, the other muft 
 
63 
 
 fall at the fame time. It may, however, be ex- 
 pefted that 1 vindicate the common interpretation 
 of the third verfe, from an objeftion which you 
 raife againft it, founded upon the meaning of the 
 verb sysvETo. You affure us that though St. John 
 ** ufes the word yw^jn more than lOO times, he 
 •' no where ufes it in the fenfe of creation."* It 
 would be fomething, though not decifive, if you 
 had Ihewn that St. John frequently fpeaks of the 
 creation, but never on fuch occafions ufes the verb 
 ymfxoi.i, but always fome other verb. This, how- 
 ever, has not been attempted : we are merely told 
 that, though he ufes the word more than one hun- 
 dred times, (I underfland you to mean exclufively 
 of the difputed places,) yet not once in the fenfe 
 of creation. Perhaps on all and every of thefe 
 hundred occafions and more, the lubjcdl does not 
 relate to the creation , and if fo, how is it to be 
 expeded that ymyi-ott Ihould have this fenfe. But 
 that it is capable of this fenfe you do not deny: 
 nor indeed is this fenfe inconfiflent either with the 
 general meaning of the word, or with its ufe. 
 Tivoi/.xt as far as my obi'ervation has gone, denotes 
 generally the coming forth of the thing fpoken of, 
 either into being originally, or into a new flate of 
 being. From the firft branch of this general 
 meaning, are deduced the following acknowledged 
 * Page 79» note. 
 
 4 
 
64 
 
 fenres of ihls word; to be, to he horn, to he ftroduced, 
 t.o he effe^ed, to he accomjiUjlied, to he performed, to 
 ar'ifc, to arrive, to come to Juifs, to hapfien, &c. and 
 why not, if the fenfe fhould fo require, to he 
 created or made P Accordingly we find that when 
 at the creation of the world, " God faid, Let there 
 be light : and there was light :" the divine word, 
 and its accomplifhment, are thus exprefTed by the 
 LXX. ytr/jS'/jrw (p'jjs, Kxt lyiviTo (pus."^ Why the:« 
 might not St. John, intending, in oppofition to the 
 Gnoflic herefy, to declare that the- univerfe came 
 forth into being by the agency of the Logos, thus 
 
 exprefs it? riixvrx o/avrs tymro, 
 
 I am not abfolutely called upon to notice your 
 interpretation of the tenth verfe; neverthelefs, 
 fince here alfo you refufe to tyinro the fenfe of 
 creation, I fhall beg your attention to the follow- 
 ing obfervations : 
 
 I faid above, in fpeaking of the general mean- 
 ing of the verb 7'vo//.a<, that it fignifies the coming 
 forth, not only into being originally, but alfo into 
 a new ftate of being. In this latter branch of its 
 general meaning, it is not ufed abfolutely, but is 
 followed by a word denoting the new (late, in which 
 the thing fpokcn of, is faid to appear : as in the fol- 
 lowing examples ; Matt. iv. iii. unri noc It XiOoi tiroi aproi 
 ^iimrxi ' command that thefe ftones become bread.' 
 * Gen. i. 3. 
 
65 
 
 John xvi. 20. » i^vni) v/xuv n: ^ocpxv yzvyiffiTai ; *your 
 forrow ^^laii be turned into joy.' This meaning 
 you afcribe to tyfi'tro in the tenth verfe, refpe£ting 
 which (after having obferved that the common 
 rendering " has perhaps more than any thing con- 
 " tributed to eftabUfh in the minds of the unlearned 
 " the Trinitarian, or the Arian hypothefis, refpec- 
 *' ting our Saviour,") you thus fpeak; '• what 
 " the Apoftle aftually fays is, ' th« world became 
 '* by him,^ or, if (as in Matt, xxiii. 15) we fup- 
 *' ply the obvious ellipfis from the preceding verfe, 
 *' the world became enlightened by him."* And 
 again in another place, " ¥ioa-(/.os the worlds ac- 
 " cording to the alraoft uniform ufage of John, 
 "•* and agreeably to the next claufe, lignifies the 
 " world of mankind, not the natural world ; and 
 " he frequently ufes ytvo(xati become^toAenoiQ a change 
 " °f J^<^^^ ■' the expreffion xoa/^oy ^t'tuvra tymro 
 " might therefore jurtly, but fomewhat freely, be 
 '* rendered ' mankind were brought by him into a 
 " new flate.' If, however, we tranflate more 
 " literally, and fupply the ellipfis from the preced- 
 *' ing verfe, we fhall have the world became enlight- 
 ♦' ened by him.*'| You will obferve, Sir, that 
 after tysvero in this place, there is no word denoting 
 the fuppofed new flate ; therefore one of your 
 renderings, ' the world was brought by him into a 
 * Lettevsj page 79, note. % Page J 73. 
 
 / 
 
66 
 
 new ftate,' is totally inadmilTible. Agaliift the 
 other rendering ' the world became enlightened by 
 him,' I thould urge without more words the fame 
 objeftion, if you did not fpeak of an ellipfis to be 
 fupplied from the preceding vcrfe. But, Sir, I 
 afk what authority is there for fuch an ellipfis ? 
 That, which you cite, will not avail you. For 
 though I" admit that in Matt, xxiii. 15. the word 
 * profelyte' is to be fupplied from the preceding 
 fentence, yet it is to be placed l^efore the verb, and 
 not after it, " Ye compafs fea and land to make 
 *' one profelyte; and when the /zro/f/y/i? is made, 
 " ye make him twofold more the child of hell than 
 •' yourfelves.'* Again; how can enlightened be 
 fuppiied from the preceding verfe, and prediCaLcd 
 of the world in this? For in the preceding verfe, 
 it is not faid that he aifordeth light to the world; 
 but to " every man that cometh into the world," 
 that is, into the natural world. Laftly, how does 
 this rendering fuit the context ? Is it not a con- 
 tradiftion to fay that the world became aftualiy 
 enlightened by him, and then to add immediately 
 that " the world knew him not?" I therefore re- 
 ject without hefitation both the propofed render- 
 ings, and choofe to abide by that of the public 
 verfion, which, I doubt not, is the true one. 
 
 Little need be faid refpefting the fourteenth 
 verfe. You acknowledge that St. John *' fre- 
 
67 
 
 " quently ufes y<v8/xa< become^ to denote a change 
 *' of ftate." Confequently, yourfelf being judge, 
 Koyas crxfi, £y£V£To may be rendered " the word was 
 " made, or, became, flefh." And this rendering 
 is fanftioned by the order of the words, which is 
 the fame as is commonly obferved, v/hen yvo^a* is 
 ufed in this fenfe ; and is alfo required, by the 
 context, in which, when rightly interpreted, the 
 divinity and prc-exiftence of the Logos, is ex- 
 prelily aflerted. 
 
 John viii. 58. 
 
 " Before Abraham was, I am." 
 
 You objeft to this rendering of the original, 
 and affirm that the correct rendering of ^y^' s^/a. is, 
 ' I am he;' and in fupport of this rendering, you 
 refer to no lefs than eight places in this Gofpel, in 
 which the words are fo rendered in the public ver- 
 lion. Thefe places are ch. iv. 26. — viii. 24. 28.— 
 ix. 9. — xiii. 19. — xviii. 5. 6. 8.* But, Sir, you 
 will permit me to obferve, that not one of thefe 
 places is in point : for not one of them relates to 
 exiftence abfolute. The firft is the reply to the 
 woman of Samaria, who had alferted " I know that 
 *' Meffiah cometh, who is called Chrift : when he 
 " is come, he will tell us all things. Jefus faith 
 
 * Letters, page 244. 
 
6S 
 
 *• unto her, I that fpeak unto thee, am" The ex- 
 preflion is clearly elliptical — am what ? That very 
 Mefliah of whom thou art in expe£lation. Of the 
 fame kind are the following plates : ch. ix. 9.— 
 xviii. 5. 6. 8. In the other places the exprefiion 
 inanifeflly refers, not to the exigence of the perfon 
 fpoken of; but to the relation in which he flood 
 to others, and to their knowledge and belief of 
 fuch relation. John, ch. xiii. 19. "Now I tell you 
 *' before it come, that when it is come to pafs, ye 
 " may believe that I am" — that I exift, not abfo- 
 lutely, but quovis modo, in fome way which has rela- 
 tion to you : that I fuflain fome chara£ler, in which 
 you are interefted. And of the fame kind are the 
 two remaining inflances. — It is manifeft, therefore, 
 that in no one'of thefe inflances does the exprelTion 
 refer to the quando^ but only to the quid, or the 
 quale. It is otherwife in the pafTage in queflion. 
 At the 56th verfe, our Saviour had declared to the 
 Jews, that " Abraham rejoiced" (or, as the ori- 
 ginal word may alfo be rendered, earncjily dejlred) 
 "to fee my day:" by which expreffion they un- 
 queflionably underflood, the time of his exiflence 
 upon earth ; and when he afterwards faid that the 
 Patriarch " faw" his day " and was glad," they 
 underflood him to fay, that he was coeval witji 
 Abraham, who had beheld his contemporary with 
 joy. Now certainly it is implied in this, (you, indeed, 
 
69 
 
 aflert the contrary)* that our Lord had ken Abra- 
 ham : and the Jews underftood it in this fenfe, as 
 appears from their reply — " Thou art not yet fifty 
 " years old, and haft thou feen Abraham ?" We 
 perceive, then, that this queftion of the Jews refers 
 folely to the time of our Lord's exiftence : they 
 fuppofed him to have allerted, that he was co- 
 temporary with Abraham ; and they enquire how 
 that was poflible, when, by the moft favourable 
 computation, he could not as yet be fifty years 
 old. The queftion thus referring to time, the an- 
 fwer muft, in all reafon, be admitted to refer to 
 the fame. It is not to be fuppofed that our Lord 
 would uflier in an irrelevant anfwer by this folemn 
 affeveration, " Verily, verily, I fay unto you :" 
 therefore the verb £///,/ muft here denote exiftence 
 abfolute; and the words are rightly tranflated 
 *' before Abraham was," or, was born, *'Iam." 
 But you alfo objeft to the renderingof the former 
 claufe, " Before Abraham was, or was born," for 
 
 * It may be proper to state the passage in which this asser- 
 tion is contained. " Jesus said (v. 5t>.) that Abraham ear- 
 '* nestly desired to see his day, ' and he saw it, obviousljf 
 " meaning foresaw it,* and was glad." Here the Jews inter 
 " rupt him with a perversion of hi^ meaning, ' '1 hou art not 
 " yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham !' Our Lord 
 " had 7iot said a word imtlying thi<:, and he does not rectify 
 " their misapprehension : hut justifies 'his own expression by 
 *' declaring that he was designated to his office before Abra- 
 " ham was born, v. 58. tiiis designation therefore might have 
 " beeti revealed to the Patriarch.' See " Imp. veri." 
 page S44. 
 
70 
 
 two reafons — i. becaufe St. John never ufes ytvoij.xi 
 in the fenfe of to be born. You had before made 
 a fimilar obje£lion to the ufe of this fame verb, 
 " in the fenfe of creation :" and an anfwer fimilar 
 to that which was then made, may ferve upon the 
 prefent occafion. You do not pretend that to be 
 horn is an unufual fenfe of this verb, or that it is 
 inconfiftent with its general meaning. I obferve, 
 moreover, that it is fo rendered by the authors of 
 the " Improved verfion," in this very place : I 
 think, therefore, that you are' not very ferious in 
 this objeftion, and I conceive that you principally 
 objedt for the fecond reafon, viz. becaufe " the 
 <■« form of the verb here ufed, ymahxi, generally 
 <' throughout the New Teftament, and always in 
 " John's writings, has a future fignification ; when 
 " joined with prepoiitions of time, it always has it ; 
 " and in the only other palTage (John xiv. 29.) 
 " where it is joined with tt^.v before^ it mull have 
 •' it."* It is very certain that 7ff/v bcjorc, has 
 upon all occafions, reference to the future. But, 
 Sir, you feem not to be aware that a thing may be 
 future in two refpe6ls : i. in refpeft of the prefent 
 time: 2. in refpe£l of fome other thing to which 
 in point of time it is fubfequent. The grammati- 
 cal prefent time is that in which the fpeaker or 
 writer is aftually fpeaking or writing: all before, 
 * Letters, page 245. 
 
71 
 
 giammatically fpcaking, is pad; all after, is fu- 
 ture. In our language, that alone can be expvefled 
 in the future tenfe, which is fubfequent to the 
 prefent time ; not that which is only future in 
 refpeft of fome other thing, but paft in refpedl of 
 the prefent. Let me explain my meaning by an 
 example. Suppofe ' the dellruftion of Jerufalem* 
 to be future in refpeft of 'the advent of theMeffiah.' 
 While the Mefliah was yet expefted, and confe- 
 quently, while the deflrudtion of Jcrufalem, was 
 future in refpeft ot the prefent, it might be faid, 
 Before Jerufalem Jliall he dertroyed, the Meffiah 
 will come. But now that the advent of the 
 Mcfliah is paft, and the deftrudlion of Jerufalem 
 is alfo paft, in refpeft of the prefent, we cannot 
 exprefs that event in the future tenfe, but muft 
 ufe the paft, and fay, Before Jerufalem vjas de- 
 ftroyed, the Mefliah came. If we apply what has 
 now been faid to the inftance before us, we fliall 
 fee the reafon why Trp <» ACpa^ VEv^o-Sa/ muft in our 
 language be^ocprefled in the paft tenfe, notwith- 
 ftanding Trpo implies a relative future. The time 
 of Abraham's exiftenc^e or his birth, was not fu- 
 ture in refpeft of the prefent time, that is, of the 
 time when our Lord was fpeaking; but had then 
 been long paft : Therefore, the true rendering is, 
 before Abraham was or vjas born. But it is other- 
 wife in tlie Hebrew language: there even a relu- 
 
72 
 
 tive future may be exprefled In the future tenfe, 
 notwithftanding the thing fpoken of is pafl in re- 
 fpeft of the prefent. Thus Gen. ii. 5. " And eve- 
 " ry plant of the field, before it v,'as ("Heb. n^n** 
 *' fliallbe") in the earth; andevery herb of the field 
 *' before it grew." (Heb. HOJ/^ Aiall grow.) The 
 being of the plants in the earth, and the growing 
 of the herbs, was fubfequent to their creation, al- 
 though pafl in refpeft of the prefent. We have, 
 therefore, here a relative future merely, which is, 
 neverthelefs, in Hebrew, exprelled by the future 
 tenfe of the verb. Pf. xc. 2. *' Before the moun- 
 *' tains were brought forth (Heb, i1 7^) ^^ ever 
 «' thou hadfl formed" (Heb. 7'/inP'^) '* the earth 
 " and the world, even from evcrlafling to everlafl- 
 " ing, thou art God." Tn conformity with this idiom, 
 theSvriac verfion of the Nevv? Teflament expreffes 
 yvjser^u<, in the pafiage now under confideration, 
 by the future of the verb of exiflence. Hence it 
 appears, that in tranflating wf/p A^fccxfj. yma'^cti into 
 Englifh, the part tenle may be ufed, notwithftand- 
 ing "TTfi'v implies the future: and that the pafl tenfe 
 jnuji be ufed. if the thing expreffed was pafl, before 
 the time in which our Lord delivered the words. 
 There is therefore no force in the obje£fion 
 which you ma'^'e to the public verfion in tliis 
 particular. As for the rendering which you found 
 
7J 
 
 upon the fappofed validity of this objeftion,* 
 " Before Abraham fhall become," it is not very 
 eafy to underftand it, even with the advantage of 
 your explanation ; but as the Jews, to whom the 
 words were fpoken, had not the benefit of this 
 explanation, the whole muft have been to them 
 wholly unintelligible. I contend, therefore, that 
 thefe words refer to the time of Abraham's exift- 
 ence, and that the whole paflage is properly ren- 
 dered, " Before Abraham was, I am." 
 
 I come now to the meaning and force of thefe 
 words. And here the leaft that can be faid is, that 
 they prove deciiively the pre-exiftence of our 
 Lord. But this is not all: the circumftances of 
 the cafe manifeflly require fomething more. It 
 appears that the reply of our Lord operated upon 
 
 * " Hence it appears that the true renclering of the first 
 " clause is, ' Before Abraham shall become,' and as the 
 " si^cond clause ' I am' is obviously elliptical, we may rea- 
 " soiiabiy suppose a similar ellipsis in the first. Now /7brn- 
 *' ham signifies the Father of many nations ; and tlie name 
 " was given to Abrak^tm (Gen. xvii. 5.) on account of the 
 " divine promise, that he should be what that name implied. 
 " In reference to this, our Lord says, ' Before Abraham shall 
 ♦' become .-/), 1 am he,' that is before he who was called the 
 '• Father of many nations, actually becomes so, I am the 
 " Christ, or I must be acknowledged as the Chji^t." Pa2;e 
 '245. This form, in which the nominative to the verb serves 
 to express both the subject and the predicate of the proposi- 
 tion, is, I own, new to me ; nor should I he inclined to admit it 
 nnless a legitimate example of it could be produced. This is 
 the second imaginanj instance which has occurred in St. 
 John, (see page 77?) but I want a necessary and undr niable 
 one. 
 
 D 
 
74 
 
 t^ie Jews, like an elcftricfliock: it excited in them 
 fo great indignation, that inflantly with one ac- 
 cord they prepare to inflift upon him the punifli- 
 ment, which the law liad denounced againft Blaf- 
 phemers. Now if the words of Jefus imply no 
 more than a claim to a priority of exiftence, you 
 yourfelf allow, that this would have been no ground 
 for their attempting to ftone him.* Nor even if 
 they had underftood him to aflert his own fupe- 
 riority to Abraham, would this have been fuffici- 
 ent ground. He had already in efFeft done this ; 
 and the fenfation which they felt upon the occa- 
 fion was not indignation. " Then faid the Jews 
 *' unto him, now we know that thou haft a Devil. 
 " Abraham is dead, and the Prophets: and thou 
 " fayeft, if a man keep m.y faying, he fhall never 
 " tafte of death. Art thou greater than our Fa- 
 " ther Abraham, which is dead? and the Prophets 
 " are dead ? Whom makeft thou thyfelf?" vs. 52. 
 53. To what then are we to impute that fudden 
 indignation, which impelled the Jews to inflict 
 upon our Lord fo fevere a punilhment? I can 
 
 * " Why tlie Jews \Yere so indignant at these words, mav 
 " be learnt from v. 53. Tliey must consider the words of 
 *^ Jesus as derogatory from the dignity of Abraham, and as- 
 " serting his own superioritj'. If they had conceived him to 
 " have claimed a priority of existence, it is likely they would 
 *' have regarded him as insane, or have made that claim a 
 •' ground for ridiculing him themselves, and exposing him to 
 " the ridicule of their fellow-countrymen, instead of altemp- 
 ^' ting to stone him for it." Page 240". 
 
75 
 
 impute It to no other caafe, than tlieir fuppofing 
 him to have been aftually guilty of blafphemy, 
 I conceive that there was fomething, either in his 
 words, or in his voice and manner, or in both, 
 which wrought in them a conviction, that he had 
 applied to himfelf the ineommurticable name of 
 the only God. You pofitively deny that the 
 words are capable of this fenfe :* But, Sir, you 
 have not fully confidered the matter. You will 
 admit that the words in St. John's Gofpel are not 
 the very words which our Saviour uttered ; but a 
 tranflation of them into Greek : an exaft and lite- 
 ral tranflation, I have no doubt: but words in the 
 original have frequently a force, which it is diffi- 
 cult for any tranilation to convey. Let us, there- 
 fore, enquire of what words thefe are the tranfla- 
 tion. Upon looking into the Syriac verlion of the 
 New Teflament, I find that the words which ex- 
 prefs 1"/^ 11(^1 I am, exa£lly anfwer to the Hebrew 
 
 ^''^^? *'J^?• Thefe therefore are probably the 
 very words which our Saviour uttered. It appears 
 from the book of Exodus, ch. iii. 14. that H^Mi^ 
 is the very name by which the God of Ifrael re- 
 vealed himfelf to Mofes, when he faid " I am the 
 " I AM," and again " I am hath fent me unto 
 " you." Now n^riK niay denote here as in the 
 
 ♦ Letters, page 86, and page 246, note.* 
 D 2 
 
76 
 
 book of Exodus, the name of God: and if fo, then 
 the expreffion ^^^^? ^-^ is capable of being 
 fo underflood as to apply this name to our blelTed 
 Saviour; this you will not be difpofedto deny, 
 when you conlider how very frequently in holy 
 Scripture the verb of exiftence, or copula, is under- 
 flood, between the pronoun of the firft and fe- 
 cond perfon and the name of God. An inftance 
 of this form occurs in the words juil now quoted 
 from the 90th Pfalm, " Even from everlafting to 
 " everlafting thou art God," '^K m/IK- See 
 alfo Exod. vi. 2. 6. 8. 29. And if ■ we fuppofe 
 that the voice and manner of our Saviour were 
 luch as to mark fuch an-application, and to make 
 it in a manner unavoidable, we cannot be at alofs 
 to account for the fudden indignation with which 
 the Jews were filled ; and at the unanimity with 
 which they prepared to flone him as a Blafphemer. 
 I have gone thus far into the fubje£l in order 
 to fhew that the Trinitarian interpretation of this 
 paflage, is not fo unwarranted, nor fo totally in- 
 defenfible, as you have chofcn to reprefent it. 
 Tliat by the words which our Lord uttered, he 
 might be undei-flood to apply to himfelf thediftin- 
 guifhing name of the 'God of Ifracl, I have fuffi- 
 ciently fliewn: that by fuch an application, he 
 would, in the eyes of the Jews, be guilty of blaf- 
 phemy, cannot be doubted ; and that he adually 
 
77 
 
 was, in their eyes, guilty of blafplicmy, is mani- 
 feft, from their preparing to inflift upon him the 
 punifliment due to that crime. But in what his 
 fuppofed blafpheniy confided, if not in applying; 
 to himfelf the name, t am, I cannot perceive. 
 The efFefl of our Lord's words upon the Jews is 
 moil: evident: the caufc affigned fuUy accounts 
 for this effefl ; and the context farniihes no other 
 adequate caufe. This at leafl muil; be allowed, 
 that if our Lord, as you fuppofe, had faid " Before 
 " Abraham ihali become fo, I am he," an anfwer 
 fo irrelevant, and withal fo xinintelligible, might 
 perhaps have excited their deriiion, but would 
 hardly have roufed their indignation. 
 John xvii. 5. 
 *♦ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with 
 ♦* thine own felf, with the glory which I had with 
 " thee, before the world was." 
 
 You admit that this pafTage is capable of the 
 fenfe in which it is ufualiy taken,* and moll un- 
 queflionably in this fenfe, it proves the pre-exiil- 
 ence of Chrift. But you contend that the words 
 do not require this fenfe ; meaning that they may 
 be taken in another fenfe, in which they afford 
 no proof of the pre-exiftence. I have to thank 
 you for not fubjefting me to the neceffity of vin- 
 dicating the ufual interpretation: for I cannot but 
 * Letters, page 248. 
 
 ^3 
 
78 
 
 think that the fame ingenuity which has cifco- 
 vered a new fenfe, might with equal eafe, if pro- 
 perly exerted, have fet afide the old one. But let 
 us fee what this new fenfe is. " And now, O 
 " Father, glorify thou me by thine own power, 
 " ('Trocfcx. aeizvTf) with the glory which I liad, in thy 
 " purpofe {Trixpx a-oi) before the world was." And 
 this interpretation you regard " as more accordant 
 "with the phrafeology of the New Teftament, 
 " than that which renders it an argument in fa- 
 " vour of the pre-exiftent fcheme."* But, Sir, 
 there are to it ferious objetftions. In the firft 
 place, you give to the prepofition ruapae. two differ- 
 ent fenfes, in neither of which is it ever ufed in 
 the New Teftament, nor as far as I know, in any 
 other book, nap asacvru} you render " by thine 
 " own power," and in fupport of this rendering, 
 you refer to four paflages, in which tliis prepofition 
 is ufed with a dative no lefs than eight times, and 
 every time, as you fuppofe, in the fenfe here 
 afligned to it. You perceived that jiower was fome 
 how or other implicated in all thefe paflages ; and 
 you haftily gave this force to the prepofition, 
 which, a little further confideration, might per- 
 haps have convinced you, belonged rather to fome 
 other word in the fentence. Among your exam- 
 ples is the following, Matt. xix. 26. " With men 
 
 * Page 251. 
 
79 
 
 « ('rrxpx ai/^fijmis) this is impoffible: but witli God 
 " (^Trafx ^c &£«) all things are poffible." Now in the 
 very poffibility or impoflibility of a thing, power 
 is implied. That is /ioJ/ii?k, wliich power can 
 effeft: that is impojjible, which power cannot 
 efFecl. But, Sir, not fufficiently adverting to this 
 circumflance, you conceived that power was de- 
 noted by the prepolition mxpx, and you render 
 thus " By the power of men this cannot be done; 
 " but by the power of God all things can be 
 " done:"* whereas, the true rendering is, "With 
 men, or regard being had to men, this is not an 
 objeft of power, and is not to be effefted by 
 power; but with God, or regard being had to 
 God, all things are objefts of power, and may be 
 effefted by it." All the examples, which you ad- 
 duce, are fimilar to, this laft : in all of them the 
 JioJJibUity or imlioJfibUity of the thing fpoken of, is 
 aflerted : and, therefore, no one of them proves 
 that the prepolition Trapa fignifies ' in the power of.' 
 So much for the firft fenfe of 7r«p. As for the • 
 other fenfe ' itotfa. rroi in thy purpofe,' you give 
 for it no authority whatever; nor has it any au- 
 thority. You tell us that in the New Teftament, 
 when this prepolition is ufed with the dative in 
 reference to God, ' it fignifies in the /?"^^/, /mrfiofe, 
 ox ejlimatton of God.' Who would not under- 
 * Page 249, note. 
 D4 
 
80 
 
 ■fland by this, that thefe three words have all tlie 
 fame, or at leaft a cognate fenfe ^ And again, in 
 a note, the third meaning of vapsc. is dated to be 
 " in the dijfiojitions, sight or purposes, ejiima- 
 " tion of.'" HexQpurfiofes is manifeftly, ufcd as fy"*^- 
 nymous W\th Ji^ht. But is it really lb ? By pur- 
 pofe you mean unalterable determination or de- 
 cree:* but furely this is not the meaning ofjtght 
 ox eJiimaiion\ nor can the one be fubflituted For 
 the other. When St. Peter fays, " One day is 
 " with the Lord {'nxfx Kvpiu) as a thoufand years,""} 
 admitting that ' with the Lord' means in his fg^( 
 or ej^imation, is this the fame as in his /lur/iofe or 
 decree P Or are you willing, that in the paflage 
 before you, inftead of" the glory which I had in 
 *' ihy fiurp.ofe,^^ we fhould read " the glory which 
 " I had in xhy JightP'^ Such a fubftitution would 
 completely overturn your interpretation. It mufh 
 therefore be admitted iXraiJtght ?in6. Jiurfiofe do not 
 mean the fame thing: and, after a careful exami- 
 nation of all the examples, which you have ad- 
 duced of this third meaning, I find not one in 
 which it means in the /lurjiofe of. I contend, 
 therefore, that this meaning of the prepofition is 
 
 * See page 252, where I find the following words, " This 
 " further shews that our Lord in v. 5. refers to glory, never 
 " actually possesstd, but given him in the unalterable de- 
 " crees of God." 
 
 § 3. Pet. iii. 8. 
 
81 
 
 unwarranted^ and confequently is inadmiiTible. 
 I have another objeiSlion. Tht expreffion is 
 " Glorify thou me with the glory which I had 
 '* (£'X«v was having) with thee." Now the pad 
 imperfeft tenfe very well fuits the cafe of a perfon 
 who was once in a ftate of glory, but has volun- 
 tarily fufFered a diminution of it, and had ' made 
 hinifelfofno reputation.' But how does it fuit 
 your cafe ? which plainly requires the perfeft tenfe 
 have had. If I fay, I have a bleffing in reveriion, 
 or have had it for fome time paft, this implies 
 that the right, though not the adual polTe^ion, is 
 vefted in me. But when I fay, I had a bleffing in 
 reverhon, and feek for a renewal of it, does not 
 this imply, that though the right was once nrxine, 
 it is now gone ? Take heed, Sir, that you do not, 
 by your interpretation, make the purpofes and 
 decrees of the unchangeable God, as uncertain 
 and reverfible as thofe of fickle and inconftant 
 roan. On all thefe accounts, I have no helitation 
 in pronouncing, that your interpretation does not 
 give the true fenfe of the paflage in queftion, 
 which, fince the literal and obvious fenfe, is thus 
 without a rival, proves mofl inconteflibly the 
 pre-exiftence of the Saviour. 
 
 Phill. ii. 5. 6. 7. 8. 
 " Let this mind be in you, which was alfo in 
 " Chrill Jefus: who being in the form of God, 
 »5 
 
82 
 
 " thought it not robbery to be equal with God; 
 " but made himfelf of no reputation ; and took 
 " upon him the form of a fcrvant, and was made 
 '* in the likenefs of men : and, being found in 
 " fafhion as a man, he humbled himfelf, and be- 
 " came obedient unto death, even the death of 
 " the crofs." 
 
 On this very interefting pafTage, you obferve, 
 " that there is not one exprefTion which imphes 
 '' that Jefus poflefled a fuperior nature.''^ At the 
 fame time you " willingly allow" that " the whole 
 " may admit of a convenient explanation, upon 
 " the fuppofition that fuch was the cafe."* I con- 
 fider this as a confeffion that the fenfe in which we 
 take the paflage is unobjedlionable, as far as the 
 conflruftion and connedlion are concerned, and is 
 to be reje£led only becaufe it militates againft the 
 Unitarian do6lrine of the fimple humanity. I am, 
 therefore, now much in the fame fituation as with 
 refpeft to the laft paflage : I have rather to com- 
 bat your fenfe, than to defend my own. Let me 
 therefore follow you in your explanation. 
 
 The principal expreffion, which flands in your 
 way, is " Who being in the form of God," which 
 YOU thus explain. " To be /'« the form of God, and 
 <' to be Inflcad of God, are obvioufly expreffions of 
 "*' the fame general import."t Ohv'ioufly^ Sir, do 
 * Letters, page 196. fPage 1S3. 
 
83 
 
 you fay? Sure I am, fuch a thing would never 
 have occurred to me: for to my apprehenfion 
 there are many, very many Ihades of difference 
 between them: and I think that you yourfelf 
 would hardly contend that ' to be in the form of a 
 fervant' is of the fame import as ' to be inflead of 
 a fervant.' If, however, fuch Ihould be your 
 opinion, who will fay that the doftrine of the 
 Docetae may not yet revive ?. Indeed the Doceta? 
 and the Unitarians appear to argue much after the 
 fame manner, only upon oppofite principles. 
 The Docetse affirm that the Saviour is, as to his 
 nature, divine: and hence they infer that he could 
 not be really human, but was only in appearance 
 a man. The Unitarians, on the other hand, affirm, 
 that the Saviour, as to his nature, is human ; and 
 hence they infer that he cannot be really divine, 
 but is only 'inflead of God.' Both are equally 
 wrong. But let us fee what ufe you make of the 
 above parallellifm. It follows: " Mofes is faid 
 " (Exod. iv. i6.) to be injhad of God to Aaron? 
 " he, by divine appointment, informed him of the 
 " purpofes of God. Our Lord was //z the form of 
 ♦' God, inafmuch as he fpoke and aff ed with divine 
 •♦ authority ; and, according to Jewifh phrafeolo- 
 " gy, (fee p. 78. and 157. j he was ^ God, be- 
 ** caufe he was thus in the form of God, He was 
 •« the reprefentative of God: God by him declared 
 d6 
 
84 
 
 " his gracious purpofes to mankind, invefted him 
 " with authority, and by his fupernatural agency 
 " enabled him to prove that authority."* This 
 then is the argument. To be In the form of God, 
 means the lame as to be inftead of God. Mofcs 
 was inftead of God. Why ? Becaufe he afted by 
 divine appointment. Therefore Chrift muft be 
 laid to be in the form of God, for a limilar rea- 
 fon, becaufe he fpoke and afted by divine autho- 
 rity; and being thus in the form of God, he was, 
 as the Jews were accuftomed to fpeak, a God. 
 Again: Mofes was inftead of God to Aaron, be- 
 caufe he informed Aaron of the purpofes of God : 
 In hke manner our Lord was in the form of God, 
 or a God to us, becaufe God by him, as his re~ 
 prefentative, declared his gracious purpofes to 
 mankind. Hence it appears that to be in the 
 frm of God, to be injlead of Gcd, and to be a 
 God, are all expreffions of the fame general im- 
 port, and when applied to our Saviour, mean no 
 more than a mere man, atSling by divine authority. 
 But you thus proceed " Whenever Jefus fpoke 
 *' and a<^ed in the form of God, with the divine 
 " authority with which he was invefted, whenever 
 " he claimed honour and obedience, becaufe he fo 
 " fpake and afted, he was as God: and thus 
 *' much for the purpofes of his miffion, we know 
 * Ibid. 
 
85 
 
 ** he did affume : it was not only his right, but his 
 " duty to do fo."* Does it not from hence follow 
 that our Saviour was in the form of God, was a God, 
 was as God, at the very time when he was ex- 
 ecuting the office to which he was appointed, and 
 bccaufe he was executing this office; and that 
 thele expreffions are on no other account appli- 
 cable to him, but becaule he was invefted with 
 divine authoriry for that purpofe ? Now, Sir, I 
 have carefully examined ibis whole pallage, over 
 and over again ; and I can find in it nothing 
 which afferts this, nothing which implies it. On 
 the contrary, if any thing of the kind is implied 
 in this paflage, it is, that the Saviour, in order to 
 execute the piirpofes of his miffion, not only did 
 not put on, but adually put off the form of God : 
 that while he was executing this otJice upon earth, 
 he did not appear in this form, but had previoufly 
 emptied himfelf of it, had made himfelfof no re- 
 putation, and had atlumed a form of the very 
 oppofitc kind, even the form of a fervant. But, 
 as I before obferved, I fee in this paflage no men- 
 tion at all of the office of Chrift, but only of that 
 humble condition, in which he fubmitted to an 
 ignominious death, contrafled with a previous 
 flate of glory, from which he had voluntarily de- 
 fcended. You indeed are pleafed to iniinuate 
 
 * Page 194. 
 
86 
 
 that ill order to arrive at this fenfe, we muft 
 " interpret Jewifli phrafeology by our own modes 
 "of thinking and fpeaking:" for tliat otherwife, 
 " this paflage fpeaks no other language than what 
 " the Apoftle elfewhere employs, that there is 
 *' one Mediator between God and men, the Man 
 •' Chrift Jefus."* Sir, your own interpretation 
 affords abundant ground for retorting this (with 
 refpeft to us unfounded) charge. For could any 
 perfon, who was not pre- determined to find the 
 Unitarian doftrine in every palTage relating to the 
 Saviour, have maintained that this paflage allerts 
 nothing more than the humanity of the Mediator} 
 And how is a colour given to this aflertion ? Even 
 by adopting Englifh idiom to Greek phrafeology ; 
 by taking a word, wliich in Englifh is equivocal, 
 in that fenfe which the correfponding Greek word 
 will not exprefs. Thus you aflert: "To be in 
 ^^ the form of God, and to be inflead of God, are 
 *' obvioufly words of the fame general import." 
 It is true, we fometimes ufe the Englifh word form 
 fomewhat loofely to denote mere outward fhew; 
 or as Johnfon defines " external appearance with- 
 *' out the eifential qualities :" and perhaps a per- 
 fon, who is ignorant of the original word here 
 rendered form, might be led, by this not unufual 
 fenfe of the word, to think that the two exprel- 
 
 ♦ Page 196. 
 
87 
 
 fions bear fome refemblance to each other. But 
 the origuial word /xopfrj has not this fenfe: it 
 means, indeed, the exterior of a thing, but not an 
 exterior without the effential qualities; but an 
 exterior which impUes the eflence, and by means 
 of which the effence is exhibited and manifefted. 
 Thus, that effulgence of unapproachable hght, 
 which, under the law, firft in the tabernacle, and 
 afterwards in the temple, was difplayed between 
 the Cherubim, which overfliadowed the mercy- 
 feat, was the form by means of which the divine 
 prefence was manifefted to the Ifraelites of old. 
 And we read of our blefled Saviour, that having 
 appeared after his refurreftion, firft to Mary 
 Magdalene, he afterwards appeared to two of the 
 Difciples, in another fornji ev Infx ^of<pYi •* the 
 eflence was the fame as before, but the form Or 
 exterior was different. And it is obfervable, that 
 when our Lord was transfigured upon the holy 
 mount, in the prefence of three of his Difciples, 
 the word in the original is iA.iriiA.o((pujBn,-\ which im- 
 plies that his figure or exterior underwent a change : 
 and this glorious occurrence may ferve to illuf- 
 trate, in no fmall degree, the meaning of the 
 Apoftle, in the place before us. In both cafes 
 there was a change of form; but the change was 
 
 * Mark xvi. 12. 
 t Matt. xvii. 2. and Mark ix, 2. compared with Luke jx. 29. 
 
88 
 
 in oppofite directions. The Evangelifts fpeak of a 
 change from mcannefs to glory ; St, Paul of a 
 change from glory to meannefs : and the whole? 
 paflage may be thus explained, " Who being in 
 *' the form of God," encircled with divine glory, 
 and dwelling in unapproachable light, " thought 
 " it not robbery to be equal with God," or rather, 
 " did not eftcem the being as God, (xpTrxyy-ov) a 
 " thing to be eagerly grafped, and pertinacioufly 
 " retained ;" did not iniifl upon his right, and 
 refolutely determine, always to appear as God ; 
 •' but made himfelf of no reputation, and took 
 " upon him the form of a fervant, and was made 
 " in the likenefs of men:" he divefted himfelf of 
 the exterior of the divinity, by afluming the exte- 
 rior of a fervant, and becoming partaker of the 
 human nature : " and being found in fafliion," in 
 Hate and condition, " as a man, he humbled him- 
 " felf, and became obedient unto death, even the 
 " death of the crofs." And thus this remarkable 
 paflage plainly teaches, that before the Saviour of 
 the world aifumed tiie form of a fervant, and be- 
 came man, he was exiiling in the form of God, 
 and confequently was God. It is. therefore, an 
 illuftrious proof both of the pre-exiftence, and of 
 the divinity of Chrlll:. 
 
 Col. i. 15. 16. 17. 
 " Who is the image of the invifible God, the 
 
89 
 
 ** firft born of every creature, for by him were all 
 ** things created, that are in heaven, and that arev^ 
 *' in earth, vifible and invifible, whether they be 
 " thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or 
 " powers ; all things were created by him, and for 
 " him ; and he is before all things, and by him all 
 " things confift." 
 
 Agaiml referring t!:e two laft verfes to the 
 
 creation of the natural world, you ftate four ob- 
 
 jeftions,^ not one of which, as far as I perceive, 
 
 has the leafl force. Your firfl objeftion is drawn 
 
 from the connexion, which you tell us " refers en- 
 
 *' tirely toGofpelbleflings; and to the inftrumen- 
 
 " tality of Jefus Chrifl:, in bringing mankind 
 
 " into a ftate of reconciliation and bleflednefs." 
 
 Admitting the context to be as you ftate, what is 
 
 the:.^ in this, which fliould prevent the Apcftle from 
 
 exalting the charader of the inftrument in what 
 
 you call the new creation, by afferting his inftru- 
 
 mentality alfo in *' the original natural creation r" 
 
 Your fecond and third obje£lions may be taken 
 
 together, they are as follows, " 2. The manner 
 
 " of expreffion eflentially differs from the ufual 
 
 *' manner of expreffion refpe£ling the natural 
 
 " creation." " 3. The natural creation is uni- 
 
 ** formly afcribed to God, as one perfon, and to 
 
 " him only." For the manner in which the na- 
 
 * Letters, page 173. 
 
90 
 
 tural creation is expreifed, you refer us to p. i66: 
 where I find a colle£tion of paffages, chiefly from 
 the Old Teftament, in which God is declared to 
 be the creator of all things. And hence you in- 
 fer,* that " if it was not God, but his holy fer- 
 " vant Jefus, who created the heaven, earth, and 
 *' fea, and all things in them, we may reafonably 
 *' expeft this lingular faft to be declared unam- 
 " biguoufly, and by proper authority." Bat, Sir, 
 let me afk you, who ever faid, who ever fuppofed 
 that God was not the creator? You mufl know 
 that no fuch language was ever held by any Or- 
 thodox member of the Chriflian Church. You 
 cannot be ignorant that the firft article in one of 
 our Creeds,! runs thus, " I believe in God the 
 " Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, 
 *' and of all things vifible and invifible." And 
 though we alfo fay, to ufe the language of the fame 
 Creed, that it was the only- begotten Son, " by 
 " whom all things were made i" yet if this is to 
 aflert that God was not the creator, you, Sir, are 
 guilty of the fame heterodoxy, in refpeft of your 
 new creation, which you aicribe fometlmes to 
 the agency of Chrl^ ; fometimes limply to Chrifl; 
 and fometimes folely to God : as appears from 
 the following fcriptural account ot this new crea- 
 tion, which occurs in the fame page. " The 
 * Page i67. I The Niceiie Creed. 
 
91 
 
 " Apoftle, fpeaking" of Chriftlan believers, fays, 
 " Eph. ii. 10. ' For we are his (i. e, God's) work- 
 " manfhip, having been created through Jefus 
 " Chriji to good works,' and in v. 15. fpeaking 
 ^' of the union of the Jews and Gentiles, fays, 
 *' that Christ abolilTied by his death the caufe 
 "of enmity, (in order to create in himfelf of the 
 " two, one new man.) In ch. iii. 9. he fays that 
 " God 'hath created all things,' meaning, if we 
 " judge from the connexion, created them anew 
 " to holinefs." — You objeft 4. that " if the 
 " Apoftle had intended to reveal the fuppofed fa£i:, 
 " it is furely reafonable to fuppofe that he would 
 " have exprelled himfelf unambiguoufly, by fay- 
 " ing, for inftance, (inftead of what he does fay 
 *' in V. 16.) " For he (i. e. Jefus) made heaven 
 " and earth, and the fea, and all things that are 
 " in them," as in Afts xiv. 15. we find that he 
 " faid " the Living God, who made heaven and 
 •' earth, the fea, and all things that are in them.'* 
 Your whole argument proceeds upon the fuppo- 
 iition, that if this paflage relates to the vifible crea- 
 tion by Jefus Chrift, the Apoftle muft be here 
 revealing this fa£t ; that is, muft be now making 
 it known for the firft time. But why fhould this 
 be fuppofed ? Admitting the fadl to be fo, it had 
 doubtlefs been revealed long before this Epiftle 
 was penned; it was a fad well known to the 
 
92 
 
 Coloflians, and firmly believed by the who'c 
 Chriilian Church. There could, therefore, under 
 thefe circumftances, be no ambiguity in the ex- 
 preflions which the Apoftle employs. At leaft it 
 muft be acknowledged that the expreflions are to 
 the full as ambiguous when referred to your new 
 creation : and if I were to fay that they are mucli 
 more ambiguous, Ifhould not err from the truth. 
 And you will pleafe further to obferve, that in A£ts 
 xiv. 15. the Apoftle was difcourfing to ignorant 
 Heathens, to whom he was revealing the true 
 God, under a charafter befl of all adapted to their 
 capacities; that of Creator of the Univerfe. No 
 wonder, therefore, that his language upon this 
 occaiion lomewhat differs from that which he 
 employs, when fpeaking to Chrijiiam, concerning 
 the Lord, in whom they believed. But your own 
 interpretation is liable to many and great objec- 
 tions ; a few of them I (hall now proceed to ftate. 
 I. Who is the image of the invifible God? 
 (t«xw» T« ^£« TB afopara,) You explain, " Who is the 
 " reprefentative of God to Man ?" I have obferved 
 that you frequently apply this exprellion to Jefus 
 Chrift, and have before alked, *' Where is this 
 " faid ?" If you have for it no better authority than 
 this palTage, it is without warrant. E/xwy may 
 Ijgnify a refirefeniation^ and we may fuppofe the 
 meaning to be, " Who is a vifible reprefentation 
 
95 
 
 •' of God who Is Invlfible." But it does not fignify 
 a relirefentatlve, or one who bears the character, 
 and exercifes the power of another, which is your 
 fenle of the word. 
 
 2. The firft-born of every creature, frpuroroitos 
 TsctTDi y.ri(nuis ; i, e. as fome of the Fathers explain, 
 (placing the accent on the penult, irporoTOKos^'j (the 
 iirft author of the whole creation;) or, as others, 
 in allufion to the eternal generation, (accenting on 
 the anti-penult, vpororoKos,) (born before the whole 
 creation,) you explain, "is pre-eminent in the new 
 " creation." This explanation proceeds upon the 
 airumption that the palTage does not relate to the 
 vilible world : But how is this made out? We 
 Ihall fee prefently. 
 
 3. " By him were all things created (ektio-Ov) 
 " that are in heaven, and that are in earth, vifible 
 " and invifible." You render, " in him all things 
 " have been created ;" and explain to mean " have 
 " hcenanezv created." Now, that the creation here 
 fpoken of is the moral or new creation, you think 
 is rendered exceeding probable from what is faid 
 in V. 20.* " And having made peace through the 
 " blood of his crofs, by him to reconcile all things 
 " to himfelf, whether they be things in earth or 
 *' things in heaven." The argument which you 
 build upon this verfe is thus ftated ;t " I think it 
 
 * Page 17s. t Page 17-1, note.f 
 
^4- 
 
 *' cannot rcafonably be denied that the meaning of 
 " the phrafe ' things in heaven and things in earth/ 
 " is the fame here as in v. 20. The point then is, 
 " whether, from the Scriptures, we have fufficient 
 " reafon to believe that the gofpcl difpenfation 
 " wasdefigned to reconcile the inhabitants of hea- 
 *' van to God ; if not, which I think very clear, 
 *' things in heaven^ muft mean, men of fomc par- 
 " ticular civil or religious clafs, as well as ' things 
 " on earth.' That this is the faft is obvious from 
 " Eph. i. 10. compared with ii. 11.-18.: and thefe 
 " paflages alfo fliew what is meant by the expref- 
 •' fion in queftion, viz. the two great bodies of 
 " Jews and Gentiles, who in the Gofpel were 
 " united into one body: ' things in heaven,' de- 
 *' noting the Jews, and ' things on earth,' of 
 " courfe the refl of the world." There is not a 
 little miflake and raifapprehenfion of the Apoflle's 
 meaning in this argument. You think it very 
 clear that the gofpel difpenfation was not defigned 
 to reconcile the inhabitants of heaven to God : 
 and I confefs that there is not, as far as I know 
 any good reafon to think, that it was ; and fur- 
 ther, I fee no reafon to think, that even upon 
 our interpretation, any fuch thing is alTerted in 
 this paflage. " By him to reconcile all things to 
 himfelf " — that is, as you interpret, ' to reconcile 
 ' all things to God.' Sir, even the Englifh does 
 
95 
 
 not require this interpretation ; and the orginal 
 not only does not require it, but will not bear it • 
 
 ^iXVTH xTroKXTat\X»^aci rx itciirx tts avro-v. If avm re- 
 fers to Chrift, why fliould not mvtov alfo? Nor is 
 the reconciliation here fpoken of, the reconcili- 
 ation of things in earth and things in heaven either 
 to God or to Chrift ; for then the expreffion would 
 have been o.vokxtxWx^xi xvtu, not £'y awrov.* Buf 
 the reconciliation is rather of things in earth and 
 things in heaven to each otlier ; which, I prefume, 
 might have been effefted through the blood of 
 the Crofs, even upon the fuppofition that the gof- 
 pel difpenfation was not dcfigned to reconcile the 
 inhabitants of heaven to God. It is to be obferved, 
 that the expreffion here is the fame as before, 
 where it was faid that all things were created 
 ?.'«tJTB y.xi iis xvTov by him and for him ; and the 
 meaning is, ' by him to bring all things together, 
 ' things in earth and things in heaven,' that they 
 may be all formed into one body * for him' that 
 he may be head and Lord of all;' and thus the 
 i'enk of the paflage is limilar to Eph. i. lo. It is 
 now manifeft that no fuch inference can be drawn 
 from this paflage as that which you propofe, 
 namely, that things in heaven tnuj? mean men 
 upon earth ; and we may ftill go on to believe 
 that '* things in heaven," aftually mean things in 
 * See 2. Cor. v. 18. !£>. 20. Matt. v. 24. 
 
96 
 
 heaven: and if fo, how unfounded is your fuppo- 
 fition, that * things in heaven,' mean tlie Jews, 
 and ' things on earth,' the Gentiles ; and alfo, 
 that by things vifible, we are to underftand " thofe 
 " who are in the ufual walks of life ;" and by 
 things ' invifible,' " thofe who, living in the fe- 
 " clufion of ecclefiaftical or civil dignity or ftate, 
 " are not within the reach of common obferva- 
 " tion, Kings and Princes, Rulers and Magillrates." 
 You objed to the common interpretation, that 
 if fuch be the Apoftle's meaning, it is exprefled 
 ambiguoufly. But how much more forcibly may 
 this objeftionbe urged againft your interpretation? 
 What reafon is there to fay, that if this be the 
 fenfe of the paflage, it is expreiied not ambiguoufly 
 merely, but even enigmatically ? 
 
 4. " By him all things confifl," " ra. r.itvrx ^^ 
 *« avT« o-yvfo-TuxE," which you render " all things are 
 " united in him:" and you declare that the con- 
 nexion obvioully points to this ufe of the verb 
 cmiarwi^ which, in your judgment, " is a fully juf- 
 *' tifiable one, both as to derivation and adtual 
 " ufage."* The ufe to which the connexion 
 points, will depend upon tire fenfe which we put 
 upon the context. If the paflage relate to the. 
 creation of the vifible world, the Public Veifion 
 exhibits the natural and obvious ufe of the verb. 
 * Page 175, note.* 
 
97 
 
 Your fenfe of the paflage may make a difference ; 
 fo that, as far as the connexion is concerned, we 
 may ftand upon fomewhat equal ground. But in 
 refpedl of the derivation, I cannot yield even thus 
 much to you. The Latin word conjijio^ or the 
 Englifli conftj}, is unqueftionably a more literal 
 rendering of fffv/s-r/^/, than any word which has the 
 fenfe oi union. Alfo the tenfe in which the Apof- 
 tle ufes this verb, is no lefs favourable to our 
 fenfe, than it is adverfe to yours. Your interpre- 
 tation abfolutely requires the /irefent tenfe: to the 
 common interpretation, the [lerfefl tenfe is more 
 fuitable ; and the meaning is — By him all things 
 were created, and by him all things have con- 
 tinued : i. e. have ever fince been preferved. 
 Upon the whole, I agree with Dr. Clarke, that 
 *' nothing can be more forced and unnatural than 
 " the Socinians interpretation of this pallage, who 
 " underftand it, figuratively, of the new creation by 
 *' the Gofpe)."* And from the confiderations al- 
 ready Hated, I feel no liciitation in drawing a con- 
 clufion the very reverfe of that which you have 
 drawn, t from a conviftion, " that whatever be 
 "■' the meaning of the feparate parts, the whole to- 
 " gcther has" " reference to the original natural 
 *' creation." 
 
 * Scripture- doctrine of tlic Trinity, No. 560, page 80. 
 
 t Letters, page 178. 
 
 E 
 
"98 
 
 Heb. I. 8. lo. 
 
 "But unto the Son he faith, Thy throne, O 
 " God, is for ever and ever— And, Thou, Lord, in 
 ♦' the beginning, haft laid the foundation of the 
 *' earth, and the heavens are the works of thine 
 *' hands. 
 
 Thefe are two paflages, the former from the 
 forty fifth Pfalm, the latter from the hundred and 
 fecond, which are apphed to Chrift : in the for- 
 mer, he is expreffly called God — in the latter, he 
 is declared to be the creator of the vifible world. 
 In your d'lfcourfe you affirmed, that the former <A 
 thefe paflages ought to have been rendered " God 
 *' is thy throne:"* And this I obferve, is the ren- 
 dering of the " Improved verjiott.'^ But you now 
 give the preference to the public verfion,t and 
 very wifely no longer prefs upon us a rendering 
 which in effeft makes the Son to be fuperior to 
 the Father: for which is greater? the Throne? 
 or he that fitteth thereon? But yoa contend that 
 this appellation God, is not ufed in reference to 
 nature, but merely to dignky.Sind office.^ In or- 
 der to determine this point, we muft confider, who 
 it is to whom this appellation is given. It is to 
 the Son : "But unto the Son he faith, thy throne, 
 
 * Disc, page 57, not*. 
 
 f Letters, page 164. See also Introduction pag«.t 
 
 § Page 165. 
 
99 
 
 ** O God, is for ever and ever :" that Son, wlio h 
 expreflly called the brightnefs of the Father's 
 glory, and the exprefs image of his perfon : the 
 fame of whom the Father declared, *'Thou art my 
 " Son; this day have I begotten thee." Of whicii 
 do thefe things favour mofl? of nature? or of 
 office? — In the other paflage, as I have already 
 obferved, the creation of the world is afcribed to 
 the Son. This you will not allow. You admit, 
 indeed, " that the words may be referred to the 
 " Son, as far as the conftruftion is concerned:" 
 but you fay that " the conflruftion in no way 
 *' whatever requires it."* To whom then are 
 the words to be referred? Thus you tell us. 
 *' This and the two following verfes are quoted 
 " from Pf. cii. and were obvioufly addreiled to the 
 " Supreme Being. The writer to the Hebrews 
 " employs them as a proof that the fovereignty of 
 " Chrift would be lafling, fince he who declared 
 " that it would be fo, is himfelf almighty, un- 
 " changeable and everlafling/'f According to 
 this ftatement, the duration of Chrift's kingdom 
 depends upon thj attributes of God, and not upon 
 the declaration of his will ; and the Apoftle's 
 argument is as follows: God was before the hea- 
 vens were made, or the foundation of the earth 
 was laid, and he Ihall remain, after thefe fliall 
 
 * Page 179. t Ibid. 
 E 2 
 
100 
 
 all have perlflied: therefore Chrifl's kingdom is a 
 lading kingdom ! But really, Sir, I cannot con- 
 ceive, how any unprejudiced perfon, who reads 
 the pailage with attention, can hefitate for a mo- 
 ment to acknowledge, that both thefe quotations 
 are intended to refer to tli« Son, in order to fhew 
 his fuperiority to the Angels : And if fo, then the 
 former proves his divinity, and the latter his pre- 
 exiflence and agency in the creation of the vifi- 
 ble world. 
 
 Thefe are all the paffages, which I introduced 
 into the Prefervative, in order to prove the pre- 
 exillence and divinity of the Saviour, There are, 
 however, two others, introduced afterwards upon 
 another occafion, and for another purpofe, which, 
 as they refer to the fame points, may fitly be 
 confidered at prefent. 
 
 Tit. ii. 13. 
 
 "Looking for the blelled hope, and the glo- 
 " vious appearing of the great God, and our 
 " Saviour Jefus Chriil." 
 
 In a note upon this pailage,* I referred to 
 Granville Sharp's " Remarks on the ufes of the 
 " Definitive Article," where it is fliewn that the 
 true rendering is, " Looking for the glorious ap- 
 " pearing of our great God and Saviour Jefus 
 '* -Chrift." You acknowledge that this is a piiic- 
 * Prcf^erv. page 35- 
 
101 
 
 ticable rendering ;* but deny that it is a neceflary 
 one : j ou adoiit " that it is accordant with the Greek 
 •' idiom," but affirm that *' it is not required by 
 " it."t That it is a prafticable rendering, and 
 accordant with the Greek idiom, is moil: certain : 
 becaufe, as far as my obfervation has gone, there 
 is no inftance (this and the other dilputed paiTages 
 excepted) in which a different rendering was ever 
 thought of for words of the fame kind, and in the 
 fame form If, therefore, the difputed parages 
 are to be excepted, it is incumbent upon thofe, 
 who are advocates for fuch exception, to fliew 
 the lawfuinefs of it, not by vague reafonings and 
 unwarranted aflertions, but by producing clear 
 and legitimate inftaitces, in which the rendering 
 muJI be otherwife. This you have not done, you 
 have contented yourfelf with referring to two 
 Pamphlets, which you denominate Blunt and. 
 WiNsTANLEY, the latter cfpccially, in which as 
 I underftand from you the point in queftion is 
 proved. § I have never feen either of thefe 
 Pamphlets, and being in London in the fpring of 
 the year 1809, I endeavoured in vain to procure 
 them. Blunt's work, 1 was told, was out of 
 print ; and the publiiher of Mr. Winltanley's 
 book, afi'ured me, that the author had, fome 
 time before, a6iually withdrawn from him all the 
 
 * Letters, page 148. f Page 149. § Page 149, note.* 
 
 ^3 
 
102 
 
 copies which remained unfold. There is, there- 
 fore, feme reafon to fuppofe, that Mr. Winflan- 
 ley, was not hirafelf perfeftly fatisfied with his 
 own proofs. Bat whatever thefe proofs were, I 
 have no opportunity of acknowledging or of deny- 
 ing their force. All therefore that is left for me 
 10 do, is to vindicate the rendering propofed by 
 Granville Sharp, and to fhew that it is not only 
 juftified, but even required, according to the in- 
 variable ufage of the Greek language. That the 
 Englifli reader may perceive the full force of the 
 argument, by which I mean to contend, that the 
 title ' Great God,' is here afcribed to Jefus 
 Chrift, I will firft give an exa^l literal rendering 
 of that part of the paflage to which the argument 
 more immediately applies ; and then compare it 
 with another paflage of a iimilar form, the true 
 fenfe of which can hardly be miftaken. The 
 words in the common vcrfion ' the great God and 
 our Saviour,' literally rendered are ' the great God 
 
 and Saviour of us,' m ixzysc^a &£« ycjtt aumpos vimu/v. 
 
 And we have a paflage of a fimilar form in Eph. i. 
 3. " BleiTed be the God and Father of our Lord 
 
 " Jefus Chrift," S-e^s- xxt mxrvp ru xvpia y>^ui)i lyiaa 
 
 XpiTn. In which palfage the relative nouns God 
 and Father, are coupled by the conjun6lion 
 and, and the article il'e is prefixed only to the 
 former: but it is manifeft that the article, fo pre- 
 
103 
 
 fixed, afFefts both the combined nouns, fo as to 
 make them, in conjunction, denote one of the 
 terms in a relation, of which * our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift' is the other term: and it is in efFeft de- 
 clared, that the Relate flands to its Correlate 
 (Jefus Chrift) in the double relation of God and 
 Father. Juft fo it is in the other inftance ' the 
 appearing of the great God and Saviour of us :' 
 God and Saviour are relative nouns, coupled 
 by the conjunction and; the article, prefixed to 
 the former, fhews that the two in conjuniflion, 
 denote the Relate, in a relation, of which the pro- 
 noun us denotes the Correlate : and the whole 
 declares that the Relate ftands to its Correlate, 
 in the double relation of God and Saviour. But 
 this Relate is here expreflly faid to be Jesus 
 Christ: therefore, it is Jesus Christ, who 
 ftands to us in the double relation of God and 
 Saviour : confequently Jefus Chrift is here ex- 
 preflly called the Great God. It gives the 
 ftrongeft confirmation to this reafoning, and efta- 
 blilhes the conclufion drawn from it beyond (one 
 would conceive) the very poflibility of doubt, to 
 know that the Greek Fathers, who muft be fup- 
 pofed to have underftood their own language, 
 have uniformly and unanimoufly given to the 
 pallage this interpretation ; of which Mr. Wordf- 
 
 E4 
 
104 
 
 worth's fix letters to Granville Sharp, afford the 
 cleareft and moft decifive proof. 
 
 Theie is another paflage Eph. v. 5. tv tv^ (iotaiXiix 
 ru %f)'r» aat-t Ssa which in the pubhck tranflation is 
 rendered ' in the kingdom of Chrift and c/God :' 
 but which being properly rendered, aflerts the 
 divinity of Chrift, no lefs ilrongly than the pre- 
 ceding. I will firft produce a palTage of the fame 
 form, the fenfe of which will be readily acknow- 
 ledged. I. Cor. XV. 24. oroc-) TTOifx^k! mt QxmlKiixt tw 
 
 ^Ea- y.ot.1 TKurfi ; vvhich in our verfion is thus rendf^red 
 ' when he fhall have delivered up the kingdom 
 to God, even the Father.' In the original of this 
 padage, the conjundlion combines the two nouns 
 God and Father, and the article is prefixed to 
 the iirft noun, precifely in the fame manner as in 
 the former inflance : but the force of the article 
 is fomewhat different: it has, as grammarians 
 fpeak, the force of the poflefTlve pronoun: and 
 therefore, the true rendering is, ' when he fhall 
 have delivered up the kingdom to his God and 
 father.' Here then, as before, God and Father 
 conflitute the Relate in a relation, of which 
 Christ is the Correlate; and it is declared that 
 'the Relate flands to its Correlate in the double 
 relation of God and Father. In like manner 
 in the original of 1 '.ph. v. 5. the conjunction com- 
 bines, and the article is prefixed precifely in the 
 
105 
 
 fame manner: confequently the paflage fcts forth 
 the double relation, in which Chrift ftands to liis 
 kingdom; he is its Christ and God. And it is 
 to be obferved, that this paffage has accordingly, 
 as Mr. Wordfworth has abundantly proved, been 
 uniformly underftood by the Greek Fathers, to 
 declare of Christ that he is alfo God.* 
 Heb. i, 3. 
 
 " Who being the brightnefs (xvxvyx:TiJ.x) of his 
 " glory, and the exprefs image of his perfon, 
 " (^v'TTo^xa-sujs) and upholding all things by the word 
 " of his power, when he had by himfelf purged 
 *' our fins, fat down on the right hand of the 
 " Majefly on high." 
 
 You affirm that the words of the original, 
 " do not juilify this rendering," and tell us that 
 
 * In the Latin version tbis passajfe is rendered * in regno 
 Christi et Dei,' where the wait of the article makes thr sense 
 anihij;ii()us. Accordingly it was understood by some cf the 
 Latin Fathers, in the stnse in which it is taken in the Eng- 
 lish version, ' in the kinj^dom of Christ and i}/'God:' and they 
 applied this text to prove th^ tquality of the Son with the 
 Father, against the y\riaiis, who argued for the inferiority of 
 the Sun, from the order in which the two are arranged in the 
 fornj of baptism. Now, if from the same ambi^jmty, the 
 original text liad been capahlc of tiiis sense, would it not have 
 been applied to the same purpose by some of the Greek Fa- 
 thtr.s? For, as Mr. Wordsworth 'ibserves, "they woiihl (:« 
 " might easily be shewn) have been equally glad to ■ ave 
 " a\ailed themselves of a verse, which should have - ip- 
 " plied them with those doctrinal topics, which were by .he 
 " Latin Church derived from the clause in question. Fiow 
 " then, we mean to ask, did it happen that no Greek ever 
 " adopted that interpretation ?" Leiten (0 G. S/iarjT, jjage'ST. 
 
 E5 
 
106 
 
 " xTTavyxaixx mcans a ray or Jhln'mg forth, and 
 " 'vno^txTis obviouily denotes the eflential attributes 
 *' or moral perfections of the divine charafler. 
 *' The true rendering probably is, ' Who being a 
 " ray of his glory, and the image of his perfec- 
 " tions, and directing all things by the word of 
 ♦' his power."* This meaning you illuftrateby a 
 paflage from the book of Wifdom, ch. vii. 26. ; 
 the lirft fentence of which, a.notvya.o-ixa. ya^ er* (^mtos 
 aioiu, you thus tranflate ; ' For (he is a ray of in- 
 vifible light : ' In which tranflation there are two 
 miftak.es: for a'jra.vya.aiJia, does not, as far as I can 
 find, ever fignify a ray or Jhlning forth \ but 
 merely ffilcndor or hrightnejs ; a fplendor arifing 
 perhaps from the continued emilTion of rays, but 
 not the rays emitted. Nor does a-^'o^os fignify in- 
 vifible. In:Ieed the very fuppofition of invifible 
 light is manifeftly abfurd. We have all admired 
 the boldnefsof the poet who ventured to fpeak of 
 *• darknefs vifible," but who before ever thought 
 of light inv'ijible} But, Sir, it is not difficult to 
 difcover the occafion of your miftake : you have 
 evidently miiconceived the origin of the word: 
 you derive it from the privative a and s'^^u video ; 
 whereas it really comes from au femper: confe- 
 quently the fentence is properly tranflated in the 
 common verflon, ' For Ihe is the brightnefs of the 
 * Letters; page 191. 
 
107 
 
 cverlafting light:' and if fo, then your own illuftra- 
 tion makes againft you : for the brightnefs muft 
 have been coeval with the light ; and if the Son 
 be the brightnefs of the everlaftlng light, then mufl 
 he have been from everiafting. From the pre- 
 ceding examination ot the palTage illuftrating, it 
 does not appear that the paflage illuftrated, is mif- 
 tranflatcd in the firft inftance alledged ; and ' the 
 brightnefs of his glory' may ilill pafs as the jufl 
 rendering oi a.Tta.v/xai/.oi, rvi ^o^-ns. But you tell us 
 in the next place that " vmrxa-is obvioufly denotes 
 " the eflential attributes or moral perfedions of 
 " the divine charafter," What, Sir, does vms-xais 
 obvioufty denote attribute ? I confefs if I had been 
 called upon to name a word which denotes that 
 which is «(7f attribute, I fhould, without hefitation, 
 have fixed upon this very word ; which, I had 
 been always taught to fuppofe, denoted sub- 
 stance the fufifiort of attribute: and I fhould 
 probably have appealed to the derivation of the 
 word in confirmation of this fenfe. 
 
 There is yet another paflage, not introduced 
 into the Pyefetvative, upon which I beg to fay a 
 few words. It is the following : 
 
 Rom. ix. 5. 
 
 " Of whom, as concerning the flefh, Chrifl 
 " camei who is over all, God blefled for ever, 
 e6 
 
108 
 
 " j| un yj^i^oi TO v.xrx (rxpnx o wv evi irxvruv Sio? tvXoyiiros 
 *' eii ras xiuvxi." 
 
 The rendering of the common verfion, (which 
 you allow "to be juftifiable, as far as language 
 merely is concerned,) you propofe to fuperfede 
 by the following, of which, you tell us, the origi- 
 nal equally well admits, ' From whom was the 
 Chrift, as to the flefh. God, who is over all, l?e 
 blelled for ever.'* You will not allow " that 
 " the expreflion to xxtx axpxx according to the 
 " flefh," is any proof " that the Chrill had two 
 " natures." And you refer us to v. 3. where the 
 Apoflle fpeaks of his brethren, liis kinfmen, 
 " according to the flefli, kxtx cr«^x«."f But, Sir, 
 you do not notice that in the lafl: inftance, the 
 article is wanting before xxrx. Its infertion in the 
 other inftance, you will, I think, allow, muft 
 make fome difference: and what can its ufe be, 
 Unlefs to remind us, that Chrift was of Ifrael, only 
 according to the f:efh; but that in truth he had 
 alfo a higher nature, of which he proceeds imme- 
 diately to fpeak. And thus the connection plain- 
 ly points to the common interpretation of the 
 latter part of the pafTage ; to which alfo the order 
 of the words is as manifeftly favourable, as it is 
 unfavourable to any interpretation which proceeds 
 
 * Letters, page 145. f Ibid, note.* 
 
109 
 
 upon the fuppofition that the term * God,' does 
 not refer to Chrift. 
 
 The original has been thought to admit of 
 different renderings, according to the pundluation 
 adopted. The Unitarian rendering above given, 
 requires the point after o-a:^x3s. JMr. Locke, plac- 
 ing a point after TravTwv, thus paraphrafes the 
 paflage. " And of them, as to Iiis fleflily extrac- 
 " tion, Chriil is come, he who is over all ; God 
 " be bleffed for ever." By both thefe renderings, 
 the latter part of the paflage, which, in the com- 
 mon verfion, pofitively aflerts the divinity of 
 Chiift, is converted into a Doxology in praii'e of 
 the Father. But the inadmiifibiiity of both has 
 been ably fliewn by Dr. Middleton ;* whofe 
 words, as lar as is neceflary to '.is argument, I 
 fhall quote, chiefly for the fake of repelling from 
 him, what I cannot but account an unfair attack. 
 " On the lirft of thefe conftrudions, it is to be 
 " obfervcd, that in all the Doxologies, both of 
 " the LXX. and of the N. T. in which v^Xoymos is 
 " ufed, it is placedat the beginning of the fentence: 
 " in the N. T. there are five inftances, all con- 
 " fpiring to prove this ufage; and in the LXX. 
 " about forry. The jame arrangement is ufed in 
 *' the formula ^i curfing; in which s'jiDtuTapxTot 
 *' always precedes the mention of the perfon curfed. 
 * In his aoctrine of the Greek article, page 459, 
 
no 
 
 *' The reading would on this conftruftion rather 
 
 " have been evXoyriTos o uv iVimocvTMv Scor US rts aiiujtxs. 
 
 *' Againll the other fuppofed Doxoiogy which was 
 " approved by^Locke, the objedion is ftill ilronger ; 
 ** fince that would require us not only to tranfpole 
 " ivXoy-mos, but to read 'O Seos-, This word, as has 
 •' been already remarked, though it have fome lati- 
 ** tude in taking or rejefting the article, never ufes 
 *' its licence fo as to create the leafl poffible ambi • 
 •* guity; thus it can make no difference, whether 
 
 *' we write (viii. 8.) Sew or tw Sew xfso-xi, but svXoyvros 
 
 •' Seoj will appear to fignify not " Blefled be God," 
 " but that the words are to be taken in immediate 
 " concord with each other; accordingly in all in- 
 " fiances where a Doxoiogy is meant we find e^'Aot'vjtos- 
 " Sfof. See alfo below on i. Cor, i. 9. For thefe 
 " reafons I conclude that both the propofed con- 
 " ftru£lions are inadmiffible." Having quoted the 
 firft part of this palTage, as Tar as the words, ' The 
 reading then would, on this conftrudion, rather 
 
 have been evX^ynros uv eir iravruv ^eos sis rds a/wvasj' 
 
 you obferve, " 1 his is the onl) reafon Mr. M. ad- 
 " duces, and the only one, which, in my opinion, 
 " can be adduced, againft the rendering, ' God, who 
 " is over ill bs blelled for ever.' Yet he afterwards 
 " fays, ' For these reafons, I conclude, that both 
 "the propofed conftrudions are inadmissible,' 
 " relerring to the above, and to Mr. Locke's, which 
 
Ill 
 
 " is *' God be blefled for ever." Now, Sir, would 
 not any one conceive, from the manner in which 
 the word these is printed, that Dr. M. had 
 aliigned one reafon, and no more, fortheinadmif- 
 fibihtyof the two conftruftions, one and the fame 
 for the inadmiiTibihty of both, and that you were 
 animadverting upon the impropriety of his fpeak- 
 ing of that one reafon in the plural number? And 
 yet upon referring to the above quotation, it 
 plainly appears that he affigns two reafons, one 
 applicable to the Unitarian conftrudion, the other 
 to Mr. Locke's. But you proceed. " Mr. M.'s 
 " aflertion then, as far as it refpefts our con- 
 " ftruftion, amounts to this, ' It is inadmiffible, 
 •' becaufe the reading, would on this conftruftion, 
 *' rather have been ivXoyriros o uv mi "ttocvtcov "^sos en ms 
 *' xtuyxi.' As Mr. M. has not ventured to main- 
 ♦' tain that fuch mull have been, or even probably 
 *' would have been, the arrangement of the words 
 " on our conftrufiion, his unjuflifiable alTertion 
 *' may be left to its juft fate." This, Sir, is a 
 very harfh and an unmerited fentence : and upon 
 what is it founded ? upon a mere quibble (for I 
 can call it by no better name) upon the word 
 rather. A liberal controverfalift fometimes ufes 
 lefs decifive language than he might have em- 
 ployed ; and thus Dr. M. has afled in the prelent 
 inftance. For mofl aiTuredly he did not mean to 
 
112 
 
 fay, that the prefent order of the words admits 
 of your conftruflion, but that, neverthelefs, ano- 
 ther order would have been better, bccaufe more 
 ufual: on the contrary, he intended to declare 
 that agreeably to the eftabUfhed ufage of the 
 Greek language, your conftruflion requires a dif- 
 ferent order from that which the text exhibits; 
 and becaufe the order of the words is not fuch as 
 your conftruftion requires, that therefore, your 
 conftruflion is inadmifTibJe.* What the ufage is 
 upon fuch occafions, he has clearly fliewn; and 
 this ufage, as far as appears, is invariable. If you 
 think that the prefent order will admit of your 
 conilruftion, it is your part to prove it, as I be- 
 fore obferved upon a fimilar occafion. not by 
 vague affertion, or by fanciful diftinflions, but by 
 clear and undeniable examples. TilJ this is done, 
 I Ihall adhere to the common conftru^tion, which, 
 I doubt not, is the true one. 
 
 I have thus examined, fome- hat at large, the 
 preceding palTages of Scripture, .n order to vindi- 
 cate them from the mifrepreientations and forced 
 conftru6lions, which have been put upon ^' em, 
 and to fliew tha': thev contain unequivocal and 
 
 * In sentences of similar conitiuotion, this f;ense cf the 
 ■word rather is ni)t uncomnjoii. i>ee Mntt. x. ('. 28. — Mark 
 sv. 11. — Luke xi. 23. I may a!su briii^ Dr Cs ;wn aiuho- 
 rity for this use of ihe word. " Agreeably to a common use 
 «< of I'x in the N. T. it may litre express the consi-qiieiice 
 " ra</(«' than the object, &c." Letters, jiaj^t 5;;i6', n9fe.§ 
 
113 
 
 decifive proofs of the pre-exiftence and divinity of 
 Chrift. Nor is it any objedion to thefe doctrines,'* 
 that the blefled Jefus, while he was upon earth, 
 fpake of God as his Father, and himfelf as Man ; 
 that, as fuch, he declared h's inferiority to the 
 Fatlier, to whom he afcribed his miffion, his mi- 
 racles, and his doftrine ; that he poflefled human 
 feelings and affeftions, and was fubjeft to human 
 wants and fufferings. All thefe things are the 
 confequence of his manifeftation in the flefh, and 
 prove the truth of his human nature, of which the 
 Unitarians are not more ftrenuous afTertors than 
 we. We believe that the divine Logos aflumed 
 our nature, and became Man ; that in this nature 
 he lived, fufFered, and died ; that in the fame 
 nature he rofe from the dead, afcended into hea- 
 ven, and was received into glory ; and laftly, that 
 in this nature, thus glorified, he is now at the 
 right hand of God, and will hereafter come to 
 judgement. In this manner is our Lord and Sa- 
 viour reprefented to us in Scripture; and we le- 
 ceive this reprefentation as an indubitable proof, 
 that he was truly and properly Man. But v.e do 
 not fet thefe explicit declarations of the human 
 nature, in oppofition to the no lefs explicit, 
 though perhaps lefs numerous, declarations of the 
 divine nature: we do not fit down coolly to cal- 
 * See Letters, paje II7-I29. 
 
114 
 
 culate, how often Chrift is called Man, how fel- 
 dom he is called God, and make the greater pre- 
 vail by the difference : but we receive both decla- 
 rations with due reverence ; we bow to them with 
 fubmiflion, and beHeve that in him both natures 
 are united ; that he is both God and Man in one 
 perfon. 
 
 I faid above that the declarations of Chrifl^s 
 divinity are perhaps lefs numerous than thofe of 
 his humanity. This is a circumftance which ap- 
 pears to you to deferve attention."* " It could 
 *' not," you tell us, " be an objeft of revelation 
 *' that Jefus was truly and properly a Man -, but 
 " that he was more as to nature^ could not be 
 " known without revelation. Might we not then 
 " reafonably expeft to find that he is expreffly 
 *' and plainly called God., at leaft, a-s frequently 
 " as he is exprelBy and plainly called Man, if he 
 " were truly and properly God, as well as truly 
 ** and properly Man ?" But why as frequently ? 
 It is as Man that he is related to us : It might, 
 therefore, on this account, were there no other 
 caufe, be reafonaMy expefted that his humanity 
 would much more frequently be brought into 
 view than his divinity ; becaufe the things, which 
 he did and fuffered for us, as Man, muft much 
 more frequently be the fiibjeft of the Apoftolical 
 * Letters, page 127. 
 
115 
 
 difcourfes and writings, than his prior exiftence 
 in the form of God. But we cannot be at a lofs 
 to difcover another caufe, in the heretical opi- 
 nions, which very early infelled the church. 
 Even in the Apoflolical age we know that the 
 true and proper humanity of the Saviour was de- 
 nied: his divinity, as far as we know, never. It 
 is true, the Heretics had corrupt notions of his 
 divinity; but the do£trine itfelf they held one and 
 all ; as well thole who admitted his proper hu- 
 manity, as thofe who denied it. But, Sir, when 
 falfe opinions were thus difleminated, and perhaps 
 were widely fpreading, was it not moft meet, and 
 therefore, might it not reafonably be expe£led, 
 that the infpired teachers of Chriftianity would 
 oppofe the growing evil by unfolding the true 
 doftrine? And thus accordingly it happened. 
 The beloved Difciple applied himfelf efpecially to 
 this work; and hence it is that we find in his 
 writings more clear and explicit declarations re- 
 fpefting the nature of Chrift, both as to his 
 humanity, and alfo his divinity, than are to be 
 found in any other part of the facred volume. 
 And it is worthy of remark, that though this 
 Apoftle openly alTerts the humanity of Chrift, and 
 feverely condemns thofe who denied it; yet h€ no 
 where denies the divine nature, or pafles any cen- 
 fure upon thofe who maintained it: on the con- 
 
116 
 
 trary, he frees it from the corruptions with which 
 the Heretics had defaced and incumbered it; and, 
 by fo doing, he attefts the doftrine itfelf in the 
 ftrongefl and moft pointed manner. Would the 
 Apoflle have afted thus, if bis own belief had 
 been purely Unitarian? Would a teacher of true 
 doftrine have given this encouragement to herefy, 
 if the doftrine in queftion had been heretical? 
 Is it thus that the Unitarians now, that Dr. Car- 
 penter himfelf, oppofes the doftrine of Chrift's 
 divinity' But I forbear to prefs any further an 
 argument which is obvious to the common fenfe 
 of every unprejudiced man. It is an irrefragable 
 argument: contradict it, if you can. 
 
 In the part of my work to which I am now 
 proceeding, I perceive that I fhall not have from 
 you the oppoiition which I have hitherto experi- 
 enced. I have not to contend that the .' aviour 
 is now exalted to a high ilate of dignity and 
 power. This makes a part of your own Creed:* 
 and I will be fatisfied with taking it in general, 
 without difputing about particulars. But I muft 
 be allowed to comment upon the ufe which you 
 make of the exaltation of Jefus. " By many," 
 you tell us, it " is regarded as a proof of his pro- 
 *• per Deity: to me it appears a direft argument 
 " againft it." How is this made out? Itfohows; 
 
 * See Letters, page 205. 
 
117 
 
 " That Jefus poUeifed, before he came forth 
 *' from God, dignity and power fuperior to what 
 " the Scriptures ftate to have been beftowed upon 
 " him as a reward for his having fully executed 
 " the work affigned him, is a contradiftion in 
 " terms ; inferior honour and authority cannot 
 " have been the reward for the voluntary relin- 
 " quifhing of greater: and if his previous dignity 
 " and power were greatly inferior to what he 
 " poffeiled after his exaltation, which the plain 
 " and obvious meaning of Scripture diredtly 
 " (hews, two things necefiarily follow, he did not 
 " poflefs them by any original conftitution of his 
 " nature, and he was not, before his exaltation, 
 " fuperior to angels, principalities and powers. 
 " (See I. Pet. iii. 22.") That the full force of 
 this argument may be 'ittxi at once, I will flate it 
 briefly, but truly. The intention of the argument 
 is to fliew, that the ftate of glory to which the 
 Saviour is now exalted, is a proof that he did not 
 exift in Sijircvlous flate of glory. For upon the 
 fuppofition that he did, let the two Hates be com- 
 pared ; and their relation to each other will ftand 
 thus: the previous glory was either fuperior to 
 the prefent, or inferior : you firft fhew that it was 
 not fuperior; and then that it was not inferior: 
 and the confequence is, that there was no fuch 
 previous flate of glory. Or, more briefly thus , 
 
118 
 
 if at all, then either greater or lefs; but neither 
 greater nor lefs ; therefore, not at all. But, Sir, 
 are you fure that you have exhaufted all the re- 
 lations ? I have ever underftood, that admitting 
 A. to be neither greater nor lefs than B. it might, 
 neverthelefs, be equal. And this is precifely the 
 cafe in the prefent inftance. " And now, O Fa- 
 " ther, glorify thou me with thine own felf, with 
 " the glory which I had with thee, before the 
 " world was."* Our Lord prays not for greater 
 glory than he had before enjoyed ; he fpeaks not 
 of lefs : he prays for the glorification of that na- 
 ture which he had aflumed, and in which he now 
 appeared a man of forrows, and acquainted with 
 grief: he prays in efFeft, that the Logos incarnate 
 might be admitted to the fame glory, which the 
 Logos, before his incarnation, had enjoyed even 
 from all eternity. 
 
 Speaking of Matt, xxviii. 20. Lo, I am with 
 you always, even to the end of the world; (ts 
 ttiuvoi, which you tranflate " of the age,"t) you 
 admit that it contains a promife that Chrift would 
 be perfonally prefent with his Difciples, at leaft, 
 during the Apoftolical age.| Refpefting fucceed- 
 ing ages you fpeak thus cautioufly. " I do not 
 " venture to fay that Jefus is not now perfonally 
 " prefent, wherever his Difciples aflemble togc- 
 * John xvii. 5, f Page 202. % Page 201 . 
 
119 
 
 " Iher as fuch : his powers we know were greatly 
 ♦' extended when he entered into his glory, and 
 '* they may have been thus far extended : but I 
 *' do not perceive any proof of the faft in the 
 " Scriptures."* And again, in another place,t 
 you fay, " Whether Jefus has at prefent any di- 
 " reft and perfonal concern in the regulation of 
 " his fpiritual kingdom, we are not certainly 
 *' informed ; it feems, however, not unreafonable 
 ♦' to fuppofe, that the intelleftual powers of our 
 " exalted Lord have been continually extending, 
 " that he is acquainted with -all the fpiritual con- 
 *' cerns of his Difciples, and that he is ftilt em- 
 " ployed in fome way or other for the benefit ot 
 *' his church." Of the continual extenfion of our 
 Lord's intelleftual powers, I fay nothing; for I 
 know nothing : I perceive no proof, or even inti- 
 mation of the fa£l in the Scriptures. But I fee 
 not what doubt can reafonably be entertained 
 refpefting the continuance of his mediatorial king- 
 dom to the prefent time: for this kingdom can 
 hardly be faid to fubfift at prefent, if our Lord 
 has nd longer any perfonal concern in the regu- 
 lation of it. To me it appears as certain tliat he 
 is now the King of his Church and People, as 
 that he will hereafter be the Judge of all Men. 
 But be this as it may, it is granted that he was 
 
 * Page 201. t Page 210. 
 
120 
 
 King during the Apoftolical age, and that he is 
 ordained to be the Judge of Quick and Dead. 
 And when I confider the vafl powers requifite for 
 the due difcharge of both thefe offices; that his. 
 office of King, fuppofes an intimate acquaintance 
 with all the fpiritual concerns of all his Difciples 
 every where, and power to protedt and relieve at 
 one and the fame inflant, thoufands difperfed 
 abroad throughout the world — that his office of 
 Judge implies a power of bringing into light the 
 moft fecret tranfaftions, and of difcerning and 
 laying open the thoughts and intentions of the 
 heart, and that, not in a iingle inflance merely, 
 but in the cafe of the many Myriads, who have 
 ever lived upon the face of the earth : When I 
 confider thefe things, I cannot help afking myfelf, 
 how the powers requifite for thefe things can be 
 poflelTed by a mere Man? A Man, let his in- 
 telledlual powers be ever fo extended, is ftill but 
 a Man ; nor will the greateft poffible extenfion of 
 thefe powers, fuperadd to him the attributes of 
 divinity: and nothing fhort of the attributes of 
 divinity, can be a fufficient qualification for that 
 Man to whom God hath given to be head over all 
 things to his church, and by whom he will here- 
 after judge the world in righteoufnefs. That the 
 Logos incarnate is the man appointed to thefe 
 offices, though myfterious dodrine, is ftill credi- 
 
121 
 
 ble. I can conceive that the divine Logos allu- 
 itied our nature, and ftill retained the attributes of 
 divinity: for great as the myftery confeflediy is, 
 yet it involves no impoflibility, or contradiftion, 
 or inconfiftency. But I cannot conceive that 
 intelledual powers, fuch as I myfelf polfefs, how- 
 ever greater in degree, or however greatly en- 
 larged, are powers fufficient for the Lord of the 
 Chriftian church, and the Judge of all the earth: 
 and to fuppofe that a mere man is poflefled of the 
 attributes of divinity, fuch as might be a fuffici- 
 ent qualification for thefe offices, is a contradic- 
 tion in terms. In whatever light I view the 
 fubjeft, your doftrine appears to be encumbered 
 with difficulties ten thoufand times more and 
 greater than the dodlrine of the incarnation. In- 
 deed the latter is only myfterfous, but the former 
 is impoffible : our prefent Lord, and future Judge, 
 maybe truly a Man, but cannot be fimply a Man: 
 for fimple humanity is, as I trull I have fuffici- 
 ently Ihewn, abfolutely inconfiftent with the 
 powers neceflary for the due difcharge of thefe 
 offices. What remains therefore, but eitlier that 
 you flill further curtail your already fcanty Creed, 
 or that you renounce Qnitarianifm altogether. 
 For I fee not how Unitarianifm can poffibly confift 
 with the belief, that Chrift ever was the King of his 
 church, or ever will be the Judge of the world. 
 
 F 
 
122 
 
 If I have fucceeded in iliewing that the Lord 
 Jefus, though truly a Man, is not limply a Man, 
 but is in nature more; that he is in truth tlie di- 
 vine Logos, who alTumed our nature, in which 
 he now fitteth at the right hand of God, inverted 
 with the highell authority over the whole crea- 
 tion, and in which he will hereafter return to 
 judge the world in righteoufnefs ; the lavjfulnefs 
 of paying to him divine honours, and of worfliip- 
 ping the Lord with holy worfhip, will hardly be 
 doubted: and the only queflion is, Do the Scrip- 
 tures authorize fuch honours and worfhip? We 
 contend that they do: and in order to eftahliih 
 this point, I fhall be required to examine only a 
 few of the paflages, ufually brought for this pur- 
 pofe. 
 
 John V. 22. 23. 
 
 " The Father judgeth no man; but hath com- 
 " mitted all judgement unto the Son; that (/va) 
 " all men fliould honour the Son, even as (x«9a>) 
 *' they honour the Father." 
 
 You tell us that " agreeably to a common ufe 
 *' of iv« in the New Tellament, (fee Johnix. 3. 39.) 
 *' it may here exprefs the confequence, rather 
 " than the objeft, of judgement being committed 
 " to the Son."* And you further tell us that 
 xcsS^j " may, with flrift propriety, be rendered 
 * Letters, page 216, note.§ 
 
12S 
 
 ^^ Jiyue, (compare ch. xvii. 2.")* Your fen fe of 
 the paflage may, I imagine, be thus exprefled : 
 ' The Father judgeth no man, but hath com- 
 mitted all judgement to the Son ; confequently all 
 men ought to honour the Son, fince they honour 
 the Father.' It is hardly worth your while to 
 contend for a rendering, which mofl affuredly is 
 not the true one, and, even if it could be efla- 
 blilhed, would not ferve your purpofe. Be the 
 meaning of (v« and ■n.a.^us what it may, it is moft 
 clear that lionour is to l)e rendered to the Father, 
 and that honour is alio to be rendeied to the Son ; 
 and fince the word in the original is the fame in 
 both cafes, it muft have in both the fame mean- 
 ing: for furely we cannot underftand from the 
 text that, fince we render honour of one kind to 
 the Father, wc ought to render honour of another 
 kind to the Son. The meaning therefore will fiill 
 be, that men ought to render the fame honour to 
 the Son, which they are accuflomed to render to 
 the Father. 
 
 But, Sir, as I before obferved, your fenfe of 
 the palTage is not the true fenfe; nor will the 
 places, to which you have leferred in fupport of 
 it, bear you out. I have looked into them in 
 vain for the meaning which you give to Uat. and ' 
 ■Mk^ws, \ cannot perceive, in either of them, that ' 
 
 * Page 216. 
 F 2 
 
124 
 
 ivx is eonfequent'ialf or that y-x^ics is caufal. "But 
 were it otherwife, John xvii. 2. could have -no 
 influence in determining the meaning of xaSo-j in 
 the text, which is eflentially different in point of 
 form. In the latter, xafio-f ftands before the laft 
 claufe of the fentence, fubjoining it to the pre- 
 ceding claufe; which is itfelf fubjoined by »va to 
 that immediately preceding: whereas, in John 
 xvii. -2. y-ci^ui flands befoi'c the principal claufe, 
 to which the follovvang claufe is fubjoined by Ua. 
 Upon the whole tvoi in the text, as in moft other 
 places, clearly denotes the final caufe; xajQi;? alfo 
 retains its general force, which you rightly flate 
 tOi-be .likenefs; and the meaning is ' God hath 
 committed .all judgement to the Son, /« order that 
 all men fhould honour the Son, in the fame manner 
 as they honour the Fatlier.' 
 
 \'ou admit that " the too common interpreta- 
 *'> tion may be juftified as far as the meaning of 
 ** the particle is concerned ;" but you affirm that 
 ♦' it is unfcriptural,"* You have not told us 
 whaf this -too ccmmon Ititer pretation is ; but from 
 what follows, I fuppofe it to be the fame which I 
 inyfelf have adopted. For thus you proeeed, 
 *' Any one may fatisfy himfelf that it is not re- 
 " quired by the original, by turning to Luke -vi. 
 *' 56. where we find this injunction, * Be ye therc- 
 
 « Pag^ 217. 
 
125 
 
 ** fore merciful, as Kx^wi your Father is merciful/ 
 *' and after he has weighed this-exprefllon, may 
 •• he not juftly be furprized that you, Sir, who 
 " muft know the force of the original, and may 
 " reafonably be fuppofed to found your decisions 
 '* upon it, and not upon the common tranflation, 
 •' fhould derive the following inference from this 
 *' text, " And thus it appears that our Lord 
 " claimed to himfelf the fame honour which men 
 " were accuftomed to pay to the Father," (Pref. 
 " p. 37-") It is manifeft that when I fay ' our 
 Lord claimed to himlelf the fame honour,' you 
 fuppofe me to mean that he claimed honour, 
 #ywu/ in degree to that which.is paid to the Fatherr 
 and that I derive this opinion, not from the Greek 
 KxQuis, but from the Englilh even as. You there- 
 fore refer to Luke vi, 36. to prove that kx^^s does 
 not fignify equality in degree. True, Sir, it has 
 not neceflarily this fignification, any more than 
 our Englifh word fame : You cannot be ignorant 
 that there is fuch a thing zsfamenefs in kind; a 
 famenefs, founded upon an agreement, or, if you 
 pleafe, a refemblance, in all effential circumflances. 
 But things which are the fame in kind, are not 
 always equal in degree : they may be, and under 
 certain circumflances they will be ; but they are 
 not necelTarily fo. Thus for inftance, God is faid 
 ■:.r\ holy Scripture to aft towards men with love 
 ^3 
 
326 
 
 and mercy: and men are called upon to conform 
 to his example; with which, if they comply, they 
 alfo aft towards each other Vv^ith love and mercy. 
 Here the afts are unqueftionably the fame in kind : 
 but are they equal in degree ? It were blafphemy 
 to fay fo. Man is an ignorant, dependent, firvful 
 creature: God is all-wife, all-powerful, and all- 
 good. Here then. is neceflarily an inequality in 
 degree. But it is otherwife where the agents are 
 the fame, or where their powers are equal. Men 
 are bound, as well by the diftates of nature, as 
 by the precepts of revelation, to honour God in 
 the higheft poffible manner, and with the greateft 
 pofuble lervice : ana wc- learn from this pafiage 
 of Scripture, that men are to "honour the Son, as 
 " they honour the Father:" that is. they are to p'Af 
 to the Son, honour the fame in kind, as they are 
 bound to pay to the Father. Here the agents are 
 the fame, and confequently the powers are equal 
 in both cafes. Why then may not, I might fay, 
 why muft not the honour which is the fame in 
 kind, be alfo equal in degree ? I fee, therefore, 
 no reafon why I fliould retraft my former opi- 
 nion, even in the fenfe in which you underftand 
 it. Be affured, however, that I have not been 
 inattentive to the following friendly remonflrsnce : 
 *' Let me intreat you, Sir, before you repeat fuch 
 *' a ftrong aflertion, to obferve well tliofe paflages 
 
127 
 
 "which I have quoted in p, iu-120, am] the' 
 " many others of fitnilar tendency which your 
 *' acquaintance with the N. T. mud recall to your 
 *' recolleftion : poflibly you may be led by them 
 " to the convidion that your inference is totally 
 ** unfounded, and to adopt the fentiment oF 
 " Bifliop Bull, that, according to the Scripture^; 
 " all prayer Ihould be directed to God only," X 
 have read with attention the pafTage in your book' 
 to which you refer me: the rcfult is, that I find 
 there much irrelevant matter; Come things to 
 which I cannot aflent, and nothing which leads 
 me to fufpefl in the ieaft that m.y inference is ill- 
 founded. As for the fentiment of Bifhop Bull, 
 which you invite me to adopt, and which you 
 now bring forward the fecond time,* I would 
 willingly have enquired into its real meaning, if 
 you had given rae an opportunity. You have 
 cited the pullage without any reference, and I 
 know not in what part of his works it is to be 
 found. But you mull allow rae to obferve, that 
 from the manner in which it b brought forward, 
 both here, and in page 214, any ordinary reader 
 would be apt to fuppofe, that in the judgement 
 of this learned Prelate, ail prayer to Jefus Chrill, 
 is unfcriptural. If any one, into whofe hands 
 this work may fall, fnould have formed fuch an 
 
 * See page 214. 
 F4 
 
1^8 
 
 epinion, I beg to afTure lilm that it is wholly 
 without foundation. I have now before me a 
 treatife by Bifhop Bull, printed among his Latin 
 works,* in which he exprefily maintains from this 
 very text, (John v. 23.) that we are bound to 
 pay the fame fervice and honour to the Son 
 which we afcribe to God the Father. And be- 
 caufe prayer is a fervice unqueftionably due to 
 the Father, he infers that it is alfo due to the Son.f 
 Afts vii. 59. 
 
 " And they ftoned Stephen, calling upon Gody 
 *' and faying; Lord Jefus, receive my fpirit." 
 
 It is to be obferved, that the word Gody 
 (printed in the common verfion in Italics,) is not 
 in the original ; and it appears, from the words 
 immediately following, that the perfon called 
 upon is the Lord Jefus. You admit that " here 
 
 * Primitiva et ApostolicaTraditio de Jesu Christi Divinitate, 
 cap. vi.§ 12. page 392. 
 
 f Since writing the above, I have found the passage of 
 Bishop Bull, which has given rise to this discussion. That 
 the reader may .judge of the fairness with which the sentiment 
 of the learned Bishop is cited upon the present occasion, I 
 will transcribe the whole passage : " Whereas, in the first and 
 *' best ages, the churches of Christ directed all their prayers, 
 <' according to the Scripture, to God only, through the* 
 •' alone mediation of Jesus Christ; the liturgy of the present 
 " church of Rome, is interspersed with sapplications and 
 ** prayers to Angels and Saints, the unwarrantabieness where- 
 " of I have above sufficiently shewn." Answe'* to (he Bp. of 
 Aleaux's Queries, page 88. There is, we j)erceive, a mode of 
 quotation by wh ch the very pillars of Oithodoxy may be 
 made to support the Unitarian cause. 
 
129 
 
 *• is an exprefs addrefs to Jefus ;"* but you ara 
 convinced that it is not a precedent for prayer to 
 him, for three reafons : r. Becaufe the Martyr 
 having a little before been favoured with a per- 
 fonal manifedation of Jefus, addrelied his exalted 
 Lord as a6lually prelent with him. 2. Becaufe 
 *' he fpoke of him (v. 56.) as diftintl from God, 
 *' and as the Son of Man, and therefore he could- 
 *' not regard him as the objeft of prayer." 3. 
 Becaufe " his pofture, when addreffing Jefus, was 
 " not the pofture of prayer, which he aftually em- 
 " ployed immediately after, when praying to God,'*" 
 (v. 60 ) From thefe reafons we are to conclude, 
 ihat this fuppofed ^rayf r is no fuch thing, but an 
 addrefs; that here is no invocation, but a mere 
 verbal application from the Martyr to his exalted 
 Lord. But look at this addrefs, and upon the 
 face of it, it is of the petitionary kind ; and when 
 we further corrfider the meaning of evi>i.x\is(j.x:, 
 that it never fignifies fimply to f [leak to or addrefs, 
 but frequently to call upon or invoke by prayer, and 
 that no other of its meanings is applicable to tlie 
 prefent place, we Ihall not hefitate to affirm, that 
 this petitionary addrefs is a devout fupphcation; 
 that the dying Martyr does not merelv fpcak to 
 his exalted Saviour, but calls upon him and prays 
 that he would receive his parting foul. 
 
 ♦Page 218. 
 
 ^5 
 
130 
 
 But it feems that this miift: not be accounted a 
 prayer, firft, becaufe the Martyr confidered Jefus 
 as adlually prelcnt with him. Let us fee exaftly 
 how this matter (lands. We read that while the 
 Martyr was yet before the council, " he, being 
 " full of the Holy Ghoft, looked up ftedfallly into 
 *' heaven, and faw the glory of God, and Jefus 
 " ftanding at the right hand of God." It is plain 
 that the glorified J.efus appeared vifibly to Stephen: 
 but how can he be faid even then to have been per- 
 fonally prefent with him? The heavens, indeed, 
 were opened to his view : but he Hill continued 
 \jpon earth. But it was not now that the words 
 in queftion were uttered. It was not till after he 
 had been condemne'd for blafphemy, calt out of 
 the city, and hurried to the place of execution, 
 and his malignant enemies were in the a61: of 
 executing upon him the uniuft fentence which had 
 been pronounced againft him. And after all, I am 
 unable to conceive, how tlie vifible appearance 
 or even the aftual prefence of our Lord, could 
 make any -eiTential difference in the cafe. If the 
 aftual fight of the Saviour, in a ftate of exaltation, 
 can juftify the invocation of the dying Martyr, 
 why may not the dying Chrifiian, who, with the 
 eye ot faith, (which is the evidence of things not 
 feen,) always beholds the glory of his Saviour, 
 put up to him a fimiiar requeft? and, if upon this 
 
131 
 
 occafion, wbv rxOt upon any other? How then 
 can itbefaid that the invocation of Stephen is no 
 precedent for prayer to the glorified Jefus? But 
 we are told, fecondiy, that the word? of Stephen to 
 the glorified JeAis, were no prayer, becaufe he did 
 not regard Jefus as the objea of prayer, having 
 before fpoken of him " as diflinct from God, and 
 " as the Son of Man." That the bleffed Martyr 
 fnould fpeak of his Savionv as the Sen of Man, is 
 not to be wondered at, fince it v/as the title by 
 which our Lord fpake of himfelf, when he was in 
 a fimilar fituation before the council. " Hereaf- 
 " ter fliall the Son cf Man fit at the right hand 
 *' of the power of God."* And it is remark- 
 able that the Council feem to have underflood tliis 
 title to be equivalent to one apparently much 
 higher, for they immediate' y aflied, " Art thou 
 " THEN the Son of God." And the Council, be- 
 fore whom St. Stephen ilood, appear to have been 
 much of the fam.e opinion. The tiiles, which St. 
 Stephen apphed to Chrift, are apphed by us all ; 
 we fpeak of him as diftinft iTom the Father, and 
 as the Son of Man, now at the right hand of God : 
 that is, as the Logos incarnate, now in a ilate of 
 glory and auth.ority. And the queftion is, whe- 
 ther, being fuch, he is the objeft of prayer. We 
 .contend that he is, from the example of St. Ste- 
 
 * Luke xxil. 69. 
 
 f6 
 
1S2 
 
 phen, who, In his dying moments, prayed, faying, 
 " Lord Jefus receive my fpirit." Your third reafon 
 contains two alTumptions: firft, that St. Stephen 
 was not praying, becaufe he was not kneeling; fe- 
 condly, that the Lord to whom he prayed, when 
 aftually expiring, is not the fame Lord, the Lord 
 Jefus, to whom he had before commended his 
 fpirit. As thefe pofitions neither are nor can be 
 proved, I may difmifs them without further con- 
 fideration. In conclufion, you plainly intimate, 
 that the example of the Martyr ought to be of no 
 authority, even if it could be proved that he pray- 
 ed to his glorified Saviour, upon the ground that 
 it would be *' In oppofition to the precepts and 
 *' example of Jefus on this important point." 
 That we arc not authorized to offer up prayer to 
 Jefus, by his own example, I admit: fori am 
 free to confefs that I know not of any inftance 
 recorded In Scripture of his having prayed to hlm- 
 felf, either before or after his glorification. But 
 I know of no precept to the contrary. He told 
 his Difciples, ' All power Is given to me in hea- 
 ven and in earth ;'* but where has he forbidden 
 them to put up their petitions to him, that he 
 would exercife this power for their benefit, and in 
 their behalf? Rather is not this included in that 
 cxprefs declaration, " The Father judgeth no 
 • Matt, xxvjii. 18. 
 
133 
 
 " man, but hath committed all judgement to the 
 ♦' Son, that all men fhould honour the Son, even 
 " as they honour the Father."* If, after all, you 
 fliould ftill account the pra£lice erroneous, you 
 muft permit me to fay, that I am content to err 
 with that blefled Martyr, who had been favoured 
 with the perfonal view of his glorified Saviour, 
 and of whom it is expreflly faid that he was " full 
 "oftheHoly Ghoft."t 
 
 A£ls ix. 14. 
 
 " And here he hath authority from the chief 
 " priefts to bind all that call on thy name." 
 I. Cor, i. 2. 
 
 *' To them that are fanftified in Chrift Jefus, 
 ** called to be Saints, with all that in every place 
 " call upon the name of Jefus Chrift our Lord, 
 " botli theirs and ours." 
 
 The phrafeEWixaXf/afla/ to owyLx you contend may 
 be rendered either to call on the name or to be called 
 by the name.^ That it has the former fenfe both 
 in the LXX. and alfo in the New Teftament, is 
 not denied. But it maybe afked, Where has it the 
 latter fenfe? 1 anfwer, no where, as far as I know. 
 You fuppofe, indeed, that no one who under- 
 ftands the Greek language, will deny that this 
 fecond rendering is fully juftified by the original.^ 
 
 * John V, 22, 23, f Acts vii. 55. § Letters, page 221. 
 J Ibid, note,* 
 
134 
 
 But for my part, I am at a lofs to difcovcr upon 
 what ground the phrafe is affirmed, to be capable 
 of this rendering. I cannot find that the middle 
 verb evtxAXiOfAoii, followed by an accufative, is 
 ever ufed in more than two fenfes, namely, to call 
 u/tofj, and to a/ifieakto. And fince the latter fenfe 
 cannot have place in the paiiages under confidera- 
 tion, 1 hefitate not to fay, that thefe pallages are 
 rightly tranflated in the public verfion. Still you 
 contend, that " if the former rendering be pre- 
 " ferred, it remains to be (hewn, that it denotes 
 " that the firft Chriliians invoked Jelus in prayer." 
 That the phrafe implies iuch invocation, is mani- 
 -feft from the LXX. where it occurs in ihis {anCe 
 in a variery of paiTages.* Alfo from 2. Tim. ii. 
 22. *' With them that call upon the Lord out of 
 *' a pure heart;" and Rom. x. 13. 14. " Whofo- 
 *> ever ihall call upon the name of the Lord, fliall 
 " be faved. How fhall they call on him in 
 " whom they have not believed ? and how Ihall 
 " they beheve in him of whom they have not 
 *' heard ?" Where it is manifeil: that to call u/ion 
 is diftinft from, and confequent upon, hc/ievlng, 
 and unqueilionably means to u>orj?/!/i, and invoke in 
 firayer, which indeed you do not deny. And what 
 clfe caabe itsn;caning in the pailages, under con- 
 
 * See Gen. iv. 56. xxvi. 25. xxxiii. 20. — 1. Sam. xii. 17. 18. 
 — 2. Sam. xxii. 4.7. — 1. Cbron. iv. 10. xvi. 8. In tlit boolc 
 ^f F&alais frecjjieatly. \i. Iv. 5. Ixiv. /. — Jtr, x. 2.';, &c. 
 
135 
 
 ■^deration, it remains for them to fnew, who are 
 diflatisfied with this fenfe. Till this is done, I 
 fhall continue to think, that we have in them a 
 plain intimation, that in the Apoftolical age, the 
 worfliip of Chrift was the diftinguifliing charadler 
 of thofe who embraced liis religion. 
 Rom. X. 13. 
 
 *' Whofoever fliall call upon the name of the 
 " Lord, fliall be faved." 
 
 There is no difpute about the meaning of this 
 paflage, which is allowed to imply prayer. The 
 only queftion is to whom do the words refer? 
 Your opinion is thus exprefled. " The paflage is 
 " a quotation from Joel ii. 32. where it unquef- 
 " tionably refers to Jehovah ; and I fee nothing in 
 " the connexion, which requires the fuppofition, 
 " that the ApofLJe did not ufe it Vv^ith the fame 
 *' reference."*- On the other hand I contend that 
 the Apoftle applies to Chrifl the words which the 
 Prophet originally fpake concerning Jehovah. I 
 know not that any thing more is neceflary to be 
 <lone in fupport of this opinion, than to flate the 
 whole pafTage at length, and to requefl the reader, 
 after an attentive perufal of it, to judge imparti- 
 ally between us. " This is the word of faith 
 " which we preach, that if thou fhalt confefs with 
 " thy mouth the Lord Jefus, and fhalt believ£ in 
 * Letters, page 224, 
 
13d 
 
 •* thine heart that God hath railed him from the 
 " dead, thou Ihalt be faved. For with the heart 
 *' man beUeveth unto righteoufncrs, and with the 
 ** mouth confeffion is made unto falvation. For 
 *' the Scripture faith, whofoever beheveth in him, 
 " (hall not be aftiamed. For there is no differ- 
 *' ence between the Jew and the Greek; for the 
 " fame Lord over all is rich unto all that call 
 " upon him. For whofoever ihall call upon the 
 *' name of the Lord, fliall be faved. How then 
 " Ihall they call on him in whom they have not 
 *' believed? &c."* 
 
 I. Cor. i. 3. 
 
 " Grace be unto you, and peace from God 
 ** our Father, and from the Lord Jefus Chrift." 
 
 This paflage you thus explain. " In this and 
 " {Imilar benediftions, grace x^pa obvioufly de- 
 " notes all thofe bleffings which are communi- 
 ♦' cated by the Gofpel. Jefus was the agent by 
 " whom God difpenfed thefe bleffings, and in the 
 *' Apoftolical age, he was appointed to commu- 
 ♦' nicate thofe extraordinary powers by which they 
 *' were moft widely extended. I underftand the 
 " Apoftle to fay, * May ye all poflefs the gracious 
 " bleffings of the Gofpel, and that peace which 
 " follows the fincere reception of it."t Your 
 comment upon the Apoftle's words is not com- 
 * Rora. jc 8. 14. t Letters, page 2:8, 
 
137 
 
 plete : for it fays nothing of the fource from which 
 the bleflings implored, are affirmed in the text to 
 proceed. But by your filence refpe£ling this 
 point, you have avoided faying any thing incon- 
 fiftent with what you had juft before aflerted, re- 
 fpe^ting the agency of Jefus Chrift, in the difpen- 
 fation of Gofpel bleffings; of which the pallage 
 before us fays not a word, but rather the contrary. 
 It is not from God the Father by the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, but from God our Father, and the Lord 
 Jefus Chrift. There is nothing of agency in this 
 form of expreffion : there is afTociation, and the 
 words imply a community of power, in beftowing 
 the bleffings of the Gofpel. How is this to be 
 reconciled with the Unitarian hypothecs? The 
 perfons for whom the bleffings of grace and peace 
 are here implored, are thofe of whom we have 
 already fpoken ; namely, " all, who in every 
 " place, call upon the name of Jefus Chrift our 
 " Lord." And the benediftions now before us are 
 a ftrong confirmation (if any confirmation were 
 wanting) that the fenle already given to the above 
 phrafe is the true one ; that the primitive Difciplcs 
 were wont to invoke Chrift in prayer. For to 
 whom under the Gofpel fhould prayer for the 
 bleffings of the Gofpel be addrefled, but to him 
 from whom thefe bleffings proceed? But the 
 bleffings of the Gofpel proceed both from God 
 
140 
 
 " not therefore juilified in employing any Ian- 
 *' guage which implies them." That the Lord 
 Jefus, during the Apoftolical age, was invefted 
 with large powers, which he exercifed for the go- 
 vernment of the church, you readily admit: but 
 that thefe powers ftiil continue, and that he has 
 now any direft and perfonal concern in the regu- 
 lation of his fpiritual kingdom, is with you a mat- 
 ter of great doubt. This is a favourite pofition 
 which you very frequently introduce. The pofi- 
 tion itfelf does not, in the leaft, bear upon the 
 principal point in queftion; For if Jefus ever 
 poflefled fuch vaft powers, and if in confequence 
 of the bleflings which were at his difpofal, it ever 
 was lawful to pray to him for them, be the cafe 
 at prefent what it raay» yet his ever having beer, 
 the objeft of prayer cuts up your hypothefis by 
 the roots. But, Sir, what ground is there to fup- 
 pofe that the Saviour is not now, as in the Apof- 
 tolical age, the beflower of Gofpel bleflings upon 
 his people? Do the Scriptures any where fay that 
 his kingdom is now at an end ? This is not pre- 
 tended : why then ihould we exprefs any doubt 
 refpefting its continuance. We are told, indeed, 
 that Chrift fhall one day give up his mediatorial 
 kingdom, but not until the laft enemy, death, 
 Ihall be deftroyed ; and the deftruftion of death 
 will then only be efFedled, when the bodies of all 
 
Ul 
 
 thofe who have been fubje£l to the dominion of 
 death, Ihall have been raifed: and vs^e may well 
 interpret thefe words of our Lord, *' Lo, 1 am 
 *' with you always, even to the end of the world," 
 to have been fpoken with reference to this event. 
 But fuppofing that the Scriptures had been totally 
 filent refpefting the continuance of Chrift's king- 
 dom, ftill we Ihould have had no right to exprefs 
 any doubt upon the fubje£l : It would have been 
 much more reafonable to conclude, having no 
 intimation to the contrary, that the Saviour is ftill 
 in pofTeffion of his mediatorial kingdom, that he 
 ftill difpenfes his manifold gifts of grace, not thofe 
 miraculous gifts which the exigencies of the 
 church required in the Apoftolical age ; but gifts 
 no lefs fuitable to the prefent exigencies of the 
 church; and that he will continue the exer- 
 cife of his authority, till the final confumrnation of 
 all things ; ''till his ene mies Ihall all be fubdued, and 
 his faints made -peTleft in glory. But as I before 
 obferved, the continuance of our Saviour's power 
 bears not upon the point in queftion. Of this 
 you feem to be aware ; for you thus conclude. 
 " Be the precife import however of this devout 
 " wifti of thje Apollle what it will, it is not prayer 
 " to Jefus, and in no way authorizes prayer to 
 " Jefus, and that is all which immediately con- 
 " cerns my purpofe." Between devoutly wilhing 
 
140 
 
 *' not therefore juflliied in employing any lan- 
 ** guage which implies them." That the Lord 
 Jefus, during the Apoftolical age, was invefted 
 with large powers, which he exercifed for the go- 
 vernment of the church, you readily admit: but 
 that thefe powers flill continue, and that he has 
 now any direft and perfonal concern in the regu- 
 lation of his fpiritual kingdom, is with you a mat- 
 ter of great doubt. This is a favourite pofition 
 which you very frequently introduce. The por- 
 tion itfelf does not, in the lead, bear upon the 
 principal point in queflion: For if Jefus ever 
 poflefled fuch vafl powers, and if in confequence 
 of the bleflings which were at his difpofal, it ever 
 was lawful to pray to him for them, be the cafe 
 at prefent what it may, yet his ever having beer, 
 the objeft of prayer cuts up your hypothefis by 
 the roots. But, Sir, what ground is there to fup- 
 pofe that the Saviour is not now, as in the Apof- 
 tolical age, the beflower of Gofpel blelfings upon 
 his people? Do the Scriptures any where fay that 
 his kingdom is now at an end ? This is not pre- 
 tended ; why then fhould we exprefs any doubt 
 refpefting its continuance. We are told, indeed, 
 that Chrift fhall one day give up his mediatorial 
 kingdom, but not until the laft enemy, death, 
 Ihall be deftroyed ; and the deftruftion of death 
 will then only be efFe£ted, when the bodies of all 
 
Ul 
 
 thofe who have been fnbje£l to the dominion of 
 death, Ihall have been raifed: and vpe may well 
 interpret thefe words of our Lord, *' Lo, I am 
 " with you always, even to the end of the world," 
 to have been fpoken with reference to this event. 
 But fuppofing that the Scriptures had been totally 
 filent refpefting the continuance of Chrift's king- 
 dom, ftill we fhould have had no right to exprefs 
 any doubr upon the fubje£l : It would have been 
 much more reafonable to conclude, having no 
 intimation to the contrary, that the Saviour is ftill 
 in polleffion of his mediatorial kingdom, that he 
 Hill difpenfes his manifold gifts of grace, not thofe 
 miraculous gifts which the exigencies of the 
 church required in the Apoftolical age; but gifts 
 no lefs fuitable to the prefent exigencies of the 
 church; and that he will continue the exer- 
 cife of his authority, till the final confummation of 
 all things; *till his enemies Ihall all be fubdued, and 
 his faints made -perfeft in glory. But as I before 
 obferved, the continuance of our Saviour's power 
 bears not upon the point in queftion. Of this 
 you feem to be aware ; for you thus conclude. 
 ** Be the precife import however of this devout 
 " wifh of tb-e Apoflle what it will, it is not prayer, 
 " to Jefus, and in no way authorizes prayer to 
 " JefuSj and that is all which immediately con- 
 " cerns my purpofe." Between devoutly wilhing 
 
142 
 
 that Jefus Chrift himfelf would comfort and efla- 
 blifh the Theffalonians, and devoutly praying that 
 he would do fo, the diftinftion is very tritiing: 
 indeed, it may be called a diilindtion without a 
 difference. And when to this we add that prayer 
 for Gofpel bleflings is with peculiar propriety 
 addrelTed to him, at whofe difpofal thefe blefiings 
 are, how can it be faid that this paffage in no way 
 authorizes prayer to Jefus. 
 
 You are yourfelf an advocate for afcribing 
 glory to the Saviour; and therefore I need not 
 touch upon the texts relating to this point. 
 
 In the preceding examination, I have con- 
 fined myfelf chiefly to the palTages, which 1 had 
 myfelf adduced in the Prefervative, in fupport of 
 the doftrine in queftion. But you are not igno- 
 rant that there are many others of the fame kind, 
 ail proving the fame point, and all in my judge- 
 ment authorizing in the fullefl manner the divine 
 worfhip of jefus. And yet with all thefe paifages 
 before you, you' can, notwithflanding, confidently 
 pronounce, that " there is not one precept in fa- 
 •' vour of it, not one certain example of prayer to 
 *' Jefus, not one inftance of the dired: addrefs of 
 *' praife to him, when not fenfibly prefent!"* 
 Even the difficulty under which you manifeflly 
 labour, in your attempt to reconcile many of 
 * Page 230. 
 
us 
 
 thefe pafTages to your own fyftem, fhouM have 
 prevented fuch pofitive allertion. Such, however, 
 is the manner in which you choofe to confider 
 the fubjefti and ronlidering it thus, you add^ "it 
 " appears to me ahnoll incredible, that the ex- 
 *' prefs, unambiguous, and continual diredlions 
 " of the Old Teftament, the exprefs and unambi- 
 " guous declarations and uniform example of our 
 " Saviour himfelf, and the precepts and pradlice 
 " of the Apollles, have not prevented thinking 
 " and confcientious perfons from offering religious 
 " worfliip to any Being, except to him refpedting 
 "whom our Saviour himfelf fays, "Thou Ihalt 
 " worfhip the Lord thy God, and to him only 
 *' fhalt thou offer religigus fervice."* That the 
 Old Teflament contains exprefs unambiguous and 
 frequent direftions, commanding the worfhip of 
 the true God, and forbidding the worfhip of Idols 
 and falfe Gods; that our blefled Lord, in the days 
 of his humiliation, himfelf prayed and command- 
 ed his Difciples to pray to his God and Father; 
 that the Apoflles in this refpeft followed the 
 example of their Lord ; and laflly, that our blefled 
 Saviour, when tempted by the Devil, to fall down 
 and worfhip him, rejedled the folicitation by the 
 precept which forbids the worfliip of any but the 
 true God, we readily admit. But what has all 
 
 * Page 331, 
 
 ■ifiB 
 
144 
 
 this to do with the point in difpute ? If, indeed, 
 we were to come to the examination of the Scrip- 
 tures, with a prepoflcffion upon our minds, that 
 the Saviour is a Man, and nothing more, then 
 perhaps thefe topicks might furnifh an argument 
 againft the worlhip of Chrift. But this is not our 
 way. We choofe to take our views from the 
 Scriptures, rather than make the Scriptures bend 
 to our views. We plainly perceive that the di- 
 vine nature of Jefus Chrift is aflerted in the Scrip- 
 tures, as explicitly and unambiguoufly as the 
 human nature. It is not, therefore, to us a mat- 
 ter of wonder, that he is reprefented as the objeft 
 of religious worlhip : on the contrary, we derive 
 from hence the ftrongeft confirmation of his divi- 
 nity. You contend that we are commanded to 
 worlhip God, and are forbidden to worlhip any 
 other. This we agree is the plain doftrine of the 
 Scriptures. But we contend, in our turn, that 
 the Scriptures authorize the worlhip of Jefus 
 Chrift, and we argue that fince Jefus Chrift is the 
 objed of religious worlhip, it follows thai he is 
 truly God. 
 
 Upon the whole, Sir, in concluding this part 
 of my f^ibjed, I may fairly borrow your own lan- 
 guage, and can fincerely fay, that I rife from the 
 inveftigation, to which you have led me with in- 
 creafed and decided conviftion, that Unitaiianifm 
 is NOT the religion of the Gofpcl. 
 
145 
 
 " 1 NOW proceed to the fecond great branch of 
 the Unitarian doftrine, which refpeds the office 
 of Chrift. Under this head our attention is prin- 
 cipally called to the efficacy of Chrift's death, and 
 to its importance in the Gofpel fcheme of redemp- 
 tion. Upon this point we differ from you moft 
 widelv : for while we ftrenuoufly aflert the doftrine 
 of atonement by the blood of the Saviour, there 
 is no do6lrine which you more vehemently allail, 
 I have already exprelled my furprize, that you 
 Ihould continue to deduce from this doftrine 
 (commonly called the do6lrine of fatisfa^ion) 
 pernicious effe(^s and confequences, which I had 
 fully fhewn could be imputed only to an abufe 
 of the doftrine, and not to the doftrine itfelf In 
 contralling this dodriiie with Unitarianifm, you 
 had thus expreffed yourfclf, " Is it lei's confoling 
 *' to the broken heart to believe that He who is 
 " love, becaufc He is love, fent his Son to offer 
 " forgivenefs upon repentance, than to believe 
 *' thatbecaufe the juflice of God the Father could 
 " not be fatisfied without a facriiice of infinite 
 *' value, God the Son took upon him human ra- 
 " ture, and by his fufFerings as man, made atone- 
 " ment for the fins of men ? Is forgivenefs lefs 
 *' valuable as freely offered by the mercy of God, 
 " through the medium of one who was, in all 
 " refpedts, like unto his brethren, than as pur- 
 
 G 
 
14(j 
 
 *' chafed frcm the uiexorable juftice of the Father, 
 *' by the vicarious fufFerings of the Son?"* This 
 I called a grofs mifreprefentation of the doftrine 
 of fatisfaftionrf nor is there in any thing in your 
 book which has at all tended to make me alter 
 my opinion. Only I requeft you to obferve, that 
 I apply the epithet ' grofs' to the refirefentation, not 
 to the fierfon rejirefenting. A man may mifrepre- 
 fent the fentiments of another very innocently 
 and unintentionally, neverthelefs the mifreprefen- 
 tation itfelf may be a very grofs one. You indeed 
 endeavour to vindicate your reprefentation by pro- 
 ducing paflages from certain writers, (fome of 
 whom I now hear of for the firil time,) in which 
 tlie objeftionable expreffions are to be found. 
 But why is this done ? I never ablolutely denied 
 tliat fuch paflages could no where be found ; for 
 tliough I aiked who ever dreamed that *' the juftice 
 " of God was inexorable ? or that this inexorable 
 " juftice could no otherwife be fatisfied than by a 
 *' facrifice of infinite value ?"§ yet I immedi- 
 ately add ; " If expreffions to this purpofe fhould 
 *' unhappily have fallen from any advocate of the 
 •' doftrine of fatisfadlion, let it, I pray you, be 
 *' accounted an error of the individual, for which 
 " the Orthodox in general are not anfwerable:" 
 thus intreating for my doftrine the fame favour, 
 * Disc, page 30. f Pres. page 20. § Ibid, 
 
117 
 
 which you had required for your Unitarianifm, 
 and which I had not denied. And prefently after, 
 I difclaim, on the part of the eftablifhed church, 
 all refponfibiUty for the opinions of her members ; 
 declaring that the dodlrines of the church are to 
 be learned, not from the writings of individuals 
 of her community, however eminent ; but from 
 her articles, her liturgy, and her homilies. If 
 in thefe or in any of them, you had found the 
 opinions which I difclaim, you would then have 
 been juftified in your preient mode of treating the 
 fubjeft. Butfince this has not been done, or even 
 attempted, why thus earneft in your fearch after 
 abufes? and more efpecially why make my name 
 the vehicle of bringing thefe abufes before the 
 public? I might, were I fo difpofed, eafily colle^l-, 
 from Unitarian writers of the lower clafs, fenti- 
 ments which would fhock the pious reader, and 
 make him turn away with difguft. But I difdain 
 fuch an employment: the opinions of ray more 
 fober and difpaffionate opponent, as he himfelf 
 reprefents them, are fully fufficient for my pur- 
 pofe, without feeking to befpatter them with filth, 
 raked from the jakes of Unitarianifm. 
 
 In quoting my ftatement of the doftrine, you 
 omit a very important part. Thus you give it: 
 ** The eternal Son of God, — by an offering of his 
 *' own blood, averted from us the divine wrath, 
 
 G 2 
 
U8 
 
 ** and obtained for us God's favour and accep- 
 " tance."* Some of your readers may be led to 
 fuppofe, that, according to my doftrine, the blood 
 offered was, not the blood of a human, but of a 
 divine Being. To prevent fuch a fuppofition, the 
 whole paflage fliould have been quoted. It runs 
 thus, "We believe that the eternal Son of God 
 " allumed our nature, and in that nature became 
 " the facrifice for our fins, and by. an offering of 
 *' his own blood, averted from -us the divine wrath, 
 *' &c."t It is plain that the do£trine thus iimply 
 Hated, is properly the doftrine of atonement or 
 reconciliation: the reafon of its being alfo called 
 the doctrine of fatisfaftion, I proceed immediately 
 to (late, " And becaufe Chrift, by dying for us, 
 *' appeafed the divine wrath, and removed every 
 *' obftacle in the way of our complete reconcilia- 
 *' tion to God, tlierefore, we fay, that he made 
 '' fatisfadion for our fins. And more particularly 
 *' becaufe he was fet forth to be a propitiation, 
 *« in-order that the divine lawgiver might extend 
 " mercy to his offending creatures, without im- 
 *« peachment of his jufticc, therefore, we further 
 " fay, that tlie death of Chrift fatisfied thejuftice 
 *' of God." This, as I conceive, is the doflrine 
 of our church ; nor have you fhewn the contrary : 
 and it is the dodtrine which I undertook to prove 
 * Letters, page 269. f Pres. page 30, 
 
149 
 
 from the Scriptures. But it feems you objeft to 
 the language in which I have ftated this do6trine : 
 " It is to be regretted," (you fay,) " that you did 
 *' not avoid expreffions which are completely un- 
 ** fcriptural, (fuch as " that the eternal Son of 
 " God, — by an offering of his own blood, averted 
 " from us the divine wrath, and obtained for us 
 *' God's favour and acceptance ;" and that " Chrift 
 " by dying for us appeafed the divine wrath ;") 
 *' and alfo that in ftating your opinions, you had. 
 '' delivered them, not in what you acknowledge to 
 " be figurative language, but in fuch fimple literal 
 *' expreffions as would have conveyed to the mind 
 *' of an Englifh reader, with common cultivation, 
 *' precifely your idea, as to the efficacy of the death 
 " of ChrilL""* There are then two obje£lions to 
 the language which I have employed upon this 
 occafion ; i. It is not fcriptural : 2. It is figura- 
 tive. As to the firft objeflion, whether the feve- 
 ral fentences are to be found totidem verbis in 
 the Scriptures, I will not enquire; for it is not at 
 all material. But fure I am that the doflrine ex^ 
 prefled by them is to be found there ; and fo I think 
 it will appear to every unprejudiced perfon, who 
 fhall duly confider the paflages adduced in the 
 Prefervative, to prove the doftrine as above ftated: 
 and that is the principal thing to be attended to. 
 * Letters, page 269. 
 03 
 
150 
 
 The fccond objei^ion is that my language isfiguro" 
 tivcy and you expreflly declare, that I myfelf ac- 
 knowledge it. But I aik, where have I done this? 
 I know of no fuch acknowledgement ; and moll 
 afluredly I never intended to make any fuch. I 
 have, indeed, called language of this kind, analo- 
 gical; and have ftated that, in fpeaking of hea- 
 venly things, we muft employ fuch language, for 
 we have no other by which to convey our mean- 
 ing: and if fo, howl could deliver my opinion, 
 in what you call fimple literal expreffions, I know 
 not. But, Sir, it appears to me, that you confound 
 analogical with figurative, or rather metafihorical 
 language, and account them one and the fame.* 
 
 * As much of what I have to offer in defence of the doctrine, 
 for which I contend, depends upon this distinction, between 
 tnetaphotical language and analogical, it may not be amiss to 
 declare in this place what I conceive to be the nature of each, 
 and in what the difference between them consists. 
 
 In both metaphor and analogy there is the transfer of a 
 name from the thing to which it proper))' belongs, to some 
 other thing, on account of some circumstance which is com- 
 mon to the two: and when this common circumstance is an 
 attribute of the things from and to which the name is trans- 
 ferred, simply, and without reference to any other thing, then 
 the name transferred is metaphorical; but when it serves as 
 the foundation of two similar relations, it is analogical. Ex. 
 gr. 1 We call a courageous man a JJon. A Lion \s properly 
 an animal, whose characteristic quality is courage. And the 
 man, to whom the name is transferred, possesses the same 
 quality in an eminent degree. Courage, therefore, is the 
 common circumstance, on account of which the name is trans- 
 ferred. But this quality is simply an attribute inherent in 
 the things from and to which the transfer is made, and is 
 not to either the ground of a relation lo any other thing: 
 therefore, the expression is metaphorical. 2. We call that 
 
ISl 
 
 But this muft not be done. If I were to fpeak of the 
 head of a nail, or the kg of a table, or the foot of a. 
 mountain, you would hardly call this language^^«- 
 rative ; and yet it is not literal ; it is ftriftly analogi- 
 cal^ and is fo called becaufe it is in each inftance 
 founded upoa an analogy, as pure as that which 
 
 part of a table, by which it is supported, its /(?». A leg is 
 pfbperly that part of an animal which serves as its support. 
 And that to which the name is transferred, is also the sup- 
 port of the thing- to which it belongs. The being a support is, 
 therefore, the conjnnon circumstance, on account of which 
 the name is transferred. But this eommon circumstance is 
 an attribute of the things from and to which the transfer is 
 made, not simply, but with reference to somethingsupported. 
 And between the thing supporting, and the thing supported, 
 there is a manifest relation: and since there is in this respect 
 the same relation between that which supports a table, and 
 the table supported by it, as between the leg of an animal, 
 and the animal whose leg it is, therefoje, the common cir- 
 cumstance is in this instance, the foundation of two similar 
 relations : consecjuently, when we speak of the leg of a table, 
 the expression is analogical. 
 
 In metaphor, the common circumstance, however essential 
 to the thing from which the name is transferred, and charac- 
 teristic of it, is frequently an adscititious circumstance in the 
 thing to which the transfer is made, and was, perhaps, ac- 
 quired very accidentally. Consequently metaphorical lan- 
 guage will frequently be used ' by way of allusion' merely, 
 and not to declare the true and real nature of the thing de- 
 nominated by it. Thus a courageous man, is not really, in 
 any respect, a Lion, not even in respect of that on account 
 of which the name is applied: he possesses, indeed, in an 
 eminent degree, the quality which is i-haracteristic of a Lion: 
 but his nature is, notwithstanding, as distinct from that of a 
 Lion, as is the nature of him, who possesses this quality in a 
 degree insufficient to give him this denomination. But it is 
 otherwise in analogical language; which always declares the 
 true and real nature of the thing to which it is applied, in the 
 respect in which it is applied. Thus the leg of a table is, i.-i 
 respect of the support which it affords, as truly and really a 
 leg, as is the leg of an animal. 
 
 C4 
 
152 
 
 the mathematician intends, when he affirms of 
 four magnitudes^ that the iirft has to the fecond 
 the fame ratio which the third has to the fourth,* 
 For that by which the table is fupportcd, has to 
 the table, in reffieSl offuchfu/iport, the fame rela- 
 tion, which the leg of an animal has to the ani- 
 mal: and, on account of this analogy, the fup- 
 port of a table is called a leg alfo : and fo of the 
 reft. Hence we fee that even corporeal things are 
 not without analogical names : but fuch names 
 are more common in the cafe of things intellec- 
 tual: for, without intending a figure, we fpeak of 
 a Jliarfi wit, a rough temper, a folid judgement, 
 &c. he. all expi-elfions manifefllv analogical. Of 
 the lame kind is the language which we employ, 
 in fpeaking of things divine and heavenly; only 
 in this cafe, this is the only language which we 
 can employ ; for, as I before obferved, we have 
 no other. The things themfelves arc fo far re- 
 moved from us, and from the things with which 
 we are converfant, that we can never, in our pre- 
 fent ftate, adequately conceive them ; and it is 
 only from analogical language, founded upon 
 relations among earthly things, fimilar to thofe 
 which thefe heavenly things bear to each other, 
 that we are able to form even an imperfeft con- 
 
 *" Ratio is a mutual rfjlation of two magnitudes of the 
 " same kind to one another, in respect of quantity," Ele- 
 paents of Euclid B, v. Def. 3. 
 
153 
 
 ception of them. In the holy Scriptures many of 
 tlie affeftions of human nature are attributed to 
 God; fuch as love, hatred, defire., anger, &c. 
 Now wc know that the Deity is without paffions; 
 and therefore, thcfe exprelTions muft not be taken 
 literally ; yet they are not without meaning. You 
 may call the things exprelTed, modifications of 
 benevolence,* or whatever elfe you pleafe : flill. 
 the names plainly indicate that there are in the. 
 Deity, attributes which have to the Deity the 
 fame relation which the human affeftions, expreffed. 
 by thcfe names, have to man. Though, there- 
 fore, the anger of God is not literally an^^er, it 
 is fomething correfponding with it; fomething 
 which caufes the rejeftion from his favour of 
 whatever is offenfive to his nature and perfeftions ; 
 and therefore is to God what anger is to man. 
 And that, which takes away the occafion of tha 
 offence, and makes the rejected thing to be again 
 received, may be faid, in the fame analogical 
 fenfe, to propitiate God, to appeafe. or, avert the 
 cRvine wrath, and to obtain for the thing reje(fted, 
 God's favour and acceptance. And thus it is ia 
 the cafe before us: Man, in a. ftate of innocency, 
 was an objeft of favour : but the pollution, wiiich 
 lin brought upon his nature, made, him unfit for 
 communion with a pure and holy God; and he 
 * Se.e Letters, page 270. 
 G5 
 
154 
 
 became an objeft of wrath. But It pleafed God, 
 of his infinite love to mankind, to provide away, 
 by which this unfitnefs might be removed, and all 
 the evils, introduced by fin, might eventually be 
 repaired. This gracious purpofe God was pleafed 
 to effedt, by fending into the world his own Son ; 
 who, having aflumed our nature, died for our fins; 
 and by this aft of love and mercy, caufed us, who 
 were by nature children of wrath, to become the 
 children of grace. Hence it is, that in the analo- 
 gical fenfe above fpoken of, we attribute to the 
 blood or death of Chrill, the power of propitiating 
 God; of appeafing, and of turning away from us, 
 the divine wrath ; and of obtaining for us the di- 
 vine favour and acceptance. And in fo fpeaking, 
 we are perfuaded that we exprefs ourfelves in con- 
 formity with the true intent and meaning of the 
 holy Scriptures. 
 
 I am not aware that the meaning of the above 
 exprefiions is at all obfcure ; nor fhould I have 
 troubled you with the foregoing explanation, if 
 the doubt which you firft exprefied, and the com- 
 plete mifinterpretation which you afterwards gave, 
 had not in a manner called for it. Your under- 
 ftandingof my meaning is thus exprefled: " Ta- 
 " king into account the whole of what you have 
 *' faid, I underftand you to mean, that the death 
 *• of Chrift, altogether indefundently of any thing 
 
155 
 
 " elfe that he did or taught, effected a change in 
 " the divine dilpofition towards man; and of itfelf, 
 *' by its immediate efficacy, has the power of fanfti- 
 *' fying the offender."* You immediately add, 
 " If this be your idea, and I imagine it is the pre- 
 ** vailing one, we are here completely at ilTue."' 
 I prefume I am here to underftand you literally. 
 You would hardly, upon fuch an occafion, fpeak 
 figuratively; and with analogical language, you 
 appear to have been but little, if at all, conver- 
 fant. Know then that literally I cannot afcribe a 
 change of difpofition to that all perfeft Being 
 * with whom is no variablenels neither fliadow of 
 turning.' Nor does firofiitiationy or any other of the 
 expreffions above mentioned, rightly underftood, 
 imply any luch change. Again; the word 
 *' fanftifying" is a very ambiguous one, and I 
 cannot fay in what fenfe you expeft me to take it. 
 If by " fanftifying the offender," you mean that 
 the death of Chrift has an immediate eiFeft in 
 purifying and cleanfing the offender from that fin- 
 ful pollution which made him offenfive to God, 
 and of procuring for him accefs to God, in this 
 life, and the hope of everlafting glory hereafter; 
 fuch an effeft I do afcribe immediately to the 
 death of Chrift: but if you mean that the death of 
 Ghrift, of itfelf, and independently of any thing 
 
 * Letters, page 26.9. 
 C 6 
 
I5t> 
 
 which he did and taught, has the power of efFe£l- 
 ing a moral change in the offender himfelf; this 
 is no part of my dodlrine, nor can any thing which 
 I have faid refpefting the fan6lifying influence of 
 Chrifl's blood, be juftly interpreted in any fuch 
 fenfe. In favour of my view of the dodlrine of 
 atonement, you make one important conceffion, 
 you allow that it does not " tend to deftroy the 
 " fcriptural foundation of Chriftian practice."* 
 Still you confider it as " unfcriptural, and calcu- 
 " lated to give very erroneous ideas as to the di- 
 *'. vine charafter, which where fairly imbibed, 
 "- mull check thofe affeftions of love to God, 
 " which Jefus has pronounced our highefl duty."f 
 What thefe erroneous ideas are, you do not ftate. 
 I am, therefore, left to colleft them from other 
 parts of your book, where you impugn the doc- 
 trine of atonement on this very account ; prefum- 
 ing that where you make no exception in favour 
 of my view of thedo6trine, it is, in your opinion, 
 ftill open to all t'le obje^'^ions, which you i harge 
 upon what you fuppofe to be the common doftrine. 
 What you regard as the Scripture-doftrine of 
 redemption, you fl;ai:e in thirteen articles : in the 
 ;firft nine ot which you meditate the overthrow of 
 a propitiation for fin, in order the more readily to 
 fubftitute in its place your own fcheme of redemp- 
 
 * Page 268, f Ibid. 
 
157 
 
 tion. You lay the foundation of your argument 
 in the benevolence of the Deity, of which you 
 affirm juftice, and alfo anger, to be mere modifi- 
 cations or branches. "The Scriptures," you tell 
 us, " reprelent God as eflentially good and mcrci' 
 " ful : and though they alfo reprefent him z^jujly 
 " nothing appears throughout the whole to coun- 
 *' tenance the belief that the exercife of liis juflicc 
 " in any way limits the exercife of his benevolence. 
 " In faft, in a perfect Being, juftice can only be 
 " a modification of benevolence, &c."* And 
 then follows a kind of metaphyfical diflertation 
 upon the divine at^tributes. But a better acquain- 
 tance with the nature of language, would have 
 taught you that fuch a diflertation, however in- 
 genious, might well have been fpared, to the great 
 eafe of yourfelf, and to the no great lofs of your 
 readers. At length you proceed thus : " The 
 " language of many, however, (and their ideas, 
 " if thefe accord with their language,) refpefting 
 " the divine juftice and mercy, often reprefents 
 " thofe attributes as at variance, and by laying an 
 *' undue ftrefs upon what they confider as the dic- 
 " tates of the juftice of God, they limit his bene- 
 " volence, and fpeak of him almoft as if he were 
 " a gloomy tyrant."t You here, as I conceive, 
 allude to tlie fuppofed inexorable juftice of God, 
 ♦ Art. 1. page ^70. f Page 273. 
 
158 
 
 which could not be fatisfied without a facrifice of 
 infinite value: an error which you formerly ap- 
 peared to charge upon the doftrine in general, but 
 which you now limit to certain individuals, who 
 hold the dodlrine But with this we have nothing 
 to do. Our do£lrine countenances no fuch erro- 
 neous idea of the divine character : on the con- 
 trary, it moft beautifully illuftrates the pofition of 
 the Apoftle, with which you oppofe thefe errors, 
 viz. God is love.* You next proceed to lay 
 down a pofition from which I fuppofe no one ever 
 thought of difi^enting; namely, that " thebenevo- 
 *' lence of God does not prevent him from for- 
 *' giving fins:" and having already determined that 
 divine juftice and benevolence are one and the 
 fame thing, differing in name only, not in reality, 
 you declare the grand quefiion to be whether 
 God confidently with this attribute can forgive 
 fins without a fatisfaflion.f And in order to 
 fecure a determination of the queftion in favour of 
 Unitarianifm, you proceed to fet forth the method 
 of God's forgivenels, as it is taught in the Old 
 Teftament, and the ground of man's acceptance, 
 as it is declared, both in the Old Teftament and 
 in the New; declaring in effeft, that God may 
 forgive, when man repents ; and that nothing is 
 required in order to man's acceptance, but obedi- 
 * ). Jobu iv. 8. 16. t Art. 3, page 274. 
 
159 
 
 ence to the will of God.* But, Sir, you will 
 permit me to obferve, that according to our view 
 of the doftrine of atonement, no queftion can 
 arife refpe^ling the power of God to forgive fins 
 without a propitiation, if he had thought fit ; or 
 concerning his right either to make repentance 
 the condition of forgivenefs, or to forgive the fin- 
 ner when he repents. We talk not of what God 
 can do, or cannot do ; but we leave the meafures 
 of his providence to be regulated agreeably to the 
 dictates of his own will. We fhould rather en- 
 quire what he hath done; whether, for reafons, 
 which we, perhaps, cannot fathom, he has been 
 pleafed to appoint a propitiation for fin : This is 
 the true queftion; and this queftion you appear 
 in fome meafure to meet, when you declare that 
 nothing is required in order to man's acceptance, 
 but obedience to the will of God. 
 
 In proof of thispofition, you have recourfe in 
 the firft place, to the Old Teftament, throiighout 
 the whole of which you declare that *' obedience 
 ** to the divine will is reprefented as eflentially 
 " necefiary to obtain acceptance with God, and 
 " nothing is faid which juftifics the belief, that 
 *' any thing additional is requifite to render that 
 ** obedience acceptable to him."t By acce/itance 
 in this place you cannot mean the original accep- 
 » See Art. 3-6. f Art. 4. page 273. 
 
160 
 
 tance of the Ifraelltes, as the peculiar people of 
 God; for with this, their obedience had nothing 
 to do. Nor can you refer to tlieir recovery of 
 God's favour and re-admiffion into his prefence, 
 aher having been excluded on account of fome 
 pollution or other legal incapacity ; for this is 
 exprellly afcribed to the atonement made by tlie 
 priell: with the appointed facrilice. I fuppofe, 
 therefore, that you here refer to the obedience 
 required of the Ifraelites, after they were become 
 the people of God, and to the favour with which 
 God had promiled to regard fuch among them, as 
 were obedient to his will ; an obedience and ac- 
 ceptance with which the do£trine of atonement 
 does not interfere. Againfl: the latter pofition, 
 namely, " nothing is faid which juilifies the belief 
 " that any thing additional is requifite to render 
 *' that obedience acceptable to him," thefacrifices 
 and ceremonies, appointed and enjoined under the 
 Old I'eftament, appear at firft view to furnith an 
 objedion. You therefore proceed to fpeak of 
 thefe fucrificesi but not very explicitly, nor in a 
 way which indi( ues a clear and diftindt acquain- 
 tance with their nature and intention. Among 
 other things you fay, " It is never reprefented that 
 *' thefe inftituticns had any efficacy in themfelves 
 *' conlidered, that tliey could of themfelves re- 
 " move guilt, and reltore men to the favour of 
 
161 
 
 " God." Perhaps not of them/elves, and in them- 
 felves confidered : but had they no efficacy by the 
 appointment of God ? Is there no meaning in thefe 
 words? " The Jife of the flefh is the blood: I havq 
 " given it you upon the aUar to make an atone- 
 " ment for your fouls : for it is the blood that 
 " maketh an atonement for the foul."* Again, 
 you fay, that " the language of the authorized 
 *' inftruftors of the Jews, is too explicit to allow 
 *' of the idea, that they were defigned to fuperfede 
 " the grand duties of piety and virtue, or to render 
 " the difcharge of thefe valuable in the fight of 
 " God."§ No one, as far as I know, ever 
 thought that they were inflituted with any fuch 
 defign: and your attempt to illuftrate this pofition 
 by Pf. li. 1 6. fhews that you do not enter into the 
 full meaning of the Pfalmift, or rightly confider 
 the occafion on which the words were uttered. 
 When the Pfalmift, fays, " Thou defireft not fa- 
 " crifice," you tell us that he obvioufly refers 
 " not to the facrifices enjoined by the -Molaic 
 " ritual, but to facrifices offered with the idea of 
 " atoning for immoraUty." Rather he acknow- 
 ledges that the Mofaic ritual had prefcribed no 
 facrifice by which an offender could be delivered 
 from blood-guiltinefs. The words have an im- 
 mediate reference to his own particular cafe. The 
 •Ley. Kvli. II. § Page 276, 
 
162 
 
 Pfalm, in which they are contained, was com- 
 pofed after the death of Uriah, the Hittite, who 
 had been foully murdered by the contrivance and 
 order of David ; and after Nathan had reprefented 
 to him the greatnefs of his fin, and the greatnefs 
 of the divine anger, on account of it. He, there- 
 fore, prays for deliverance from the guilt of that 
 blood with which his confcience was ftained, and 
 for re-admiflion into the favour of God. He well 
 knew that in the cafe of fuch a prefumptuous fin 
 as that of which he had been guilty, no fin-offer- 
 ing would be accepted, becaufe none had been 
 appointed He therefore, fays, (with reference 
 as I before obferved to his own cafe,) "Thou 
 ** defireft not facrifice, elfe would I give it, thou 
 " delighteft not in burnt offering." Nothing, 
 therefore, remained to him, but to plead his con- 
 trition, and to throw himfelf upon the mercy of 
 God. " The facrifices of God are a broken fpirit: 
 " a broken and a contrite heart, O God. thou 
 *' wilt not defpife." I have been anxious to give 
 the true fenle of this paffage, becaufe it is no un- 
 common thing with Unitarians to abufe it to a 
 purpofe quite foreign from the intention of the 
 Pfalmift. 
 
 You next proceed to the New Teflament, and 
 obferve of the declarations both of our Saviour 
 and of his Apoftles, that they are to the fame 
 
I6S 
 
 purpofe as thofe contained in the Old Teftament. 
 Speaking of our Saviour, you fay, that " he re- 
 *' prefents obedience to the will of God, as what 
 *' is requifite to obtain his acceptance."* If you 
 mean that obedience to the will of God, is requi- 
 fite, in order to our final acceptance, this is a 
 pofition, not in the leaft inconfiftent with the 
 doctrine of atonement. You proceed to aflure 
 us, in the next fentence, that " he does not give 
 " the flighteft intimation that our obedience is 
 " accepted, in confequence of any thing which he 
 •' himfelf might do or fuffer for us." I fee not 
 how this pofition is to be reconciled with our Sa- 
 viour's own words, at the inllitution of his lafl 
 fupper: " This is my blood of the New Teftament, 
 " which is fhed for many for the remiffion of 
 " fins,"t its otipEo-iy, in order to the remiffion. For 
 if our Saviour here declares that his blood was 
 fhed in order that our fins might be forgiven, how 
 can it be faid that he does not give the flighteft 
 intimation that our obedience is accepted, in con- 
 fequence of any thing which he himfelf might do 
 or fuffer for us ? 
 
 Again ; fpeaking of the Apoftles, after ftating 
 
 that " they reprefent obedience to the command- 
 
 " ments of God, as necelTary in order to obtain 
 
 " acceptance with him j" you immediately add, 
 
 • Art. 5. page 277« t Matt. xxvi. 28. 
 
164 
 
 -** and they give no intimation that faith in the 
 *' efficacy of the death of Jefus, is neceliary for 
 *' that purpofe, nor that it was the death of Jefus, 
 *' which renders our imperfetl obedience accep- 
 *' table to God."* You acknowledge, indeed, 
 prefently after, that they " lay the utmoft ftrefs on 
 " faith in Jefus :" and in order to fhew that the 
 faith, upon which they lay fo much ftrefs, has 
 fome reference to atonement, and to the efficacy 
 of Chrift's death, I fhall content myfelf for the 
 prefent, with referring to two paflages: ift. the 
 declaration of St. John,t " God fent his Son to be 
 ** the propitiation for our fins;" and 2dly, the ex- 
 hortation of St. Paul to the Elders of the church of 
 Ephefus, " Feed the church of the Lord which he 
 *' hath purchafed with his own blood."§ 
 
 Having already laid down that God, under the 
 Old Teftament, could forgive the penitent finner 
 without a propitiation, you now proceed to the 
 method of forgivenefs under the New Teftament, 
 and aflail the doftrine of atonement upon the 
 ground that it limits the divine benevolence, and 
 makes more to be required in order to forgivenefs 
 now, than was required under the former dif- 
 penfation. Hence you argue that fuch a do£lrine 
 
 * Alt. 6. page 277. 
 
 f 1. John iv. 10. Is this comprehended amonj the objecti 
 
 of Christ's missiun, enumerated in Letters, page Sj. 
 
 § Acts XX. n. 
 
165 
 
 cannot make part of a " difpenfatlon, which is {o 
 " clearly and repeatedly ftated to have had its 
 " origin in the free mercy of God."* Accord- 
 ingly, upon enquiry, you find that it does not ; 
 and you cannot, in any part of this difpenfation, 
 from the baptifm of John, to the preaching of the 
 Apoftles, after they had received the holy fpirit, 
 difcover any appearance of any fuch thing, but 
 quite the contrary. 
 
 In the firfl place you find " that in the objeft 
 *' of John's baptifm, and in thofe declarations of 
 *' Jefus Chrift, which preceded his death, there is 
 " nothing to authorize the belief that the divine 
 " juftice would no longer allow the free exercife 
 *' of mercy to the repentant finnerj that now a 
 " fatisfaflion mufl be offered for the fins of men, 
 " before they could obtain forgivenefs; that now 
 " God mufl be appeafed, or rendered propitious to 
 "his guilty creatures, by the fufferings of an in- 
 *' nocent and divine perfon, — but, on the con- 
 " trary, the benevolence of God is reprefented as 
 "complete and unlimited; his mercy as unre- 
 *' flrained, and independent of all external caufes, 
 *' except the moral quality of its objeft ; and his 
 " forgivenefs as ready to he free /y beflowed when-> 
 •'* ever the finner complied with the condition of 
 "pardon, a change of heart and life."t The 
 ^» Page 27«. t Art. 7. page 279, 
 
166 
 
 charge Infinuated in the preceding quotation, if 
 well-founded, would be a very ferious one. It 
 implies nothing lefs than that the doctrine of 
 atonement reprefents God as lefs forgiving under 
 the Gofpel, than he had declared himfelf to be 
 under the law : that it arrefts the power of God, 
 limits his benevolence, and reftrains his mercy. 
 And upon what is this charge founded ? Even upon 
 this; the fuppofed inconfifteney of an atonement 
 for linners, with the free exercife of the divine 
 mercy. The argument is, If the death of Chrifl 
 has any efficacy in procuring the pardon of fm, 
 then God cannot be faid to beftow forgivenefs 
 freely It will aflift us in forming a right judge- 
 ment of this matter, if we enquire into the mean- 
 ing of the word 'freely;' which, in its prefent 
 connexion, may, as I conceive, be taken in two 
 fenfes , according as it is made to refer to the 
 thing given, or to the Giver. If it refers to the 
 thing given, then that is beftowed freely, which 
 is not due to the party receiving, but is a gift 
 flowing merely and fpontaneoufly from the bounty 
 of the Giver. If it refers to the Giver, then fuch 
 Giver ht^ows freely, when he is uninfluenced by 
 any outward conlideration, but bellows without 
 reftraint, limitation, or referve. It is manifeft 
 that you take the word in the latter fenfe, Ne- 
 verthelefs, you fpeak of forgivenefs, " as ready 
 
167 
 
 " to be freely beftowed wlienevet* the finner com- 
 " plied with the condition of pardon ;" and you 
 further reprefent a change of heart and life, " as 
 " the condition upon which pardon is to be be- 
 " flowed." So then forgivenefs of fins is beftowed 
 conditionally, and yet freely/ What a contra - 
 didlion in terras! Again; you reprefent "the 
 *' benevolence of God as complete and unlimited^ 
 ** and his mercy as unreftrained and independent 
 *' of all external caufes:" you except, indeed, one 
 external caufe, viz. the moral quality of the ob- 
 jeft, which, however, in your opinion, is no 
 obftacle to the free exercife of the divine mercy. 
 But when the Satisfadionift, as he is called, puts 
 in a fimilar exception in favour of the death of 
 Chrift, you immediately turn about, and exclaim 
 that if fo, then God cannot be faid to beftow for- 
 givenefs freely. And thus there are two excep- 
 tions, one propofed by yourfelf, the other by the 
 Satisfaftionift : both equally afFe£ling the pofition 
 with which you fet out : And yet aceording to 
 your ftatement, your own exception is perfeftly 
 confillent with the freedom with which God exer- 
 cifes mercy, whereas the other completely over- 
 throws it! This glaring abfurdity might have 
 been avoided if you had taken the word fretlv in 
 the other fenfe propofed, and had underftood it in 
 oppoiition to debt or defert. And to this fenfe you 
 
168 
 
 would probably have been led, if, inftead of fol- 
 lowing the track marked out by former writers on 
 the fame fide, you had confulted the original of 
 Rom. iii. 24. " Being juftified freely (Supexv) by his 
 *' grace, through the redemption, that is in Chrift 
 " Jefus." And from hence you might further 
 have learned, that the method of God's proceed- 
 ing in pardoning finners, is not more inconfiftent 
 with the free exercife of mercy than the condition 
 upon which forgivenefs is bellowed. We cannot 
 pretend to defert of any kind : therefore our reco- 
 very from a ftate of fin and fubje£tion to death, 
 is to be attributed folely to the love and mercy of 
 God Hence we are faid to be " jufcified freely by 
 " his grace." Nor is the pardon the lefs free, either 
 becaufe it comes to us " through the redemption, 
 " that is in Chrifl Jefus," or becaufe the penitent 
 alone will enjoy the benefit. 
 
 As in the declarations of Jefus before his death, 
 fo neither in his difconrfes to his Dilciples, after 
 his veiurreftion, can you find any thing " which 
 " intimates that his death had been a fatisfaftion 
 " to divine juftice, and that it was in confequence 
 *' of bis death that the divine mercy could now be 
 •* expended to finners."* It is plain that you here 
 take the word fatisfa6>ion in your ufual fenfe, and 
 iuppofe, that according to the dodrine of atone- 
 
 * Art. 8. page 280. 
 
169 ' 
 
 ment, mercy could not have been extended to Hn- 
 ners without fuch fatisfadlion. But as this is no 
 part of the do£lrine for which I contend, 1 fhould 
 have paiTed it over without further remark, were 
 it not that I wifh to notice the manner in which 
 you illuftrate and apply to your purpofe, Luke 
 xxiv. 47. Referring to this text, you fay, " when 
 " he" (namely our Lord) '• authorized his Apollles 
 " to proclaim remiffion of lins among all nations, 
 " he does not in any way conneft it with faith ia 
 *' the merits of his death, but limply with repen' 
 " tance. He does, indeed, in the preceding verfe, 
 " fpeak of the neceffity of his fufFerings and refur- 
 " reftion, to the due fulfilment of the prophecies, 
 " rcfpefting t!ie Chrift, in the Scriptures of the 
 " Old Teftament : but he does not fav one word 
 " which intimates that his death in any fenfe ren- 
 " dered God placable, or gave repentance its effi- 
 " cacy, or enabled God to extend mercy to the 
 " penitent; but merely fays, 'And that in his 
 " name,' that is by his authority, ' repentance and 
 " remiliion of fins lliould be proclaimed to all 
 " nations, beginning at Jerufalem." Let us take 
 this text in connexion with the two preceding 
 verfes. '* Then opened he their underflanding, 
 " that they might underftand the Scriptures; and 
 *-'■ faid unto tliem, Thus it is written, and thus it 
 " behoved Chrift to fuiFer, and to rife from the 
 
 H 
 
170 
 
 " dead the third day, and that repentance and 
 *' remiflion of fins fhould be preached in his name 
 " among all nations, beginning at Jeruf^ilem." 
 You have clearly miftaken both the intention of 
 the fpeaker, and the connexion of the things fpo- 
 ken. For it is manifefl that our Lord is not here 
 authorizing the Apoflles to preach the doflrines of 
 repentance and remiflion of fins to the nations; 
 he is merely reciting the fubflance of the prophe- 
 cies, which declared that fuch doctrines fhould 
 be preached to the Gentiles. It is alfo manifeft 
 that our Lord does not conneft remiffion of fins, 
 *' fimply with repentance ;" but he connects the 
 preaching of both thefe to the Gentiles, with the 
 fufferings and death of the Chrifl. Your opinion 
 is, that our Lord here " fpcaks of the necelfitv of 
 *' his fufferings and refurreftion, to the due fulfil- 
 ** ment of the prophecies, refpefting the Chrifl in 
 *' the Scriptures of the Old Teflament." What pro- 
 phecies are we here to underftand r Thofe relating 
 to the fufferings and rcfurreftion of the Chrifl ? If 
 fo, your argument runs thus, The Prophets have 
 declared, that the Chrifl Ihould fuifer and rife again : 
 therefore, the fufferings and refurreftion of Chrifl 
 were neceffary, in order that thefe prophecies 
 might be fulfilled. This is an argument for the 
 fufferings and refuneftion of Chrill, upon which 
 I do not remember that you have before touched. 
 
171 
 
 If you mean that the fufFering? and death of Chrlft, 
 were neceflary to the fulfilment of the remaining 
 prophecies, concerning the Meffiah, this accords 
 exceedingly well with what I conceive to be the 
 true meaning of the paflage. The prophecies, to 
 which our Lord refers, concern both the fufFerings 
 and refurreftion of the Mefliah, and alfo the 
 preaching of repentance and remiffion of fins to 
 the Gentiles. The fuiferings and refurre£tion, of 
 which the Prophets fpake, were now part; the 
 preaching to the Gentiles was not yet begun, but 
 was to follow, as the proper confequence of the 
 former. And this dependence of the preaching to 
 the Gentiles, upon the fufferings and refurre£>ion 
 of the Chrift, is alfo implied in the declaration, 
 that repentance and remiffion of fins were to be 
 preached in his name : by which, I underftand, 
 not ' by his authority,' but in and through him 
 who fufFered and rofe from the dead. It is fur- 
 ther implied in this exprefiion, that the preacl:lng 
 of the Apoftles was to be accompanied with an 
 invitation to the nations, (beginning from Jerufa- 
 lem,) to believe in Chrill:, and to embrace the 
 Gofpel; intimating that it is only by him "who 
 ** was delivered for our offences, and was raifed 
 " for our juflification," and through faith in his 
 name, that the Gentiles arc in a capacity oi turn- 
 ing to God, and of obtaining remifiion of fins. In 
 H a 
 
172 
 
 -confirmation of this interpretation, let it be con- 
 fidered that fuch was afterwards the preaching of 
 the Apoftles, as appears from the book of their 
 A£ts. Thus St. Paul, at Antioch, after infifting 
 upon the fufferings and refurre£lion of Chrift, thus 
 addrefles, firft the Jews and Profelytes, and after- 
 wards the Gentiles themfelves, " Be it known 
 " unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that 
 " through this man is preached unto you the for- 
 *' givenefs of fins; and by him all that believe, are 
 *' juftified from all things, from which ye could 
 *' not be juftified by the law of Mofes."* And 
 to the fame purpofe fpeaks Peter to Cornelius, 
 and his Gentile friends, after having infilled upon 
 the fame topicks; " To him give all the Prophets 
 *' witnefs, that, through his name, whofoevcr 
 *' believeth in him, fhall receive remilTion of 
 " fins."t And can it after, this be faid, that our 
 Saviour does not in any way conneft his death 
 and faith in him who died, with remifiion of fins? 
 We could not expedl that theDifcipIes would 
 be found to teach a do6li-inc dilterent from tint of 
 their mafter. We were, therefore, prepared to 
 be told, that " the Apoftles, after the afcenfion of 
 " Jefus, and the reception of the fpirit, in no cafe 
 "' intimate that God could not confiftently with 
 " his juftice forgive fins without the fatisfaftion 
 * Acts xiii. 38. 39. f Acts x. 43. 
 
17S 
 
 " made by the death of Chrift, or even that he 
 " forgives fins for the fake of Chrifl, or of what' 
 " he did and fuffered for us, — but on the contrary 
 " their declarations perfe6tly harmonize with 
 " thofe of Mofes and the Prophets, of the Baptift 
 *' and our Saviour : they reprefent God as freely 
 *' pardoning the truly penitent, and a change of 
 " heart and life, as the condition on which the 
 " mercy which he had authorized Jefus to offer,' 
 *' would be extended to the (inner. "* As in all- 
 this there is nothing new which requires remark, 
 I Ihall do no more than refer to what I have al- 
 ready faid upon the lame points* 
 
 Having by the foregoing obfervations prepared 
 the way for the rejeftion of our doftrine, and for- 
 the reception of your own, you next proceed to 
 ftate what you regard as the Chrillian fcheme of 
 falvation. You enter upon this part of your fub- 
 jeft, with the foliowing words, '' I have already 
 *' (fee p. 29. 30.) mentioned my opinion as to 
 " the grand purpofe of the work, which was af- 
 *' figned to our Saviour ; and for this I requefl the 
 " re-confideration of our readers: it may, how- 
 " ever, be dcfirable to ftate the fubje6l in a fome- 
 " what different manner."t Hence it appears 
 that the doftrine about to be unfolded, in the 
 fubfequent articles, is only a reftatement in ano- 
 
 * Art. 9. page 282-284, f Pagt^ -286. 
 H3 - 
 
174 
 
 ther form of your former opinion : and it is obvi- 
 ous that this opinion is not entitled to our regard, 
 vinlefs you can clearly make out that the death of 
 Chrift has no other intention, in the Gofpel 
 fcheme of redemption, than that which you aflign 
 to it. I fhall not, therefore, trouble our readers 
 with any remarks upon the intermediate articles ; 
 but Ihall proceed immediately to the consideration 
 of this important point, which is in truth the 
 hinge upon which the whole controverfy turns. 
 Concerning the im[iortance of the death of Chrift, 
 there is not, it feems, any queftion,* the only 
 point to be conlidered, is its efficacy ; concerning 
 which you ftate tzvo cafes, and affirm that one of 
 them muft be adopted ; *' either our Lord's death 
 *' muft have had its efficacy, wholly, or in part, 
 " out of the ufual order of providence, diredly 
 *' producing, without any intermediate agency, 
 *' fome change in the divine difpofttion or pur- 
 *' pofes towards mankind ; — or it muft have been 
 *' a means operating according to the ufual order 
 *' of providence, and, in the then circumftances, 
 *' neceflary to promote the purpofes for which he 
 *' came from God." Of courfe the former is the 
 fuppolition of thofc who hold the doftrine of 
 atonement, the latter of the Unitarians: and I 
 could expert no other than to be told that the 
 
 • Art. 13. page 295. 
 
175 
 
 former derives no plain poiitive lupport from the 
 Scriptures, whereas, the latter is the pure " fcrip- 
 *' tural view of the fubjeft." I have already en- 
 tered a caveat againft the fuppolition that the 
 doftrine of atonement implies any aftual change 
 in the difpofition of that God, who, in his nature, 
 is unchangeable. The Scriptures, indeed, among 
 the other affei^ions of human nature, afcribe to 
 the Deity repentance, reprefenting hira as forry 
 for what he had done, and as determining in 
 confequence to deftroy his own work.* But this 
 language is comple.tely analogica/ ; and. means 
 only that the world, in confequence of its wicked- 
 nefs, experienced from its maker the fame rejec- 
 tion and lofs of favour, as ufually refults from 
 the repentance and forrow which a' human bene- 
 factor feels, when he difcovers that he has been 
 chcrifhing an unworthy objeft. In the prefent 
 cafe, however, I perceive no difficulty which calls 
 for even this folution. For if the Gofpel fcheme 
 of falvation originated in the free love of God to 
 men, what ground is there to impute to God any 
 change in his difpofition towards men, on account 
 of our redemption and its confequences? I there- 
 fore obje6t to our being comprehended in your 
 firft cafe, which certainly does not truly ftate the 
 efficacy which we afcribe to the death of Chrift. 
 * Gen. vi. 6. "J. See also 1. Sam.xv. il. and 3. Saui. xxiv. IC. 
 H4 
 
176 
 
 In your fecond cafe 1 cannot be comprehended, 
 becaufe that, as I learn from yourfelf, includes 
 none but Unitarians, perfons, who hold that the 
 death of Chrift was not necelTary, becaufe it made 
 part of the original plan of man's redemption, and 
 without which the whole could not be what it is; 
 but was merely rendered neceflary, by " the then 
 *' circumftances " But let me follow you in your 
 argument. • " The beft way of afcertaining the 
 " importance of any fa6l often is, to confider what 
 *' important refults would have been prevented, 
 " and what injurious confequences would have 
 *' followed, if it had taken place."* And then 
 you illuftrate this polition by appropriate inftances. 
 But let us not be led away, either by the pofition 
 itfelf, or by its illuftration, from the true point in 
 queftion. I underftood you to fay, juft now, that 
 the Im/iortance of the death of Chrift, is a thing in 
 which we are all agreed ; and that its efficacy is the 
 only point in difpute. But I am not aware that 
 the efficacy ofChrift's death, can be afcertained 
 by the mode of proceeding, which you propofe. 
 You, however, think otherwife : for thus you 
 proceed, " It will aflift in leading us to the truth, 
 *' as to the efficacy of our Saviour's death, if we 
 " purfue the confequences, which, in the then 
 *' circumftances, (and it were ufelefs to confider 
 * Page 296. 
 
177 
 
 •♦ any other,) would have followed from Lis not" 
 " fubmitting unto death; and if it appear that ia 
 " thofe circumftances, Jefus could not liave 
 ** avoided death, without either on the one hand 
 *' deftroying the authority of that meiTage of par- 
 " don and everlafting life which he caujc to 
 " bring, or at leaft without preventing the cxtcrt- 
 '■'■ Jive reception of the offered blefiings, — or, on 
 " the other, altogether deferting the purpofes for 
 " which he was fent — we can have no difficulty 
 *' in accounting for the frequency and earneftnefs 
 " with which his death is dwelt upon by the N. T. 
 " writers, nor for thefad, that the benefits arifing 
 " from his glad tidings, are fometimes afcribed 
 *' to his death." By the expreffion "the then 
 " circumftances," I fupoofe you mean the litua- 
 tion of our Saviour, at the very time when he fub- 
 mitted unto death ; taking into the account both 
 the meflage which he had delivered, and alfo the 
 perfons, to whom he had delivered it; namely, 
 the people in general, and his own Dilciples in 
 particular : and when you tell us tliat " it were 
 " ufelefs to confider any other" circumftances, I 
 fuppofe you intend to include among tiiele ufelefs 
 circumftances, any effeft, which, in the original 
 plan of man's redemption, the death of Chrift. 
 might be defigned to produce. Now let us fup- 
 pofe that there was fuch an efFeft ; let us fuppofe, 
 H5 
 
178 
 
 for inftance, that the blood of Chrifl, was origi- 
 nally del]gned to fanftify and confecrate to the 
 fervicc of God the perfons who fhould embrace 
 the proffered mercy : 1 would aik, how can wc 
 polfiblybe led to this effeft of the blood ofChrift, 
 by attendino only to the circumftanccs exifting 
 at the time when he was about to fuffer, and to 
 the confequences, which in thofe circumftanccs, 
 would have enfued, if he had not fubmitted unto 
 death. Let it be granted that in " the then cir- 
 " cumftances," he could only have avoided death 
 by one of the four ways which you enumerate, 
 and that from each would have enfued the con- 
 fequences which you ftate — it follows that, in 
 order to prevent thefe confequences, his fubmif- 
 fion unto death became highly fitting and expedi- 
 ent, and perhaps, with refpe£l to himfelf, una- 
 voidable : and this is the utmoft to which we can 
 be led by jjurfuing the mode propofed : by it no- 
 thing can be obtained refpe6ting the effedl which 
 the blood of Chrift was dciigned to produce, in the 
 original plan of man's redemption. Since then 
 your whole argument mult in its own nature be 
 ininfficicnt, and cannot pofT^bly prove the point 
 to which it is apphed ; I fhail not trouble either 
 myfelf or our readers with il in detail, nor lliall I 
 notice tlie ref^edlions at the conclufion, nor the 
 ccnilire which you pafs upon thofe who found 
 
179 
 
 their doftrines upon the literal interpretation of 
 the Scriptures :* none of which I am perfuaded 
 would have found u place there, if you had duly- 
 attended to what I had advanced in the Prejcrva- 
 five, refpefting Scripture analogies; and had been 
 aware that analogical language is not to be clafled 
 with that whii:h is merely figurative^ or rather 
 metajiJiorical. 
 
 There flill remain to be explained, or rather 
 to be tortured into an Unitarian fenfe, the pallages 
 of Scripture, in which, as we contend, the doc- 
 trine of atonement is contained. 
 
 You enter upon this part of your fubjeft, 
 with the following words: " Before I proceed, I 
 *' muft juft refer to the fingular mode of proof 
 " which you have adopted, refpefling the doc- 
 " trine of atonement, as commonl^^ received, 
 " You could not, Sir, be ignorant ot the great 
 " deficiency in evidence a? to the A['ioJ:oULal au- 
 " thority of the Epirtle to the Hebrews; vet you 
 '* make the reafonings of the Writer, the bafis of 
 " your argument, and explain other parages by 
 *' them. Now this allow rne to obierve, is pre- 
 " cifely the way to obfcure the tri'th. If the 
 " Gofpcls, the Acl:r^. and the undif] uted Epifr.'es 
 •' of Paul, Peter, and John, do not contain this 
 " doftrine, while fuch uncertainty hangs over the 
 
 * Page "05. 
 H 6 
 
180 
 
 " genuinenefs of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, its 
 *' metaphors and alluiions," (analogies if you 
 pleafe, Sir,) " cannot be admitted in proof of the 
 " do6trine ; its evidence may be employed as a 
 *' corroborative, but never as an independent 
 " ground of argument."* Before I controvert 
 the opinions of my opponent, 1 like to look 
 around me, and fee how^ far I arajuftitied in my 
 mode of proceeding upon the ground which he 
 thinks fit to allow me. 1 will, therefore, for 
 argument's fake, fuppole that the Apoftolical au- 
 thority of the EpilUe to the Hebrews, is not to be 
 fatisfaftorily proved: let me now enquire what 
 lafe I may fairly make of this Epiftle, in the pre- 
 fent argument. I will ftate the kind of authority 
 which you give to it in your own words. " By 
 *' whomfoever the Epiftle to the Hebrews was 
 *' wri^'ten, it was verv early known in the Chrif- 
 *' tian church: and though from tlie deficiency of 
 ** evidence in favour of its having been v»/ritten by 
 *' an Apoftle, it cannot be regarded as by itfclf 
 *' authoritative, yet it ferves as a teftimony rela- 
 *' tive to the opinion of the Jewifli believers, at 
 *' the time it was written. "f I think I may be 
 fatisfied with this roncelfion. I am at liberty to 
 aiTume, that the doftrines contained in this Fpiflie, 
 were believed by fhe Jewifh Chriilrans, and have, 
 * Page 307. 308. t Letters, page 67- 
 
181 
 
 therefore, only to enquire, at what time it was 
 written. You admit that it was known very early 
 in the Chriftian church : and it cannot be doubted 
 that it was written before the breaking out of the 
 Jewifli war, which terminated in the deflruftioa 
 of Jerufalem. Tliere are pafTajes in the Epiftle 
 itfelf which clearly fhew that the Temple was 
 then Handing, and that the fervice of the Temple 
 was regularly performed : for the priefts and fa- 
 crifices are fpoken of in the prefent tenfe. As ch. 
 viii. 4. " For if ha were on earth, he fliould not 
 " be a prieft, feeing that there are priefts that 
 " offer gifts according to the law:" and ch. xiii. 
 10. " VVe have an altar of which they have no 
 " right to eat which serve the tabernacle." 
 Thefe are cited by Lardner: to which I beg to 
 add, ch. ix. 6. 7. "Now when thefe things were 
 " thus ordained, the priefts went [Gr. etcTtxa-tv go] 
 *' always into the firft tabernacle, accomplilhing 
 " the fervice of God : but into the fecond, the 
 *' high prieft alone, once every year, not without 
 "blood which he offered [Gv. 'Trp(T:^sfsi offers] 
 " for himfelf, and the fins of the people." Alfo 
 ch. X. I. "For the law having a fhadow of good 
 " things to come, and not the very image of the 
 " things, can never with thofe farrifices, which 
 "they offered | Gr. irpoa-^ej/na-iv offer] year by 
 " year, continually ij^ake the comers thereunto 
 
182 
 
 " perfeft:" and again v. i r. " Every high prieft 
 " sTANDETH daily miniftering and ofFering of- 
 " tentimes the fame facrifices which can never 
 " take away fins." From thefe paflages we mav, 
 I think, fairly infer, that as yet there had been no 
 interruption to the fervice of the Temple ; and 
 confequently that the Epiftle was written before 
 the fiege of Jerufalem ; that is, before the year 67, 
 at the lateft. But let it be remembered that the 
 Apoftles, or at leaft the greater part of them were 
 at this time living. Hence it follows, that this 
 Epiftle bears teflimony to the belief of the Jewifh 
 Chriftians during the Apoftolical age, and confe- 
 quently to the doftrines taught by the Apoiibs; 
 for no other could be the prevailing doftrines in 
 thofe early times. Now let us fuppofe that there 
 are paffagcs " in the undifputed Epillies of Paul, 
 *' Peter, and John," which, in one fcnfe, te .ch 
 the doctrine for wliich I contend; bar, neverthe- 
 lefs, may be taken in another lenfe ; iince the 
 Epiitle to Jl\c Hebrews, " by whomfocver it was 
 " written," contains doftrincs not different from 
 thcjfe vvhich were taught by the Apoilles, I infifl 
 that I am iuily juftified in employing this Epiftle, 
 not only as a corro: )rative, but alio in the way 
 of comment or expofition ; and may, therefore, 
 if 1 think tit, bring forwards its doftrines in the 
 firfl inilance, in order tliat the fenfe of the fup- 
 
183 
 
 pofed doubtful pafTages, in theundifputed Epiftles, 
 may be clear and Intelligible at firfl fight. Con- 
 fequently, even upon this ground, the mode of 
 proof which I have adopted, ought not to be ac- 
 counted '■'■ Jingular " much lefs can it be faid that 
 it " is precifely the way to obfcure the truth :" 
 on the contrary, I know not in what way the 
 truth can be better illuftrated. 
 
 But let us enquire whether the evidence, as 
 to the Apoftolical authority of the Epiftle to 
 the Hebrews, be fo greatly defeftive as you re- 
 prefent it ; and whether the reafons alTigned, 
 be fufficient to warrant the very ftrong lan- 
 guage which you employ upon this occafion. 
 
 Upon turning back to the thirteenth page of 
 your book, I find you (in a note) maintaining that 
 it cannot be fatisfaftorily fhewn that the Epillle 
 to the Hebrews was written by an Apoftle. And 
 thus you argue, " That it cannot, muft I think 
 *' be obvious to every one who fully examines the 
 " evidence for its genuinenefs. — On this point the 
 " reader is referred to Marfli's Michaelis, vol. iv. 
 *' p. 245, &c. I do not think that Michaelis has 
 *' allowed its full weight to the evidence for the 
 *' genuinenefs : yet taking into account the great 
 " deficiency of hiflorical evidence, till we pafs 
 " the times of Origen, (near the middle of tie 
 " third century,) the hiflorical evidence againft it, 
 
184 
 
 " and the material differences which are obfer- 
 " vable between both the language and the manner 
 " of this F.piftle and thofe of the acknowledged 
 *' Epiftles of Paul, I think it more probable that 
 *' this Eplffle was not written by Paul : and even 
 *' leaving out of account the internal evidence, 
 " the genuinenefs of the Epiftle appears to me 
 " involved in great uncertainty." 
 
 Hence it plainly appears, that in your opinion, 
 we have not fufficient ground to believe that the 
 I'piftle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul: 
 and the reafons which you alTign for this opinion, 
 are the three following, which you flate generally. 
 I. The great deficiency of hiftorical evidence, 
 till we pafs the times of Origen. 2. The hillori- 
 cal eviden e againfi: it. 3. The material differ- 
 ences which are obfervabie between the language 
 and manner of this Epi'^le, and thofe of the ac- 
 knowledged Epiftles of Paul. I \v\\\ examine the 
 validity of each of thefe reafcns, beginning with 
 the lirft. 
 
 That this Epiftle was known and approved 
 very early is raarifeil: from the allufions to it and 
 the quotations from it, in thefirfl Epiftle of Cle- 
 mens Romanus to the Cojinthians, which was 
 written in the iirfl century, probably before St, 
 John's Gofpel. Irenceus, who flouriflied near tlic 
 middle of the fegond century, has fimilar allufions 
 
185 
 
 'and quotations in his work againft the Herefies. 
 And we are told by Eufebius,* that in another 
 work, at that time extant, but now loft, he ex- 
 prcffly mentions the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and 
 makes from it many extrafts. It is not however 
 faid, that Irenaeus quoted this Epiftle expreffly as 
 St. Paul's. But Clemens Alexandrinus, who 
 flouriflied before the conclufion of the fame cen- 
 tury, quotes it as St. Paul's very frequently, and, 
 in a palTage cited by Eufebius, f expreffly affirms 
 that it was written by St. Paul, He adds other 
 circumftances of great importance in the prefent 
 controverfy, namely, that " it had been written 
 *' to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew language ; but 
 *' that Luke very carefully interpreted it in the 
 " Greek language for the ufe of the Greeks:" and 
 this he ftates as the reafon " why the fame kind 
 *' of ftile is found in this Epiftle, and in the Adls 
 *' of the Apoftles." He goes on to obferve, that 
 " the infcription, " Paul an Apoftle," is very 
 properly omitted : For fays he, " writing to the 
 " Hebrews, who were prepoflefled with an un- 
 /' favourable opinion of him, and were fufpicious 
 • " of him, he very prudently did not difguft them 
 " at the outfet by putting his name." He further 
 relates what he had heard from his mafter Pantze- 
 nus, " Mereover, as the blelTed Prefbyter ufed 
 * Eccles. Hist. lib. v. c. 36. f Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 14. 
 
186 
 
 " to fay, fince our Lord, the Apoflle of the Al- 
 " mighty, was fent to the Hebrews, Paul, who 
 " was fent to the Gentiles, does not, through mo- 
 *' defty, infcribe himfelf the Apoftle of the He- 
 *' brews, both out of refpeft to our Lord, and 
 " alfo becaufe, being the Preacher and Apoftle 
 " of the Gentiles, his writing to the Hebrews was 
 .** not ftriftly within his province." Such is the 
 account which Clement, as cited by Eufebius, in 
 the place above referred to, gives of this Epiftle : 
 but neither here, nor in any other part of his 
 works, as far as I find, does he give the ilighteft 
 intimation of even a fufpicion entertained by any 
 one, that any but St. Paul was the author. So 
 that, as far as appears, its genuinenefs was never 
 called in queftion, but it continued an undifputed 
 Epiftle of St. Paul, to the very conclufion of the 
 fecond century. It appears, however, that about 
 this time, fome among the Latins began to enter- 
 tain a doubt refpedling this Epiftle. But this 
 doubt did not proceed from any tradition, or 
 other external evidence, giving the Epiftle to ano- 
 ther, or even denying it to be St. Paul's, but from 
 thofe very phenomena in the Epiftle itfelf, which 
 had before been noticed by Clement, namely, its 
 differing in ftile from the other Epiftles of St. 
 Paul, and the omiflion of the Apoftle's name and 
 title at the beginning. The firft perfon upon re- 
 
187 
 
 cord, as far as I can find, who denied this Epiftic 
 to be St. Paul's, is Tertullian, who, in his trea- 
 tife de pudicitia, (written as Cave conjeftures 
 between the years 199 and 209,) afcribed it to 
 Barnabas: and afterwards in his work againft 
 Marcion, (written after his fall into herefy,) ex- 
 preflly denied that St. Paul was the author. He 
 was followed by Caius, a Prefbyter of the church 
 of Rome, who flourilhed foon after the com- 
 mencement of the third century ; of whom Eufe- 
 bius relates* that there was then extant, a difpu- 
 tation of his againft Proclus, in which " he men- 
 *' tions only thirteen Epiftles of the divine Apof- 
 " tie, not enumerating the Epiftle to the Hebrews 
 " among the reft." Eufebius adds, that " even 
 " now" (that Is about a century after) " this 
 " Epiftle is not tliought by fome of the Romans 
 " to be the Apoftle's." Origen, who flourifhed 
 fomewhat later in the fame century, (viz, about 
 the year 230,) fpeaks of fome, who rejedled this 
 Epiftle as not being St. Paul's :t and in a paftage 
 cited by Eufebius,§ from his Homilies on this 
 Epiftle, he declares his own opinion ; faying that 
 " the ftile of the Epiftle to the Hebrews has not 
 *' that rudenefs of fpeech which belonged to the 
 *' Apoftle, who confefles of himfelf that he was 
 
 * Eccles. His. lib. vi. c. xx. f Oper» T. 1. page 20. Ben. 
 § Eccles. Hist, lib, vi. c. 25. 
 
188 
 
 " rude in fpeech, that is in expreflion; but in its 
 *' compoiition is purer Greek, as every one will 
 " allow, who is a judge of the difference of fliles. 
 *' Again, he fays, that " the fentiments of this 
 *' Epiilie are admirable, and not inferior to the 
 *' acknowledged Apoltolical writings; and to the 
 *' truth of this every one will alTent, who applies 
 *' himfelf to the reading of thefe writings." He 
 afterwards proceeds to account for the difference 
 of flile obfervable in this Epiflle. " My opinion," 
 fays he, " is this; the fentiments are the vVpoftles, 
 *' but the language and compofition is of lome 
 " other, who recorded the Apoflle's fentiments, 
 *' and as it were illuftrated with Scholia the things 
 *' fpoken by his raafter. If, therefore, any church. 
 *' receives this Epillle as Paul's, let it be com- 
 *' mended on this very account: for it was not 
 *' without reafon that the old Fathers delivered it 
 *' down to us as Paul's. But as to the perfon who 
 " wrote* this Epiflle," (that is, who compofed 
 the words in which the fentiments are exprefTed,) 
 " the truth is known to God. Of the accounts 
 " which have come down to us, fome fay that it 
 " was Clement, who became Bifliop of Rome; 
 *' others, Luke, who wrote the Gofpel and the 
 
 * Gr. ypx-X'X!. That this word does not iiecesiarily denote 
 the original writer or author, (in which sense it is here taken 
 by Miciiaelis, in his introduction to the iL T. vol. 4. page 
 247.) see Rom. xvi. S?'. 
 
189 
 
 " Afts." In the above quotation it is manifeft 
 that Origen afcribes to St. Paul the matter only, 
 not the form of the Epiftle: but this he thinks a 
 fufficient recommendation of it to any church to 
 receive it as St. Paul's. Accordingly he received 
 it himfelf, and frequently quotes it as St. Paul's ; 
 and fometimes in a way which deferves to be no- 
 ticed. Thus in his treatife againft Celfus, after 
 citing Heb. v. 12-14. "When for the time ye ought 
 " to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you 
 " again, whieh be the firft principles of the oracles 
 " of God ; and are become fuch as have need of 
 "milk, and not of flrong meat. For every one 
 " that ufeth milk is unlliilfui in the word of righte- 
 " oufnefs:" — he immediately adds: "He who wrote 
 *' this is the fame Paul whofaid to the Corinthians, 
 " I have fed you with milk, and not with meat, 
 " &c."* In like manner, in his Philocalia, he 
 brings together Heb. viii. 5. and i. Cor. x. 11. as 
 the words of the fame Apoitle : and again in ano- 
 ther place, Heb. xii. 22. 23. and Gal. iv. 6. By 
 this mode of quotation, Origen clearly manifeiis, 
 not a mere acquiefcence in the general opinion, 
 but a firm convidion in his own mind, that this 
 Epillle was the genuine work of the Apofiie St. 
 Paul. I am not called upon to go beyond tlie 
 tjmesol Origen: neverthelefs, it may not be amifs 
 * 1. Cor. iii. 2. 
 
190 
 
 to mention Eufeblus liimfelf, (who, as it was 
 hinted above, flourifhed near the beginning of the 
 fourtli century,) becaufe, from the extrafts which 
 he made from preceding writers, he appears to 
 have thought the queflion, refpefting the Epiftle 
 to the Hebrews and its author, of great impor- 
 tance, and to have examined it with great atten- 
 tion: and therefore his own teftimony is of no 
 inconfiderable value, on account of the fuperior 
 advantages which he enjoyed of afcertaining the 
 truth. But his teflimony is decidedly in favour 
 of the genuinenels of this Epiftle. Speaking of 
 the ApoftoHcal Epiftles, he fays exprelTly, " There 
 *' are fourteen Epiftles of Paul, manifeft and 
 " certain;"* he adds, indeed, " it ought not to 
 *' be pafled over, that fome have rejected that to 
 " the Hebrews, faying, that it is denied to be 
 " Paul's, by the church of Rome." But the au- 
 thority of that church did not caufe him even to 
 waver in his opinion: on the contrary, it appeared 
 of no weight whatever, compared with the unani- 
 mous voice of all the Greek Fathers, from the 
 beginning, who all concurred in afcribing this 
 Epiftle to St. Paul : he therefore affirmed boldly 
 and unhefitatingly, " There are fourteen Epiftles 
 " of Paul, manifeft and certain." 
 
 It may not be improper to add, that this una- 
 * Eccles. Hi»t. lib. iii. c. 3. 
 
191 
 
 nimous voice of the Greek Fathers, appears to 
 have had no lefs weight with Jerom, who 
 flourilhed towards the conclufion of the fame cen- 
 tury ; and feems to have preferved him from the 
 opinion, which commonly prevailed in the Latin 
 church, ot which he was one of the brighteft 
 ornaments. " Our people mufl be told," fays he, 
 in his Epiftle to Dardanus, " that the Epiftle to 
 *' the Hebrews, is received not only by the 
 " churches of the Eaft, but by all the Greek Ec- 
 *' clefiaftical writers in times paft." Sometimes, 
 indeed, he appears to fpeak doubtfully of this 
 Epiftle : but on fuch occafions he is giving not fo 
 much his own opinion, at leaft his own mature 
 opinion, as that of the church to which he be- 
 longed. Thus in his catalogue of Ecclefiaftical 
 writers, he tells us that " the Epiftle to the Hebrews 
 " is not thought to be his (i. e. St. Paul's) on account 
 " of the difference of ftile and language." Such 
 confefledly was the prevailing opinion in the La- 
 tin church, and the principal reafon upon which 
 this opinion was founded. But that this had no 
 weight with him is manifeft from the manner in 
 which he proceeds to fpeak of the perfon to whom 
 the Epiftle had been afcribed ; who was "either 
 " Barnabas, according to Tertullian, or Luke the 
 " EvangeUft, according to fome, or Clement, 
 " afterwards Bifhop of Rome, who, as they fay, 
 
192 
 
 " being aflTociated to Paul, fet down and dreiTed 
 " in his own language the Apoftle's fentiments," 
 which laft fentence may refer either to Clement 
 alone, or to which ever of the three the Epiftle 
 fhould be attributed; and ferves to fliew the real 
 fhare, which, according to tradition, fuch perfon 
 had in its composition : the form only was his, the 
 matter was the Apoftle's. He then ftates another 
 reafon why this Epiftle was not thought to be St. 
 Paul's : namely, becaufe " he was writing to the 
 *' Hebrews, and on account of their dillike of him, 
 *' had omitted his title at the beginning. He had 
 " written moft fluently as a Hebrew, to the He- 
 " brews, in Hebrew, that is, in his own dialeft. 
 " But thofe things which had been eloquently 
 *' exprefied in the Hebrew, were more eloquently 
 " expreffed in the Greek tranilation.*' And this 
 he ftates as " the reafon why it appears to differ 
 " from the other Kpiftles of Paul." It is plain 
 that Jerom himielf perceived no weight in the 
 objeiSiions ufually brought againlt this Epiftle; 
 and therefore, as Lardner oblerves, he readily 
 received it as Paul's. 
 
 Nor was this Epiftle difowned by all the La- 
 tins, even before the time of Jerom. It is true, 
 TertuUian rejected it; nor has Cyprian quoted it; 
 but thefe excepted, the principal of the Latin 
 Fathers, Hilary, Optatus, Ambrofe, frequcij^tly 
 
193 
 
 cite it as St. Paul's. And after Jerom, ali objec- 
 tion feems to have been gradually withdrawn, till 
 at length the Epiftle to the Hebrews was univer- 
 faliy received and acknowledged by the whole 
 Chriflian church to be the genuine work of St. 
 Paul. It fhould be added, that of thofe who de- 
 nied the Epiftle to be St. Paul's, many, neverthe- 
 lefs, did not refufe to acknowledge its divine 
 authority. 
 
 I am aware that fome of the evidence above 
 adduced, is differently put by the learned Mich- 
 aelis, to whom you refer thofe who propofe fully 
 to examine the evidence for the genuinenefs of 
 this Epiftle:* and yet in the very next fentence, 
 you acknowledge, that in your opinion, Mich- 
 aelis has not allowed its full iveight to the evidence 
 for the genuinenefs ! But, Sir, I go further, and 
 without hefitation aflert that he has abfolutely 
 m'tsjiated the evidence. He commences his en- 
 quiry concerning the author of the Epiftle to the 
 Hebrews, with obferving that " hiftorical evidence 
 " in the ftrift fenfe of the word, or confidered as 
 " teftimony to a matter of faft, we have none on 
 " this fubjeft; and the opinions of the moft cele- 
 " brated Ecclefiaftical writers, are fo far from be- 
 *' ing uniform, that while fome received it, others, 
 " nay, whole churches rejefted it, as not being the 
 
 * See the above quotation from page 13, 
 I 
 
194 
 
 " work of St. Paul."* In order to aicertain what 
 we are to underftand by ' hiflorical evidence' \n 
 queftions of this kind, I fliall refer to Michaelis' 
 own judgement, as it is given in the place where 
 he is citing the " tejihnonies of the ancients, rela- 
 " tive to an Hebrew original of St. _ Matthew's 
 " Gofpel." " As our prefcnt queftion is hiftori- 
 " cal, the decifion of it muft principally depend 
 " upon the teftimony of ancient writers. It is' 
 " true that, if we take the teftimony in the llriftefl: 
 " fenfe of the word, fo as to denote the evidence 
 " of perfons who were contemporary with St. 
 " Matthew, we fliall not be able to produce any 
 *' on this fubject. But, where Ecclefiaftical hif- 
 *' tory fails us in the iirft century, we muft be 
 " contented with the accounts which come the 
 " neareH: to that period : and for the fake of bre- 
 " vity, I mufl beg leave to ufe the terms ' witnefs' 
 " and ' teftimony,' though the faft for which 1 
 " quote the authority of ancient writers, did not 
 " lie within their own adlual experience Maius, 
 '' indeed, objedts that we ought not fo much to 
 .'• examine what the ancients have reported, as 
 *' whether they have reported the truth. But this 
 '^ objedion is totally ufelefs; for thefe reports 
 '•' alone can determine, what is the truth."t Up- 
 * liitrod. to the N. T. vol. iv. chap. 24.§ 15. paje 24:.. 
 t Introil. vol. Jii. chap, iv,§ 4. page ll(>. 
 
195 
 
 on this authority I fhall take the liberty of calling 
 by the name of ' hiftorical evidence' relative to 
 the Epiflle to the Hebrews, and its author, thofe 
 reports of the ancients, which I find either in their 
 own writings, or in the writings of others, near 
 their own time ; thofe reports efpecially which 
 were in being, when as yet no doubt appears to 
 have been entertained refpefting the author of this 
 Epiftle. 
 
 It is acknowledged that Clement of Rome 
 who was contemporary with the Apoftles, and 
 Irenseus who was contemporary with the Difci- 
 plcs of the iVpoftles, have both cited this Epiftle. 
 It is true, they ncitb.er of them, as far as I know, 
 cite it as St Paul's ; but their citing it at all is a 
 proof that the Epiftle is as ancient as the times of 
 the Apoftles, and that from the very firft, it was 
 held in high eftimation. Of the ancient Fathers, 
 whofe wosks have come down to us, Clement of 
 Alexandria is, perhaps, the iirft who has exprellly 
 afcribed this Epiftle to St. Paul. But if we con- 
 fider that the time when Clement lived, is not fo 
 far removed from the Apoftolical age as to make 
 it a matter of difficulty, with the monuments then 
 remaining, to trace any particular fa£l up to the 
 Apoftles; and that Clement (as he himfelf tells us) 
 was a man who efpecially applied himfelf to this 
 work, and was intimate with thofe who poflefted 
 I 2 
 
196 
 
 \he true tradition of the Apoflolical doftrlne, we 
 cannot refufe to the things which he relates re- 
 fpefting the Apoftles and their Ads, the name 
 of 'hiftorical evidence.* When therefore Cle- 
 ment frequently cites this Epiftle as Paul's ; and 
 not only fo, but exprelTly aflerts it to be the work 
 of that Apoftle, what is this but hiftorical evi- 
 dence of a very early date ? And when we fur- 
 ther call to mind, that Clement profefles to have 
 derived his information from his mafter Pantsnus, 
 (of whom it is faid that he was inftrufted by thofe 
 who had feen the Apoftles,*) does it not become 
 
 * hiftorical evidence' of a ftili earlier date ? 
 
 But Michaelis obferves, that Clement, when 
 he afcribed this Epiftle to St. -Paul, " at the fame 
 *' obviated the objeftion derived from the differ- 
 *' ence of ftyle, by faying, that the Apoftle wrote 
 *' it in Hebrew, and that the Greek is only a tranf- 
 *' lation."t Were this fo, the declaration of 
 Clement would neverthelefs be ' hiftorical evi- 
 dence :' and it might be faid in this cafe that he 
 v;as bearing teftimony againft a falfe opinion 
 which was beginning to prevail. But it is faid 
 without proof. After carefully reading the paf- 
 fage referred to,§ I can iind in it nothing which 
 
 * See Cave Hist. lit. vol. i. p. 51. f Introd. vol. iv. page C4r>. 
 
 § See the passage above quoted from Eusebi. Eccles. Hist, 
 lib. vi, cap. 14. 
 
197 
 
 favours of obje£bion, or of anfwer to an objection ; 
 Clement is merely flating an obvious phsenome- 
 non in the Epiftlc to the Hebrews, without, as far 
 as appears, the lead fufpicion that this phsnorae- 
 non had ever been conftrued into an obje£tion 
 againft St. Paul, as the author. But according to 
 Michaelis, Clement is not to " be confidered, in 
 " this inftance, as bearing teftimony to a matter 
 " of fa6l," but as dehvering an opinion. And 
 refpefting the things which Clement relates from 
 Pantaenus, Michaehs alfo obferves, " This again 
 " is rather opinion than teftimony." That there 
 is, in this inftance, opinion mixed with teftimony, 
 I readily grant : and thefe fhould carefully be dil^ 
 tlnguifhed. The fa£ts to which Clement bears 
 teftimony are thefe : i. That Paul is the author 
 of the Epiftle to the Hebrews : 2. That it was 
 originally written in Hebrew: 3. That it was 
 tranflated into Greek by I.uke. For tlius much 
 the declaration of Clement is ' hiftorical evidence ,' 
 fince, as I have already ftiewn, no objeftion can 
 be taken againft it from the length of time which 
 had intervened, lince the fafts attefted. But the 
 reafon aftigned for the difference of ftyle between 
 this, and the other Epiftles of St. Paul, and alfo 
 the reafon why the Apoftle omitted to prefix his 
 name and titles, may perhaps, be mere opinioi^, 
 and not teftimony to a matter of faft. 
 13 
 
198 
 
 It is, however, admitted that Clement afcribed 
 this Epiftle to St. Paul. But, fays Michaelis, 
 " Origen, the celebrated fcholar of Clement, en- 
 " tertained a different opinion on this fubjeft, 
 *' and ronfequently muft have confidered w^hat 
 " was afferted by Clement and Pantaenus like- 
 " wife, as mere opinion, and not as hiliorical 
 •** evidence. The words of Origen, which are 
 *' quoted by Eufebius, in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, 
 " B. vi. ch, 25. are to the following purport : ' In 
 " ray opinion the matter was from St. Paul, but 
 " the conftruftion of the words from another, 
 " who recorded the thoughts of the Apoftle, and 
 " made notes as it were of what was faid by his 
 " mafter." Of this laft fentence the original is as 
 
 follows, ^ OS <Pfxats Kxi ri avv^i^ii, oi'jroiMy>[jiovsvaxvTos 
 Ttvos Tx K'rros'oXiicx, kxi ucrnifn a-yroXioyfx(py}ax)iros to, 
 
 iipyifxivx vvoTs ^i^xa-axK^. Unfortunately Michaelis 
 has not hit upon the true fenfe in which Origen 
 ufed the word a-^oXioypx(^'na-xvros ; and hence has 
 arifen much of his mifconception of this learned 
 Father's meaning and opinions. Taking the 
 verb a-xoAiaypx(pu in what is apparently its general 
 meaning, to write notes ii/ion obfcure paffagcs, he 
 conceives the above words of Origen to warrant 
 the following deduftions. " According to Origen, 
 *' then, the Epiflle to the Hebrews was not writ- 
 " ten by St. Paul, in any fenfe whatfoever, nei- 
 
199 
 
 " ther in Greek nor in Hebrew : for in his opini- 
 *' on, the fentiments only were thofe of the Apof- 
 " tie, but the clothing in which thofe fentiments 
 " were conveyed was the work of one of his 
 " Difciples, who noted the doftrines which he 
 *' had heard delivered by his mafter, and made as 
 " it were commentaries on them. — Further, Ori- 
 " gen's words by no means imply that St. Paul 
 *' even ordered the Epiflle to be written: and, 
 " indeed, if he had, it is probable that a faluta- 
 " tion would have been fent to the Hebrews, in 
 " his name." So then, according to Michaelis, 
 Origen's words imply no more than that the doc- 
 trines contained in the Epiftle, are dodlrines which 
 St. Paul had taught ; but that the Epiftle itfelf is 
 not the Epiftle of St. Paul, who had no concern 
 in it as an Epiftle ; that its origin was this ; one of 
 St. Paul's Difciples, who had heard him deliver 
 thefe doftrines, took them down in writing, made 
 notes upon the obfcure paiTages, and at length 
 worked up the whole in the form of an Epiftle, 
 which he entitled an Epiftle to the Hebrews, and 
 all this without the Apoftle's concurrence, who 
 probably did not even order fuch an Epiftle to be 
 written. This, furely, was not Origen's meaning; 
 nor can any fuch meaning be put upon his words 
 rightly underftood. The words anoiMviAonvu and 
 cx<>>^ioyfx(pM wliich Origen here employs are de- 
 14 
 
200 
 
 fcrlptive of a practice common in the fchools of 
 tlie ancient Rhetoricians, who accuftomed their 
 fcholars to recite the doftrines which they them- 
 felves had delivered, not in the very words in which 
 they had been delivered, but in other words, which 
 would not barely exprefs the meaning, but would 
 at the fame time illuftrate and explain it : By this 
 praftice the mafter could readily difcover whether 
 the ftudent depended foiely upon his memory, or 
 whether he really underftood the things which had 
 been taught. To this practice Origen alludes in 
 the paflage before us. He tells us that in his opi- 
 nion the fentiments are the Apoflle's ; but that the 
 perfon who committed thefe fentiments to writing, 
 did not exprefs them in the Apoflle's own words, 
 but recited them in other words, explanatory of 
 the meaning, after the manner of ftudents in the 
 fchools of the Rhetoricians. And if this be the 
 whole of the meaning, the paflage itfelf affords no 
 ground whatever for the very loofe opinion re- 
 fpefting this Epiftle, which Michaelis has afcribed 
 to Origen : the utmofl which can be inferred is, 
 that the Epiflle, in its prefent form, is not fo 
 comprefled and obfcure as when it firll; proceeded 
 from the Apoflle, but that the Apoflle's meaning 
 is exprcfled more fully and clearly. It is to be 
 obferved, that Origen is here accounting, in a 
 way fomewhat different from Clement, for the 
 
201 
 
 difference of ftyle obfervafcle in this Epillle. This 
 is in both, not hiflorical evidence, but mere opi- 
 nion. But the opinion of Origen applies folely to 
 the Epiftle as we now have it; and not to the 
 original as it was delivered by ht. Paul: confe- 
 quently nothing is here faid refpefting the lan- 
 guage of this original, whether it was given in 
 Greek or in Hebrew. It cannot, therefore, be 
 inferred from this paflage, that the opinion of 
 Origen, upon this point, was different from that 
 of Clement; or that he confidered what was af- 
 ferted by Clement and Pantsnus, refpefting this 
 point, as mere opinion, and not hiitorical evi- 
 dence. Clement is of opinion, that the difference 
 of ftyle and language obfervable in this Epiftle, 
 arifes from its being a tranflation from the Hebrew 
 into Greek: I fee nothing in Origen which is in 
 the leaft inconfiftent with this, but only fome- 
 thing which modifies it. For if a tranflation, it 
 muft, agreeably to Origen's opinion, have been a 
 tranflation of a peculiar kind ; not a tranflation 
 which merely exprefles the fenfe of the original, 
 but one which, while it exprefles, at the fame time 
 elucidates and explains the fenfe. 
 
 Michaelis next quotes the words of Origen 
 immediately following thofe upon which he had 
 iuft been commenting. Thefe he gives in the ori- 
 ginal. Of the firft fentence (which is fuirrcicat 
 
202 
 
 for my prefent pnrpofe) I have already given the 
 following tranflation, " If therefore any church 
 " receives this Epiftle as Paul's, let it be com- 
 " mended on this very account; for it was not 
 " without realon that the ancients have delivered 
 " it down to us as Paul's." Upon thele w^ords 
 Michaelis obferves; " From this palfage it appears, 
 *' that Origen, though he himfelf did not believe 
 " that St. Paul wrote the Epiftle to the Hebrews, 
 "by no means difapproved of thofe, who re- 
 *' ceived it as the work of St. Paul, becaufe, as he 
 " had faid before, the fcntiments were thofe of the 
 " Apoflle." Origen^moft certainly did not be- 
 lieve that St. Paul put together the words in 
 which the Epiftle is exprefled; but it does not 
 ceafe on this account to be his Epiftle. The book 
 which is now before me, profefles to be the w^ork 
 ofMichaehs; and rightly fo, but not in the form 
 in .which I have it. The words unqueftionably 
 are not his; they are the words of Dr. Marfli, 
 who clothed the thoughts of Michaelis in his own 
 language, and has probably in very many places 
 exprefled the fenfe more fully than the original, 
 in order to illuftrate that, which, if liteially tranf- 
 lated from the German, would be obfcure to an 
 Englifh reader. But notwithftanding this, I do not 
 account it one jot the lefs the work of Michaelis. 
 The cafe of the Epiftle to the Hebrews is very 
 
203 
 
 (imilar. The words are not the words of St. 
 Paul ; they are the words of fome other, who 
 clothed the Apoftle's thoughts in his own lan- 
 guage, and illuftrated the fenfe. Bat notwith- 
 llanding this, Origen did not c/i/n^/irove of thofe 
 who received it as the work of St. Paul. But 
 why did he not c<ifa/i/irovcF " Becaufe, fays 
 " MichacUs, " as he had faid before, the fentiments 
 " were thofe of the Apoftle." But what does 
 Origen fav ? he has aiiigned a different reafon, 
 wiiich Michaelis has thought proper to pafs over 
 without notice. Thefe are his words, " If there- 
 *' fore any church receives this Epiftle as Paul's, 
 " let it be commended on tliis very account: for 
 " it was not without reafon that the ancients 
 " (o' xpy^atioi xvopss) have delivcrtid it down to us as 
 " Paul's." I think I need go no further. There 
 is contained in this laft fentence of Origen, a piece 
 of hiftorical evidence which gives a death blow to 
 the argument of Michaelis, and fully eftabhlhes 
 the authenticity of the Epiftle to the Hebrews. 
 For here we have the exprefs teftimony of Origen, 
 that up to his own time, namely, the beginning 
 of the third century, there had been a conftant 
 tradition in the church, that the Epiftle to the 
 Hebrews was the genuine work of St. Paul. 
 
 I think. Sir, that I have now fully anfwered 
 the lirft reafon upon which you ground your opi- 
 16 
 
204 
 
 nion, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews is not the 
 work of St. Paul ; and have fhewn, that the fup- 
 pofed great deficiency of hiftorical evidence, till 
 we pafs the times of Origen, is mere afTertion ; 
 and that the fa6l is otherwife. Your fecond rea- 
 fon is, " the hiftorical evidence againft it." Now, 
 Sir, [ know of no hiftorical evidence whatever 
 againft the genuinenefs of the Epiftle to the He- 
 brews. I know, indeed, that about the begin- 
 ning of the third century, fome perfons began to 
 doubt whether this Epiftle really were the work of 
 St. Paul; and I am not ignorant that many, efpe- 
 cially among the Latins, abfolutely rejefted it. 
 But thofe who did fo, never profefled to derive 
 any fupport from tradition, or from teftimony of 
 any kind ; but argued entirely from certain Pliae- 
 nomena in the Epiftle itfelf, which in their judge- 
 ment were inconfiftent with the fuppofition that 
 St. Paul was the author. But this is not hiftori- 
 cal evidence; it is opinion merely : it is moreover 
 opinion which was oppofed with efFeft by the 
 moft learned of the contemporary Fathers : being 
 weighed in the balance, it was found wanting: and 
 the confequence was, as might be expefted, it 
 could not ftand: even in the Latin church, from 
 the time of Jerom it declined moft fenfibly, and, 
 after languifhing for fome time, it completely 
 died away. And now in the nineteenth century, 
 
205 
 
 fliall this fhort-lived opinion be revived, and dig- 
 nified with the name of hijlorical evidence P What 
 an abufe of words I 
 
 Your third and laft reafon is taken from the 
 Epiftle itfelf, which, as you aflert, materially dif- 
 fers both in language and in manner from the 
 acknowledged Epiftles of St. Paul. The lirll of 
 thefe differences, that of language, was the chief 
 ground upon which the Latin Fathers depended, 
 when they denied this Epiflle to be St. Paul's. 
 They perceived that the fentences are not con- 
 flruded in St. Paul's ufual manner, and that the 
 diftion is more copious and full. This is appa^ 
 rently an objeftion of confiderable force . but, as 
 we have feen, it did not weigh with any of the 
 learned Fathers of the Greek church, againfl the 
 pofitive hiftorical evidence on the other fide : and 
 they were of opinion that the objedlion might be 
 obviated without having recourfe to the very vio- 
 lent proceeding of their Latin brethren. A fuffi- 
 cient, and probably the true caufe of the great 
 copioufnefs and fluency obfervable in this Epiflle, 
 was iirfl pointed out by Origen ; and if we com- 
 bine with his opinion, the declaration of Clement 
 of Alexandria, that the Epiftle, in its prefentform, 
 is a tranflation from the Hebrew, we fhall, I 
 think, be able to obviate the whole objedlion in a 
 way much more fatisfadory than any which has 
 
206 
 
 been propofed in modern times. That the Epiftic 
 to the Hebrews was originally written in the lan- 
 guage of that people, is a thing not only highly 
 probable in itfelf, but alfo confirmed by hillorical 
 evidence. I therefore aflume as a fa6l, that there 
 was a Hebrew original ; which original the Apof- 
 tle either wrote with his own hand, or more pro - 
 bably, as his manner ufually was, diftated to one 
 of his attendants ; and that this Hebrew original 
 was afterwards tranflated into Greek. But that 
 the Greeks might have the full benefit of this truly 
 valuable Epiftle, fuch a tranflation as Origen 
 defcribes, became in a manner necelTary. For it 
 is fo replete with Jewifli learning, that in the 
 compreiled form in which it was delivered by the 
 Apoftle, it could hardly have been intelligible to 
 the Greek Chriftians; and therefore the tranflator 
 did not confine himfelf to a ftrift rendering of the 
 original, but illuftrated the fenfe as he went 
 along by a fuller exprefiion. And all this we 
 may well fuppofe to have been done with the con- 
 currence and approbation, perhaps, by the order 
 of the Apoftle himfelf. Who this tranflator was, 
 is not certainly known. Origen tells us that the 
 Epiftle, in its prefent form, was afcribed by fome 
 to Clement Bifliop of Rome, by others to Luke 
 the Evangelift. But fays Mlchaelis, " neither of 
 *' tliefe contradiftory accounts, can be true ; for the 
 
207 
 
 " ftvle of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, is neither 
 " that of St. Luke, nor of Clement of Rome." 
 Againil this opinion of Michaelis, I may fet the 
 oppofite opinion of Clement of Alexandria in the 
 one cafe, and of Eufebiusin the other: the former 
 of whom was of opinion that the fame kind of 
 ftyle is found in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and 
 in the Adis of the Apoftles ;* and the latter per- 
 ceived a refemblance between this Epiftle and the 
 fecond Epiftle of Clement to the Corinthians. f 
 It is not improbable that both Clement and Luke 
 were concerned in this Epiftle, the one as the 
 Apoftle's Amanuenfts, the other as Tranflator: 
 and hence might arife the fuppofed contradidlory 
 accounts to which Michaehs refers. Of thefe two 
 I think it moft probable that Luke was the tranf- 
 lator, both becaufe he is expreftly named as fuch 
 by Clement of Alexandria, and alfo becaufe this 
 Epiftle and the books of Luke, have words and 
 phrales in common, fome of which are rarely, 
 others never found in any other book of the New 
 Teftament. The following inftances have been 
 obferved : EvXxi^six ^lieias, Heb. xii. 28. ivXo'.Q-/,s 
 fiius, Luke ii. 25. Ads ii. 5. viii. 2. — MexprvfiBco ali- 
 probo, Heb. xi. 2. 4. 5. and Luke iv. 22 Adls vi. 3. 
 X. 22. xvi. 2. — 'Hya/xsvos-, a Ruier, Heb. xiii. 7. 17. 
 * Eus. Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. cap. 14. 
 t £ua. Eccles, Hist. lib. iii. c. 38. 
 
SOS 
 
 44. and Luke xxil. 26. Afts xiv. 12. xv. 22,— 
 Afyjnyos a Beginner or Author, Heb. ii. 10. xii. 2. 
 and A6ls iii. 15. v. 31. — y^fniJ.ccriCp{f.xi to be taught 
 by revelation, Heb. viii. 5. and Luke ii. 26. A£ls x. 
 22. See Matt. ii. 6. 12. — E/j ra itocvriKis Heb. vii. 25. 
 and Luke xiii. 11. Alfo the prepofition •n^oi to 
 fignify of ox concerning, Heb. i. 7. iv. 13. and Luke 
 xviii. I. Alfo St. Paul appears fometimes to ufe 
 .this pr.^pofition in the fame fenfe: fee Rom. viii. 
 31. X. 21. To this we may add the confeffion of 
 Michaelis, that the fpeeches of St. Paul, in the 
 Aftsofthe Apoftles, chap. xvii. 22-31. xxiv. 10-21. 
 xxvi. 1-?. I. are recorded in language equally 
 good and fluent with that of the Epiftle to tlie 
 Hebrews :* and if a critical eye can ftill dilcern 
 any diiterence, may it not fairly be accounted for 
 from the peculiar circumftances in which Luke, 
 as a tranflator, was placed? But, however this 
 be, I think enough has been faid to fhew that no 
 objedlion can fairly be taken againft St. Paul, as 
 the author of this Epiftle, from the difference of 
 ftyle and language. 
 
 But we are alfo told that a material difference 
 is obfervable between the manner of this Epiflle, 
 and that of the acknowledged EpiUles of St. Paul. 
 I know not whether by ihe manner of this E[iiflle, 
 I am to undeiftand the manner generally, or 
 * Jiitroduction to the N. T. ch. xxiv.§ 14. p. 212. 
 
209 
 
 merely the omiffion of the name and title, at the 
 beginning. If it be intended that St. Paul's ufual 
 manner of writing is different; I anfwer, fo is his 
 argument ; fo is his relation to the perfons whom 
 he addrefles. The tone and manner of the fame 
 perfon will naturally vary with the fubjeft and 
 the occafion. It will not be the fame when he 
 inftru£ls the ignorant, as when he confutes tlie 
 gain-fayer: it will not be the fame when he re- 
 bukes with the authority of a ruler, as when he 
 entreats with the afFe£tion of a brother. The 
 Apoflle truly defcribes the chara£ler of this Epiftle, 
 when he calls it ' the word of exhortation,* which 
 he befeeches the Hebrews to ' fuffer,' or bear pa- 
 tiently. In writing to them, he was writing to a 
 people not immediately committed to his charge : 
 for other of the Apoftles exercifed over them 
 that authority which he exercifed over the Gen- 
 tiles, whofe Apoflle he pecuHarly was. And this 
 he virtually declares when he reminds them of 
 their duty to thofe who had the charge of them. 
 " Remember them which have the rule over you, 
 " who have fpoken to you the word of God: 
 " whofe faith follow."* And again, " Obey them 
 " that have the rule over you, and fubmit your- 
 " felves: for they watch for your fouls, as they 
 " that muft give account."t And hence probably 
 » Heb. Jtiii. 7. f Heb. xiii. 17. 
 
210 
 
 the reafon why St. Paul, in writing to the He- 
 brews, omitted at the beginning his name and 
 title. He was writing to a people over whom he 
 had no fpiritual authority ; and left he fhould be 
 thought to affume a power to which he had no 
 claim, he addrefles to them the word of exhorta- 
 tion, without even entitling himfelf, Paul an 
 Apoftle. This reafon was firft fuggcfted by the 
 ancients; and it appears to account for the omif- 
 fion of the Apoftle's name and title, in a manner 
 perfectly fatisfaftory. But after all, the objeftion 
 itfelf is of no great weight. It will not lurely be 
 contended that a man can never have a,feafon for 
 departing from his ufual pradlice, on any occafion 
 whatever : and if any other man, why not Paul, 
 upon the prefent occafion? It is, moreover, wor- 
 thy of remark, that among the arguments which 
 have been taken from the Epiftle itfelf, no one 
 has ever been hardy enough to fay, that it con- 
 tains any thing unworthy of St. Paul, or contrary 
 to found Apoftolical doftrine. Indeed, fuch an 
 argument would carry with it its own confutation. 
 For if the doftrines which it contains, had not 
 been agreeable to thofe which St. Paul and the 
 other Apoftles were accuftomed to teach, it 
 could never in thofe early times have been afcrib- 
 ed to St. Paul, or received into the Canon. And 
 as on the one hand there is nothing in the Epiftle 
 
211 
 
 which makes it improbable to be St. Paul's, fo on 
 the other there are many things which naturally 
 point to him as the author. Thus the contents 
 of the Epiftle are peculiarly fuitable both to the 
 circumftances of the Apoftle, and to the fituation 
 of the Hebrews ; there is in many places a ftrong 
 agreement between this and the acknowledged 
 Epiflles of St. Paul, in matter and fentiment, and 
 fometimes even in language : efpecially in the 
 Gonclufion there is a remarkable agreement. 
 Thefe are things well known and acknowledged; 
 and therefore I need not infill upon them at large. 
 I have been thus led into a fuller examination, 
 than I at firfl intended, of the reafons which you 
 affign for " the great deficiency in evidence as to 
 " the Apoftolical authority of the Epiftle to the 
 " Hebrews." It has been feen that thefe reafons 
 are partly internal, and partly external. Upon 
 the internal reafons, or thofe derived from the 
 Epiftle itfelf, you do not feem to place much de- 
 pendance : for you fay, " Even leaving out of 
 " account the internal evidence, the genuinenefs 
 " of the Epiftle appears to me involved in great 
 *' uncertainty " But were it otherwife, I truft I 
 have fully fl^ewn their infufficiency •' and as to the 
 external reafons they are, as Ihave alfo fhewn, 
 wholly imaginary; for there is no hiftorical evi- 
 dence whatever again/} the genuinenefs of the 
 
212 
 
 Epiftle, but mere opinion, founded upon the very 
 reafons which have above been fhewn to be in- 
 fuificient. And again there is no want of hiflori- 
 cal evidence /(jr the genuinenefs of the Epiftle, in 
 the times preceding Origen, as Origen himfelf 
 teftifies. I trufl it will not now be thought pre- 
 fumption in me to fay, that I have drawn alide the 
 veil which has been made to hang over the origin 
 of this Epiille; and have exhibited its Apoftolical 
 authority in clear and open view. I fhall there- 
 fore continue, as before, to draw my proofs from 
 this Epiftle, with as great freedom as from any 
 other part of the facred volume; being well af- 
 fured that even if I make it the bafis of my argu- 
 ment, I fliall be in no danger of obfcuring the 
 truth. I now return to the dodtrine of atonement. 
 In your attack upon this dodtrine, you work 
 by the fame exterminating procefs as before, in 
 the cafe of Chrift's fupra-human nature. You 
 begin with the hillorical books of the New Tefta- 
 ment,* and having attempted to explain away the 
 few notices of this doftrine which occur in thefe, 
 (manv could not be expected to occur,) you pro- 
 ceed to what you call the undifputed writings of 
 the Apoftles;t and having explained them in the 
 fame manner, you come at length to the Epiftle 
 to the Hebrews ; your explanation of which you 
 * Page 308-3 13. f Paffe 3 1 4-328 . 
 
215 
 
 preface with thefe words; "As no exprefllons 
 *' occur in the Revelation, which have not been 
 *' aheady confidered, I may now obferve, that 
 " with the exception of thofe found in the Epif- 
 *' tie to the Hebrews, I have examined all the 
 *' phrafeology refpefting the death of Chrift, 
 *' which appears to oppofe what I have ftated as 
 " the Scripture-do£lrine of redemption by Jefus 
 " Chrift : and that, as notliing has occurred in 
 " the undifputed writings of the Apoftles, which 
 *' in any way really oppofes it, I cannot admit 
 " that what may be found in that Epillle, ought 
 " to be allowed to decide againft that" dodrine, 
 " even if it appeared pofitlvely inconfiftent with 
 *' it."* In anfw^r to the pofition contained in 
 this laft fentence, I muft be allowed to repeat, 
 that fince, agreeably to your own acknowledge- 
 ment, this Epiftle is an evidence of the belief of 
 the Chriftian church in Judea, during the age of 
 the Apoftlcs, it may fairly be applied to deter- 
 mine the fenfe of fuch doubtful paflages, relating 
 to the fubjeft before us, as may occur in the 
 hiftorical books of Scripture, and in the undif- 
 puted Epiftles. But what may and ought to be 
 done upon this ground only, mull be done, if, as 
 I think I have fufficicntly Ihewn, no doubt wliat- 
 
 * Page 328. 
 ■f See paje 67. See also a similar acknowledgement respect- 
 ing the Epistle of St. Jude, page 7i?. 
 
214 
 
 ever can reafonably be entertained refpefting the 
 authenticity and canonical authority of this Epiftle. 
 If therefore, it fhall appear that thedodlrine con- 
 tained in this Epiftle is inconfiftent with what you 
 have ftated as the Scripture-dodlrine of redemp- 
 tion by Jefus Chrift; and if the paflages, in the 
 other parts of the facred volume, which you have 
 attempted to explain away, do in their plain and 
 obvious fenfe, either direflly aflert, or indire6lly 
 fupport the fame doftrine, the conclufion is ine- 
 vitable, that what you have ftated as the Scrip- 
 ture-do6trine, is truly and properly your own, or 
 the Unitarian doftrine, and not the doftrine of 
 the Scriptures. I fhail, therefore, begin as before, 
 with the Epiille to the Hebrews. 
 
 In the note G. at the end of your volume, I 
 find fome animadverfions upon the firft thing 
 which I had deduced from thisEpiftlc; namely, 
 that the Mofaical difpenfation " was ordained 
 " folely for the purpofe of typifying and prcfi- 
 *' guring a better ftate of things to follow."* This 
 you call ' my opinion,' which you do not con- 
 trovert, any otherwife than by fetting in oppoli- 
 tion to it the counter-opinion of Dr. Sykes, who 
 tells us, that " a type is what by the appointment 
 *' of God prefigures fomething future : it is what 
 " adumbrates, or is defigued by God to adura- 
 
 * Preservative, page 25. 
 
215 
 
 " brate fometbing elfe."* He does not think that 
 *' there were no inftances of types as fignifying 
 " prefigurations of future events :" on the con- 
 trary, he affirms that " there are many luch in 
 " the Scriptures." But fays he, " in no place 
 " where this word occurs throughout the New 
 *' Teftament, does it ever fignify, or at lead it 
 " cannot be jiroved to fignify that any thing in the 
 *' law was dcfigncd to JJiadovj out, or to [irefigure 
 " Chrift, or his kingdom." t It appears then that 
 the objection is, not to my calling the Mofaical 
 difpenfation a type or figure of a future difpenfa- 
 tion, but to my aflerting that it was ordained for 
 this exprefs purpofe. In confirmation of this 
 opinion, I had alTerted than in the Epillle to the 
 Hebrews, the Mofaical difpenfation is expreflly 
 called ' the example, the pattern, the fhadow,' of 
 the better difpenfation to follow; and I think that 
 thefe names give us an intimation at leaft of the 
 purpofe for which the Mofaical difpenfation was 
 ordained. But if I Ihould be told that this is not 
 fufficient; that tliefe names declare merely what 
 the difpenfation is, not what it v.as originally 
 defigned to be, I would refer to Heb. viii, 5. 
 " Who" (namely, the legal priefts) " lerve unto 
 " the example and fhadow of heavenly things; 
 '' as Mofes was admonilhed of God, when he was 
 
 » Page 358. f Page 3:k0. 
 
216 
 
 " about to make the tabernacle : For, see, fays he, 
 *' that thou make all things according to the pat- 
 *' tern (rwov) Ihewed to thee in the mount." I 
 know not whether this is one of the places which 
 Dr. Sykes has examined : if it be, I think he can 
 hardly have ventured to deny, that the tyjie of the 
 tabernacle fhewn to Mofes in the mount, was 
 purpofely defigned to be the pattern or model 
 according to which the real tabernacle was to be 
 made: and the fervice of the priefts, in the earthly- 
 tabernacle, is here faid to have a limilar intention ; 
 and was, therefore, defigned purpofely to typify 
 and prefigure the fervice of the heavenly taberna- 
 cle. But I hardly think this a point of any great 
 importance; it is fufficient for our argument to 
 aflume tliat the legal difpenfation is the type, the 
 pattern, tlie example, the fliadow, of the Evange- 
 lical: 
 
 My next afilertion is, that the Apoftle's inten- 
 tion in this Epiftle, was to fhew the fuperiority of 
 the Chriftian difpenfation above the legal, " by a 
 " comparifon of the two in their correfponding 
 " parts."* You exprefs the intention fomewhat 
 differently ; faying, " It was the writer's objeft to 
 " fhew, that whatever there was of excellence in 
 " the Jewiih ritual, there was fomething fimilar 
 " to it of equal, or fuperior value, intlie Chriilian 
 * Preserv. page UQ, 
 
217 
 
 " fyflem."* This, Sir, is not quite accurate, 
 Inftead of ' fomething iimilar to it,' I propofe to 
 read ' fomething correfponding with it:' for widi- 
 out fome fuch alteration this fentcnce is not con- 
 fiftent with another which follows almoft imme- 
 diately, in which you propofe to explain " thofe 
 " (analogies) wliich appear to give fome counte- 
 " nance to the idea that the death of Chrift, con- 
 " fidered as a facrifice corrcf/iondlng to thofe of 
 " the law, rendered God propitious." But then 
 we muft hear no more of the Apoftle's employing 
 " Jewifh modes of interpreting Scripture:" efpe- 
 cially you muft not talk of his dwelling " upon 
 " fuigle and obfcure points of refemblance;" be- 
 caufe analogy does not confift in fingle points 
 having a refemblance to each other, but in cor- 
 refponding points being in fimilar relations; For 
 *' analogy is the limilitude of ratios. "f 
 
 Of the points, in the two difpenfations, which 
 are faid in this Epiftlc to correfpond with each 
 other, I particularly mentioned thefe two; namely, 
 the ofRce of Clnifl v.-ith that of the legal high 
 priefl, and the blood of Chrift with that of the 
 legal viftims. But I perceive that I have flill 
 much to do refpedling Chrift's prieftly office; 
 many miftakes to reftify, much mifapprchenfion 
 to remove. In the following paffiige you treat 
 * Letters, page 331. f Elements of Euclid, B. v. Def. 8. 
 
218 
 
 this office with no great refpe6t, and rather re- 
 commend tlie total omiffion of it out of the Chrif- 
 tian fyftem : " It is a moft remarkable circum- 
 *' ftance that he fliould have been truly and pro- 
 •' perly a priefl, and fliould really and literally 
 *' have exercifed the office without his having 
 *' known it, or at leaft without his ever intimating 
 *' any thing of the kind. And if he were a prieft 
 " only figuratively, and is fpoken of as fuch, folely 
 *' in reference to the Jewifh ritual, and to remove 
 *' Jewifh prejudices, furely thofe who regard the 
 *' rehgion of Jefus as a fpiritual fervice, free 
 " from *the weak and beggarly elements' of the 
 " Mofaic ritual, cannot be blameworthy in ma- 
 *' king fuch a figurative reprefentation no part of 
 " their fyftem, inafmuch as the reality makes no 
 " part of Chrillianity. There was great propriety 
 " in thus reprefenting our Saviour to the Jews: 
 *' but it ftrikes me, that to the imagination of a 
 " Chriftian, it is rather derogatory from the dig- 
 " nity of our Lord's office, to fpeak of him under 
 *' this charafter."* It cannot fail to be obfervcd, 
 that the whole of this reafoning proceeds upon the 
 falfe luppofition, (which 1 have already had fuch 
 frequent occafion to notice,) that language, if not 
 literal, is. o{ ntQe^iiy figurative, and the argument 
 is, that if Chrift be a priell oiiXy figuratively, he is 
 
 * Letters, paje 229. 
 
219 
 
 not a prieil really. But where tlie premifes arc 
 falfe, the conclufioii cannot be fafe. Thus you 
 proceed : " The office of Jewifh high prieil, and 
 " that of our Saviour, fully agree but in thefe 
 " two leading points, — both were fupreme under 
 *' their refpe£tive difpenfations, and both had the 
 <' miniflry of reconciliation communicated to 
 " them ; but it will not be found that the high 
 " prieil effefted zny fph'ltual dehverance, that he 
 '' removed moral impurities, that he gave to men 
 *' thofe glorious hopes and profpe£ls, which, in 
 " millions of inllances, have enabled the Chriftian 
 *' to triumph over Hn and death ; it will not be 
 " found that he abohfhed death, and redeemed 
 " them from iniquity; nor that any thing which 
 " God wrought in or by him, nor any thing which 
 " he did or fufFered, allured to men fuch bleffings 
 " as we enjoy through our Lord Jefus Chrifi."*" 
 It is. Sir, moll true, that the high prieil did not 
 efFe6l a fpiritual deliverance, did not remove 7}JoraL 
 impurities, in a word did net procure for men any 
 of thofe bleflings which we enjoy through our 
 Lord Jefus Chrill. And it is necellary to ray 
 own argument that he Ihould not have done thefe 
 things: for if he had, where would have been the 
 difference between the law and the Gofpel ? be- 
 tween the type and the antitype ? between the 
 
 * Paje 330. 
 K 2 
 
220 
 
 reprefentation and the thing reprefented ? But, 
 
 Sir, did he do nothing correfponding with thefe 
 
 things? Did he not efFedl a A-^«/ deliverance? Did 
 
 he not remove le^al impurities? Did he not procure 
 
 for the worfliippers of the tabernacle legal bleflings? 
 
 This is all for which I contend ■* and upon thefe 
 
 *I am not ignorant that some very able and zealous defen- 
 ders of the doctrine of atonement, ascribe to the legal sacri- 
 fices a higher efficacy than 1 am disposed to do. I will, 
 1 hiTefore, take the ])resent opportunity of saying a few words 
 in vindication of my own opinion. 
 
 It will not be denied, that outward uncleanness, arising 
 from certain diseases, aiul certain acts relating solely to the 
 body, are declared by the law to be of so defiling a nature, as 
 xo render a person unholy, and unfit to appear before God. 
 It will also be acknowledged, that certain violations of the 
 divine law committed ignorantly, which accordingly had \n 
 them nothing immoral, nevertheless subjected the sinner to 
 < he same unbolmess, and loss of God's.favour, as the bodily 
 sins above mentioned. And it is equally undeniable that tho 
 appointed way, by wbich he, who was in a state of legal un- 
 cleanness, or had sinned through ignorance, could recover 
 the divine favour, and be re-admitlcd to his religious privi- 
 leges, was by a sin-otFering or sacrifice of atonement. 
 
 All this will be admitted; but it will at the same time be 
 contended, " that there were other sacrifices strictly />ro/>(Y/«- 
 " tnri), being ordained to avert the displeasure of God, from 
 " the (wiltulj trausgressor, not only of the ceremonial, but 
 " in some cases, even of thir: moral law." 'When it is said 
 " that there were ot\Miv s:xcv\iwkt% tilrictli/ projutiatori/," it is 
 implied that these, of which we arc speaking, were itot strictly 
 jiropitiatory. But this is mistake: for that is propitiatory, 
 which places in a state of reconciliation with (lod ; op makes 
 a thing to be acceptable to God, which before was displeasing 
 to him, and was cut off from his presence: and since these 
 sacrifices had uncjuestionably this eilicacy, they were strictlv 
 propitiatory. And it has not without reason l)eeii afiirmed, 
 that the sacrifices ottered in the alleged cases of vwlful trans- 
 gression of the moral law, had no higher efficacy. These case-; 
 are two. The first is that ol a j)erson who liad unlawfully 
 retained in his po^sesiion the known projioriy of another man ; 
 
221 
 
 and fimilar correfpondencies all the analogies in 
 the Epiille to the Hebrews are founded. You 
 propofe to lay afide all thefe ; and, if we muft 
 have 3. figurative reprefentation, " let us" you fay 
 " rather fpeak of him, as he fpoke of himfelf, as 
 
 llie second is that of a person who was found to have had 
 criminal connection with a betrothed bond-maid, 1. " It a 
 " soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie 
 " unto his neighbour, in that which was delivered him to 
 " keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by vio- 
 " lence, or hath deceived his neighbour, or have found that 
 " which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth false- 
 " ly; in any of all these things that a man doeth, sinnintj 
 " therein : then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is 
 " guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently 
 " away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or 
 " that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thiHg 
 " which he found, or all that about wliich he hath sworn 
 "falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall 
 " add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to 
 " whom it appertaineth in the day of his trespass offering. 
 " And he shall bring his trespass otftring unto the Lord, a 
 " ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, 
 " for a trespass offering, unto the priest ; and the priest shall 
 " make an atonement for him before the Lord ; and it shall 
 " be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in 
 " trespassing therein. Lev. vi. '2-1 . 2. " And whosoever 
 " lieth carnally with a woman, that is a hond-maid, betrothed 
 " to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given 
 " her; she shall be scourged;" [Heb. there shall be a scourg- 
 ing: i. e. both shall be scourged,J "they shall not be put 
 " to death, because she was not free: and he shall bring his 
 " trespass offering, unto the Lord, to the door of the taberna- 
 " cle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering : 
 V and the priest shall make an atonement for him, with the 
 *' ram of tlie trespass offering, before the Lord, for his sin 
 " which he hath done ; and the sin which he hath done, shall 
 " be forgiven him." Lev. xix. 20-22. 
 
 It was said above, that bodily uncleanness, and sins of ig- 
 norance, were sufficient to render a man unholy, and to cut 
 him off from communion with God. And if so, then it can- 
 not be denied that all wilful transgression of the divine law, 
 
 K ^ 
 
222 
 
 " the good fhepheid, who hiid down his life for 
 " the flieep."* It is plain that our Lord here 
 fpeaks of liimfelf analogically: and his reafoning 
 of himfcif is, as far as the analogy goes, moft 
 beautiful and ftriking. As this is an example of 
 
 whether ceremonial or moral, must produce the same effect. 
 In the case of great and presumptuous sins, no atonement was 
 provided; but excision was the appointed punishment. In 
 the case of the smaller sins above mentioned, an atonement 
 was appointed: and if noihinf^ more liad been required, it 
 might have been contended, not only that the sin-offering 
 averted the divine displeasure by purifying: the ofl'ender, from 
 the lejal uncleanness which his sin had brought upon him ; 
 but also that it " expiated the guilt of the sin in such a pian- 
 " ner as to avert the punishment of it from the offender." 
 But more was required : for the offender subjected himself to 
 a penalty or a punishment. In the case of the unjust detainer 
 of the goods of another, he was compelled not only to restore 
 the thing detained, but also to add thereto one-fifth more: 
 and in the case of criminal connection with a betrothed bond- 
 maid, he was '.o be scourged : nor was the atonement to be 
 made fur him before he had subnutted to the sentence of the 
 law. It follows, that the sacrifice of atonenient was not of- 
 fered to deliver the offender from the punishment of his im- 
 morality ; but for bis reconciliation with God, and in order 
 to restore him to those religious privileges, which, by his 
 offence, he bad forfeited: that is, it was offered with the sanie 
 intention, and its efficacy extended just as far, as the saciiti- 
 cial atonements for ceremonial oflences and sins of ignorance : 
 and, therefore, it was no otherwise propitiatory. 
 
 But were it otherwise, it would not affect the present argu- 
 ment, which is concerned with those sacrifices only, with 
 which the death of Christ is expressly said, in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, t>> be analogous: and these are the ottering of 
 the high priest on the day of expiation, and the ashes of the 
 burnt heifer, mentioned in the nineteenth chapter of the 
 book of Numbers. There is no ])retence to say, that the lat- 
 ter of these had any other intention than /^'^w/ sanctification; 
 aiul that there is no ground to ascribe a higher efficacy to the 
 offering of the high priest, I have shewn at large in my 
 Bamiiton Lectures, sermon iii. to which I refer the reader. 
 * Page 310. See also page 30.9. 
 
22S 
 
 your own bringing forward, I will examine i;: 
 fomewhat at large, in order that the true force of 
 reafoning by analogy maybe better underllood. It 
 is plain that here are two relations, that of Chrilt 
 to his church, and that of the fliepherd to his 
 flock ; the correfponding terras are the two ante- 
 cedents, Chrift and the fhepherd ; and the two 
 confequents, the church and the flock: and the 
 analogy runs thus ; as the Ihepherd is to his flock, 
 fo is Chrift to his church. But the fhepherd is 
 the guardian and protcv^or of his flock: therefore, 
 Chrift is the guardian and pioteftor of his church. 
 But the Ihepherd is not always true to his truft : 
 if he careth not for the fheep, he will run no 
 hazard in their defence; when 'he feeth the wolf 
 coming,' he ' leaveth the flreep and fieeth, and 
 the wolf catcheth them, and fcattereth the fheep:' 
 Not fo the good fhepherd ; he careth for the 
 fheep, and even ' giveth his life' for them. But 
 fays oar Lord, 'I lay down my life for the fheep.' 
 Hence we perceive at once to which of the two 
 clafleshe belongs, and how juftly he fays of him- 
 felf, ' I am the good fhepherd.'* It appears then 
 that by this reprefentation we are taught tlie great 
 love of Chrift for his church, it was for this pur- 
 pofe that it was introduced ; and more than this 
 the analogy does not teach. Concerning the end 
 
 * John X. 11-15, 
 
 K4 
 
, 224 
 
 of Chrlfl's death, we learn from it nothing parti- 
 cularly : we may, indeed, colle£t from it gene- 
 rally, that he died in order to deliver his church 
 from danger, but we learn nothing concerning the 
 nature of this danger, the manner in which the 
 deliverance was efFefted, or even whether it was 
 efFefted or no: for the good fhepherd might lofe 
 his life in defence of the fheep, and yet, after ail, 
 not be able to deliver them. Let us not expeft 
 more from this reprefentation, than it was in- 
 tended to teach. I confefs that I cannot learn 
 from it that particular end of Chrifl's death for 
 which I contend : but let me, Sir, obferve, that 
 neither can you learn from it any of thofe ends of 
 which you have already fpoken, fuch as, the aflur- 
 ance of Gofpel bleffings, the revelation of a ftate 
 of retribution, &c. nor that of which you pre- 
 fently after fpeak when you affirm of Chrift, that 
 ** he was the mediator of the new covenant, and 
 " died to ratify //," 
 
 I fhall now proceed to ftate more diftin£Hy 
 the doftrine delivered in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, 
 rcfpefting the priefthood and offering of Chrift. 
 
 In the ninth chapter the Apoftle begins with 
 defcribing the old tabernacle, confilling of two 
 parts, feparated from each other, by a vail or cur- 
 tain ; of which the outer part was called the 
 Jantluary or the holy^ and the inner part the hoUeJi 
 
1225 
 
 sf all. He alio delciibcs generally the manner 
 in which each part was furnifhed. He then de- 
 fcribes the miniflry of the priefts in each part; 
 and dwells particularly upon the miniflry of the 
 high prieft in the inner tabernacle on the great 
 day of expiation, the intent of the fervice which 
 lie there performed, and the fuperior efficacv of 
 the corrcfponding miniitry of Chrill: in the hea- 
 venly tabernacle. Of this latter paffage (v. 6-T5,) 
 the following is the public verfion. " Now when 
 " thefe things were thus ordained, the priefls went 
 •' always into the firil tabernacle, accomplifliing 
 " the fervice of God. But into the fecond went 
 " the high priefl alone once every year, not with- 
 " out blood, which he offered for himfelf, and for 
 "the errors of the people: the Holy Ghofl this 
 '' fignifying, that the way into the holiefl of all 
 " was not yet made manifcfl:, v^'hile as the firfl 
 •' tabernacle was yet flanding : which was a figure 
 " for the time then prefent, in which were offered 
 " both gifts and facrifices, that could not make 
 '' him that did the fervice perfe£l, as pertaining 
 " to the confcicnce ; which ftood only in meats 
 ■' ^nd drinks, and divers wafliings and carnal ordi- 
 " nances, impofed on them until the time of re- 
 •' formation. But Clirifl being com.e an high 
 " priefl of good things to come, by a greater and 
 •• more perfeft rabernacle, not made witli hands, 
 V- 5 
 
226 
 
 " that is to fay, not of this building; neither by 
 " the blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
 " bIoo4, he entered in once into the holy place, 
 *' having obtained eternal redemption for us. For 
 " if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the afhes 
 " of an heifer, fprinkling the unclean, fanftifieth 
 " to the purifying of the flefh ; how much more 
 " fhall the blood of Chrift, who, through the eter- 
 *' nal fpirit, offered himfelf without fpot to God, 
 " purge your confcience from dead works to ferve 
 *• the living God?" Th.at there are errors in the 
 above verfion,* I am ready to grant ; but they are 
 
 * Perhaps the follouiiig rendering may more exactly express 
 the sense of the original. ' i',. These things having- been thus 
 
 • ordained, the priests go continually into the first tabernacle, 
 ' a(!complishinglhe divine services. 7- Kut into tlie second the 
 ' higli priest alone, once a year, not without blood, which he 
 ' offers for himself, and for the sins of the people: 8. The holy 
 ' Ghost signifying this, that the way of the holies has not beeti 
 ' plainly revealed during the con ti nuance (;f the first tabernacle. 
 ' 9. 10. Whicli is a figure up to the present time: in which are 
 ' offered gifts and sacrifices, (things imposed until the time of 
 ' reformation,) which sacrifices cannot as pertaining to the 
 ' conscience make him perfect, who worshippeth only the 
 ' meats and drinks, and various washings and ordinances of the 
 'flesh. I). But rhrist, the high priest of the future good 
 ' things, being now come, through the greater and more pcr- 
 ' feet tabernacle, not made with hands, (that is to say, making 
 ' no part of this creation.) 12. Neither by the blood of goats 
 ' and of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into tbe 
 ' h dies, having obtained eternal redeu)pl ion. 13. Fur if the 
 ' blood of bulls and of goats, and the asbes of an heifer, sprink- 
 
 • ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; 
 ' ;4. How much more shall the blood of Cliiist, who, througlj 
 ' the eternal spirit, olVered himself without spot to God, purge 
 ' your conscience from dead works, in order to your cerving 
 ' the living God.'' 
 
227 
 
 not of fuch a nature as to pervert or even obicurc 
 the main fenfe, as far as concerns our prefent en- 
 quiry, refpe£ling the correfpondencies in the two 
 difpenfations, and the fuperior excellency of the 
 Chriflian difpenfation. It is manifeft that the holy 
 of holies into which the high priefl entered, is 
 here made to correfpond with the heaven into 
 which Chrift afcended; the office of the high 
 pricil: in the earthly tabernacle, with that of 
 Chrifh in the heavenly tabernacle ; the blood of 
 the legal viftims, with the blood of Chrift ; exter- 
 nal uncleannefs, with the defilements of the con- 
 fcience; the puriiication of the body by the offer- 
 ing of the high priefl, with the puriiication of the 
 confcience by the offering of Chrift, 'I'he fupe- 
 rior excellency of the Chriftian difpenfation is 
 ftated in feveral particulars, i. The offering of 
 tlie legal high prieft was temporary; it fan^lified 
 the people, and confecrated thein only for a year ; 
 and on every return of the appointed day, the 
 ceremonies were repeated : — but the offering of 
 Chrift was once for all; he entered in once iuto 
 the holy place, and by the ofiering which he then 
 made he obtained, not a temporary, but an eter- 
 nal redemption. 2. The legal high prieft offered 
 the blood of brute creatures : — but Chriil offered 
 his own blood. 3. The oiood offered by the legal 
 liigh prieft cleanfed only the body of the wor- 
 k6 
 
228 
 
 Ihipper from outward impurities ; its effect reached 
 not to tiie confcicnce ; it could not remove the 
 guilt of moral fin: — but the blood of Chrift purifies 
 the confcience, and wafhes out the flain of even 
 mortal fms. 4. The blood ofthefe legal offerings 
 fanftified and confecrated to a ceremonial fervice 
 only, confifting of meat-offerings and drink-offer- 
 ings, and ablutions of various kinds and inflitu- 
 tions, relating merely to the outward man : — but 
 the blood of Chrift fanftifies and confecrates to 
 the pure and fpiritual fervice of the living God. 
 And the whole implies that as bodily uncleannefs 
 rendered the Ifraelite unfit for the ceremonial wor- 
 fhip of the tabernacle, and cut him off from ac- 
 cefs to God, and communion with him, till the 
 appointed purification entitled him to his religious 
 privileges ; fo the defilement of the confcience in- 
 capacitates a man for the fpiritual worfhip of the 
 Chriftian church ; and it is only through the 
 blood of Chrift which cleanfeth us from all fin, 
 that we have accefs to God, and become qualified 
 for communion with him. All which is briefly, 
 but beautifully expreffed in the concluding part of 
 the above paflage. " If the blood of bulls and 
 *' of goats, and the afhes of an heifer, fprinkling 
 " the unclean, fanftifieth to the purifying of the 
 " flefh; liow much more Ihall the blood of Chrift 
 '• purge your confcience from dead works to fcrve 
 " the living God r" 
 
229 
 
 Such is the true doftrine fet forth in this Epil- 
 tle, refpetStingthe death of Chrift, and its efficacy. 
 And it will not now be difficult to point out and 
 Kaiove your mifapprehcnfion of the Apoftle's 
 meaning, in the feveral places upon which yoii 
 have thought tit to comment. Of thefe in their 
 order. 
 
 Heb. vii. 27. 
 
 " Who needeth not daily, as thofc high priefts, 
 " to offer up facrifices, lirft for his own lins, and 
 '' then for the people's : for this he did once when 
 " he offered up himfelf." 
 
 Upon this paffage you thus comment.* "Here 
 " for the firll time the writer brings in the death 
 " of Chrift, in dired reference to the Mofaic 
 " ritual ; and it is to fhew that it was unneceffary 
 *' for him to offer facrifices c/aily: for fince our 
 " high prieft (v. 28.) was perfected (TtT£X£/w//.£vov) 
 " for ever, perfedted ny.uu^sn by fufferings, (ch. v. 
 *' 8. 9.) one fuch facritice was fufficient. The fa- 
 ^' crifices of the law cleanfed the high prieft from 
 " his ceremonial delilement; the fufferings of Chrift 
 " completed the perfection of his moral character. 
 " This is here the point of refemblance, and the 
 '' writer carries it no further: for he docs not, in 
 " what here follows, make any allufion to thefecond 
 " objedt of the legal facrifices ' for the fins of the 
 »PaKe331, 
 
230 
 
 " people," In tliis paflage you make the lufFer- 
 ings, by which CiirilVs moral charafter was com- 
 pleted, to correfpond with the facrifices, by which 
 the high prieft was cleanfed from ceremonial d(^- 
 iilements; conlequently the voluntary fubmiffion 
 of Chriil to thefe fufferings, is that offering of 
 hiuifelf, which correfponds with the high prieft's 
 offering of the facrifices by which he was cleanfed: 
 But if fo, then the facriflce mull: have been offer- 
 ed before the death of the viftim ; contrary not 
 only to the eflablilhed practice in all facrifices, but 
 alfo to the Apoftle's declaration refpefting the 
 offering of Chriil:. 
 
 The reafon v^'liich you affign for the fufficlency 
 of one fuch facriiice, (that is, if 1 rightly under- 
 lland your phrafe, the reafon of its not being ne- 
 ceffary that Chrift Ihouid devote himfelf to death 
 more than once,) is, becaufe he was perfected 
 for ever by fufferings, that is according to your 
 own explanation, becaufe his fufferings completed 
 his moral charaftcr. But this explanation is 
 founded upon a miftake : you imagine that the 
 verb nxnouj is ufcd in the places to which you re- 
 fer in tlie ien^c of to pcrfc^, or make comjilete. 
 But this is not its fignification in any of the places 
 in this Epiftle, wjiich refer to the prieflhood of 
 Chrift, where it has the fame meaning as in the 
 Greek verfion of tlie Old Teftament, when it is 
 
231 
 
 ufed with reference to the legal prieRs, where it 
 fignifies to ro/z/^cTrt/r ; and thus it is a6lually ren- 
 dered by our tranilators in v. 28. of this chapter, 
 "Who is coyi^fccratt'd for evcvmorc:" a rendering ' 
 which needs no amendment. 
 
 The intention of the high prieft's offering ac- 
 cording to the Apoftle, was twofold: he offered 
 for his own fins, and then for the fins of the peo- 
 ple. You lele£l the former of thefe as the point 
 of refemblance between his offering and that of 
 Chrill ; and will not allow that the fufferings of 
 Chrift had any relation to the fins of the people. 
 Another perfbn, not without reafon, might feledl 
 the latter as the true point of refemblance, and 
 might fay, that as Chrift was perfetSl and without 
 fpot, he needed not to offer for his own fins. But 
 the Apoftle means no more than to contraft gene- 
 rally the temporary effeft of the high prieft's offer- 
 ing with the perpetual efteft of the offering of 
 Chrift. He tells us tliat the incapacity under 
 which the high prieft laboured of executing his 
 office, and the incapacity under which the people 
 laboured of performing to God an acceptable 
 fervice, was not removed by one offering for ever; 
 but he was obliged to repeat the appointed offer- 
 ing daily, that is, on everyday of expiation, for his 
 own reconfecration, and in order to fajidify the 
 people. But Chrift was confecrated for ever, and 
 
252 
 
 his churcli was llin6tincd for ever by a fingle offer- 
 ing: therefore it was not neceflary that he fliould 
 offer more than once. 
 
 Heb. viii. 3. 
 
 *' For every high prieft is ordained to offer 
 " gifts and lacrifices ; wherefore it is of neceffity 
 " that this man have fomcwhat alfo to offer." 
 
 Upon rhefe laft words, you obferve,*' " TJie 
 " ncceHity is obvioufly the neceffity of legal fit- 
 " nefs: if Chrift had not fomewhat to offer, he 
 " could not have been laid to fulfil the ofhce.' 
 I am not fure that I rightly undcrfland your mean- 
 ing; nor do I perceive how the exprellion 'legal 
 fitnefs' applies to Chrifl. 1 know of no legal lit- 
 nefs which is neceflary to him. The meaning of 
 the Apoflle is fufficiently plain. He virtually 
 afcribes to Chrifl, upon his afcenfion into heaven, 
 an office correfponding with that which the high 
 prieft under the law difcharged in the earthly ta- 
 bernacle; and he argues that Chrift having fuch 
 a prieflhood, muft of neceffity do that, for the 
 doing of which the legal high priefl was exprefllv 
 ordained: bccaufe the legal high prieft is ordained 
 to offer gifts and faerifices, it is of neceffity that 
 this high prieft have alfo fomcwhat to offer. 
 
 You thus proceed, " U'his verfe appears to 
 " affign a reaiuii for what may be conjidcrcd as 
 * Page 33'.'. 
 
233 
 
 *• implied in v. i. (comp. ch. i. 3.) he offered his 
 " facritice, and then alcended to heaven: the 
 *' fucceeding verfe affigns the reafon for his not 
 " exercifing his priefthood on earth." I know 
 not where it is faid that Chrift offered his facrifice 
 before he afcended to heaven. The firft verfe of 
 this chapter makes the afcenfion to precede the 
 offering: nor is it otherwife faid in the third verfe 
 of the firfl chapter: where the Apoflle declares 
 that " when he had by himfelf purged our lins," 
 he " fat down on the right hand of the Majefty 
 '• on high." This merely makes the offering for 
 fin to precede the feflion at the right hand of God : 
 But the latter was unqueftionably fubfequent to 
 the afcenfion : and why not the former alfo ? And 
 in truth that it was fo, is acknowledged by your- 
 felf, when you fay that " the fucceeding verfe 
 " afllgns the reafon for his not exercifing his priefl- 
 *' hood on earth." — In the remarks which follow, 
 you flate generally the principles upon which you 
 proceed, in explaining the Apollle's language in 
 this Epiftle : and therefore, thefe remarks demand 
 attention. They are thus introduced: "In this 
 " chapter the writer declares that the covenant of 
 " which Jefus is the mediator, is a better cove- 
 " nant than the old one ; and having eftablifhed 
 " this, in the next chapters he Ihews its fuperior 
 " efficacy in moral purification.'' You here 
 
234 
 
 afcribe to the new covenant the power of cfCcd.\ng 
 moral purification: but you do not afcribe to the 
 old covenant the power of removing ritual impu- 
 rities ; you more accurately afcribe this efFeft to 
 the appointed facrifices which were offered for 
 this purpofe, while the old covenant was in force : 
 and we might reafonably expeft that the power of 
 effecting moral purification is to be afcribed to 
 fomething which has the fame relation to the new 
 covenant, as thefe facrifices have to the old. But 
 no fuch thing; for let us hear: " The ritual facri- 
 " fices, he clearly flates, had no further efFe£l than 
 " to remove ritual impurities; and they were 
 " merely impofed (comp. Gal. v. i.) till the time 
 *' of reformation, owp^ascos (ch. ix. lo.) when the 
 " right w^ay of fpiritual deliverance fhould be de- 
 " clared — till that covenant Ihould be brought 
 " into effeft, which was ratified by the blood of 
 " Jefus. Now as that covenant had for its obje£t, 
 " fpiritual repentance and holinefs on the one 
 " hand, and merciful forgivenefs on the other, the 
 " writer with great juftice reprefents the voluntary 
 *' faciifice, by which it was ratified, as of infi- 
 " nitely greater importance, than thofe, which 
 ** were the appointed means of removing legal dif- 
 •' qualifications merely: and without any violence 
 " to truth, he fpeaks of it as procuring thofe blef- 
 *' fmgs, which, in then exilling circumflances, 
 
235 
 
 " could not hnve been alTured to us without it." 
 It appears then that the legal facriflces were fo far 
 efieftual as to remove ritual impurities ; or as you 
 afterwards exprefs it, of removing legal difqualifi- 
 cations. And they were the apliointed means of 
 efFe£ting this purpofe : they derived this power 
 from the appointment of God; and their efficacy 
 was direct and immediate. But what fimilar effi- 
 cacy does the blood of Chrifl: pofTefs? What dif- 
 qualifications, what impurity is it the appointed 
 means of removing by its own direft and imme- 
 diate influence ? I do not perceive that you afcribe 
 to it any fuch efficacy. Where then is the cor- 
 refpondence, which is eflential to the Apoillc's 
 argument? You aflert, indeed, that the new 
 covenant was ratified by the blood of Jefus: but 
 you do not pretend that it was the a/iliolnied mecins 
 •ofefFe6\ing even this purpofe: it became fo ac- 
 cidentally and eventually. Let me remind you 
 of your former ftatement of this matter ; namely, 
 that in the courfe of our Lord's miniftry, fuch 
 ciicumftances occurred, as rendered it impoffible 
 for him to fecure the great end of his miffion, any 
 otherwife than by fubmitting to death; which, 
 therefore, he did voluntarily : and his voluntary 
 fubmiflion to death you ca'.l ■a.facr'ifice : and it was 
 the facrifice by which the new covenant was rati' 
 fied, not becaufe it was expreflly appointed for 
 
236 
 
 this purpofc, but becaufe by the mere courfe of 
 events it became the means of afluring to us the 
 bleffings of this covenant: and that which in this 
 accidental way became the means of ajfurhig thefe 
 bleffings to us, and nothing more ; you boldly 
 affirm, may, without any violation ot truth, be 
 faid to have ^L^M^Wy procured them/or us ! 
 Heb. ix. 12. 
 
 " Neither by the blood of goats and calves, 
 *' but by his own blood, he entered in once into 
 " the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- 
 " tion for us." 
 
 This paflage you cite and explain as follows:* 
 " Chrift — entered once for all into the mofl holy 
 " place, not by the blood of goats' and calves, but 
 " by his own blood,' yielding up even his own life 
 " to accomplifh the will of God, concerning man- 
 " kind, thus ' having obtained an eternal redemp- 
 *' tion,' a deliverance not from the prefent penal- 
 " ties and incapacitations of the law, but ' eternal 
 " falvation to all who obey him,' ch. v. 9." 
 The Apoflle in this place fpeaks of Chrift's en- 
 trance into the moft holy place, that is into hea- 
 ven, with his own blood — you fpeak of his yield- 
 ing up his own life to accomplifh the will of God, 
 concerning mankind ; which, in my apprehenfion, 
 are two very different things, and are not to be 
 * Page 333. 
 
237 
 
 icFcricd cither to the fame time, or to the fame 
 place. A nd in fpeaking of the eternal redemption, 
 or deliverance which he obtained, you tell us for 
 whom the deliverance was obtained, namely, for 
 all who obey him; and from what the deliverance 
 is not, namely, that it is not " from the prefent 
 " penalties and incapacitations of the law," but 
 from what it is, you do not tell us. 
 Heb. ix. 13. 14. 
 
 " For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and 
 " the aflies of an heifer, fprinkling the unclean, 
 " iandifieth to the purifying of the flefli; how 
 " much more Ihall the blood of Chrift, who, 
 " through the eternal fpirit, offered himfelf with- 
 " out fpot to God, cleanfe your confcience from 
 " dead works to ferve the livins: God." 
 
 The following is your comment upon this 
 remarkable pallage.* " For if the facrifice o( bulls 
 " zndi ^oats was the appointed means of removing 
 " legal impurities ; ' how much more fliall the 
 '- blood of the Chrift,' a rational Being holy and 
 " obedient to God, ' who, through the eterna^ 
 " fpirit,' under the guidance of the fpirit of God, 
 " with a full acquaintance with his will and defire 
 " to obey it, ' offered himfelf fpotlefs unto God,' 
 " devoted even his life, though himfelf free from 
 *' guilt, to accomplifh the gracious purpofes of 
 * Pagre 333. 
 
238 
 
 ♦' God, towards mankind, to aflurc to them the 
 " hope of pardon and everlafting life, — how much 
 " more fhall fuch a facrifice ' cleanfe your con- 
 *' fcience from dead works,' from evil defires and 
 *' difpofitions, and the dread of punifhment for 
 *' pall fins, ' fo as to ferve the livhig God." Here 
 *' you plainly declare: that "the facriiices oi bulls 
 " and goats was the appointed means of removing 
 " legal impurities ;" but you do not fay that the 
 facrifice of Clirift was the appointed means of re- 
 moving, or that it actually did remove impurity 
 of any kind. It is alfo to be obfcrved, that in 
 this place again you make the offering ofChrill 
 to be the devpting of ' his life to accomplifh the 
 gracious purpofes of God, towards mankind:' and 
 to this a£t of his you afcribc an indirect and re- 
 mote efficacy in cleanfing ' the confclence from 
 evil defires and difpcfitions;' but in wafliing out 
 the llain of fin, and in cleanfing the confcienec 
 from pollution and guilt, it does not appear from 
 your reprefentation that the blood of Chrift has 
 the leall; efficacy of any kind, either direft or in- 
 direft, immediate or remote. Where then is the 
 analogy ? 
 
 Hcb. ix. 15. 
 " And for this caufc he is the mediator of the 
 " New Teftament, that by means of death, for 
 " the redemption of the tranfgrefiions, tJiac were 
 
239 
 
 *' uncler the firfl teftament, they which are called 
 " might receive the promife of eternal inheri- 
 " tance." 
 
 " Concerning this verfe, you oblerve, that in 
 it " the writer diftinftly flates the grand purpofe 
 " of the death of Chrifl : — viz. that thofe who are 
 *' called, to whom the bleffings of the Golpel are 
 " offered, and by whom they are accepted, might 
 " receive the promife of an eternal inheritance."* 
 How the death of Chrifl efFefted this purpofe you 
 proceed to Hate : " Tlie death of Chrifl: ratified 
 *' the new covenant; — and in then exifting cir- 
 " cumftances, its blefiings could not have been 
 '* aillired and extended without it." Were I 
 difpofed to admit that the death of Chrift had the 
 efFe£l which you here afcribe to it ; namely, that 
 it ' ratified the new covenant,' I fhould ftill con- 
 tend, that fince the ratification of an inflrument, 
 is the thing of all others of thegreatefl importance, 
 being that upon wliich the validity of the whole 
 depends, it, if any thing, muft require that the 
 means of efTefting it be appointed and determined. 
 But according to your reprefentation, the ratifica- 
 tion of the new covenant made no part of the 
 original plan, no facrifice was previoufly appointed 
 in order to efFedl it, and it was efFefted at laft by 
 the mere cafual concurrence of cii cumftances. 
 
 * Page 3.34. 
 
240 
 
 But, Sir, I am inclined to think, tliat the poiition 
 itfelf is unfcriptural and unwarranted: fori am 
 not aware that the divine covenants require, or re- 
 ceive, any ratification beyond the mere declaration 
 of the will of God. It is true, in the cafe of the 
 old covenant, when the will of God was formally 
 declared, facrifices were offered, the blood of 
 which is exprelTly called ' the blood of the cove- 
 nant,' or ' teftam^nt.' But Moles, the mediator, 
 did not by thefe facrifices ratify, or give validity 
 to the covenant; he rather, (as we fhall fee pre- 
 fently,) dedicated it, and gave it operation. But 
 let us attend to the Apoflle's reafoning. 
 
 The pafTage more immediately under confi- 
 deration (V. 15.) is connected with the preceding 
 verfe, in which it is declared, that the blood of 
 Chrifl can cleanfe the confcience from dead works. 
 " And," proceeds the Apoflle, " for this caufe," 
 (that is, becaufe the blood of Chrifl has this 
 power of cleanfing the confcience from the pol- 
 lution of death-working fins, therefore,) " he 
 " is the mediator of the New Teftament;" he is 
 the intervening perfon appointed to declare and 
 atteft a New Teilament, in which is contained 
 " the promife," (not as in the former Teilament 
 of a temporal^ but) " of an eternal inheritance." 
 In order that we may fee more clearly the con- 
 nexion, let us attend to what the Apoflle fays. 
 
241 
 
 concerning the manner in which Mofes, ilie medi- 
 ator of the former Teilament, declared and atteft- 
 ed it, and what and of what kind was the fervice 
 which he then performed. It follows at the eigh- 
 teenth verfe, " Whereupon neither the firft tefta- 
 " ment was dedicated without blood. For when 
 " Mofes had fpoken every precept to all the peo- 
 " pie according to the law, he took the blood of 
 <' calves and of goats, with water, and fcarlet 
 " wool, and hyflbp, and fprinkled both the book 
 "and all the people; faying, This is the blood 
 " of the teftament which God hath enjoined unto 
 " you. Moreover, he fprinkled with blood both 
 " the tabernacle, and all the veflels of the mini- 
 " flry. And almoft all tilings are by the law 
 " purged with blood, and without fhedding of 
 *< blood, is no remiffion." Hence it appears, 
 that the blood of the facrifices, by which the 
 Old Teftament was dedicated, was, not flmply 
 the blood of attcjlatlon, but the blood oi purifica- 
 tion. And in this refpeft the New Teftament 
 exaftly correfponds with the Old, as the Apoftle 
 teftifies in the very next words : " It was, there- 
 " fore, neceftary that the [lattcryis of things in the 
 '' heavens, fhould be purified with thefe ; but 
 " the heavenly things themfelves with better fa- 
 ♦' crifices than thefe." 
 
 You are pleafed to remind your reader, that 
 
242 
 
 " the rendering of S/«&»)c» covenant, by the word 
 " tejlament in the public verfion, greatly obfcures, 
 *' and, indeed, perverts the fenfe of the writer." 
 Notwithflanding this memento, I have ventured 
 to adhere to the rendering of the pubhc verfion. 
 Nor can I agree with you, that this rendering ob- 
 icures, much lefs perverts the fenfe : on the con- 
 trary, I am of opinion, that the fenfe is not merely 
 greatly obfcured, but even totally annihilated by 
 the rendering for which you are an advocate; 
 namely, covenant. The original word ^/a^^jxn pro- 
 perly fignifies cliflioJition\ and is frequently ufed by 
 profane authors, to denote a tejlament^ or that 
 difpofition of a man's effe<^s, which, by his own 
 appointment, is to take place after his deceafe. 
 By the LXX it is fometimes ufed to denote a 
 covenant \ becaufe it is the word by which they 
 have rendered the Hebrew D'^ll ; which word is 
 fometimes ufed by the facred Writers, to denote 
 the adl of two or more perfons meeting and agree- 
 ing upon terms, and mutually binding themfelves 
 to the performance of their agreement ; which is 
 a covenant properly fo called : but it is more com- 
 monly uled to denote ' the a£l of God binding 
 himfelf to the performance of fome promife made 
 to perfons whom he has called and felefted as the 
 objefls of his favour ;' than which hardly any 
 thine can be further from a covenant. 1 here i^ 
 
243 
 
 in it nothing of compaft, nothing of that mutual 
 aoreement, which is eflential to a covenant : the 
 whole difpofition is God's, proceeding folely from 
 him, and eftablifhed folely by him, not, as in the 
 cafe of covenants, for the mutual benefit of both 
 parties; but for the fole benefit of man, and in 
 order to convey to him a gift. It is true, there is 
 in the divine Berith, as in human covenants, an 
 obligation; but it is an obligation, deriving its 
 whole force from one fide only. In order that 
 " the called" might be more aflured of God's 
 gracious intentions towards them, God is repre- 
 fented as binding himfelf to the performance of 
 his Berith, and his authority, not a mutual agree- 
 ment, binds man; on the part of man there is ac- 
 ceptance merely. It is alfo to be obferved, that 
 in fpeaking of the divine Berith, the fame lan- 
 guage is ufed, as was anciently ufed in fpeaking 
 of human covenants. Thus when God is faid to 
 have ' made a covenant with Abraham ;'* the origi- 
 nal word nm, rendered tvade literally fignifies cut; 
 in allufion to the mode of making covenants an- 
 ciently in ufe, by cutting in twain a calf, and 
 paiung through t'ne midft of it.f Alfo (as in the 
 initance above given) the Berith is frequently faid 
 *Gen, XV. 18. 
 
 f See ver. 10. of this chapter, and Jer. xxxir. 13. See al;» 
 Exod. xxxiv. 27. Deut. v. 2. 
 
 L 2 
 
■ 244 
 
 to be made tvhh the called ; to be cflablifhed be- 
 tween God and them ; and they are faid to pafs 
 into the Berith of Jehovah; and immediately 
 upon the eftablifhment of the Berith, there fublifts 
 between God and them, a nearer connexion than 
 before.* In all tiiis, there is the appearance of 
 fomething federal : but it is in the form, not in the 
 matter: in the difpofition itfelf there is nothing 
 federal: and, therefore, neither the Hebrew n^"l3, 
 noc the Greek S'*^w'3 means a cflvfwfl"^ properly 
 To called. 
 
 But while thefe divine difpofitlons are federal 
 in nothing eiTential, there is no eflential point in 
 which they do not correfpond with a Tejiamcnt. 
 la a Teftament the whole difpofition is the Tefta- 
 tor's ; proceeding folely from him, and eftablhhed 
 folely by him, for the benefit, not of himfelf, but 
 of fome perfon or perfons felefted and nominated 
 by him. Such alfoisthe Berith of Jehovah: and 
 therefore, to fpeak, as we ufually do, of ' the Old 
 and New Tcjiaments,' i^ much more fignificant, 
 and much Icfs liable to miftake, than to call them 
 * the Old and New Covenants.'' And in the place 
 more immediately under confideration, I contend 
 moft ftrenuoufly that Tcftament is the proper, and 
 the only proper rendering. The effedt of a Tefla- 
 ment is, that tlie perfon nominated by the Teftator, 
 
 ■»Deut. xxis. 12. J 3. 
 
24.5 
 
 is his heir, who, after the death of the Teflator, 
 becomes entitled to the property bequeathed, as aa 
 inhcrltcuicc. And this is the very ground upon 
 which the Apoftle builds an analogy, in order to 
 fhew the validity of the title which ' they, who 
 are called,' have to the promifed inheritance. 
 For thus he argues, " When an inheritance is 
 " claimed under a Teflament, it is neceflary that 
 " the death of the Teflator be pleaded and fet 
 " forth. For a Tellament is valid after men are 
 " dead ; but it hath no ftrength at all, while the 
 *' Teftator is living.'"*^ Of the divine difpofition 
 in which the promife is contained, Chrifl is the 
 mediator, by whom it was declared, and by whom 
 it was attefted. He therefore is, to this difpofi- 
 tion, what the Teftator is to a Teflament : and 
 the analogy fhews, that the death of Chrifl gives 
 to the called a title to the promifed inheritance, 
 as valid as is that of an heir to an inheritance 
 bequeathed to him, after the death of the Tefla 
 tor who bequeathed it. This is the whole force 
 of the analogy ; it refers to the validity of the 
 title merely ; and has nothing to do with the 
 means by which the title became valid, which is 
 different in the two cafes. The death of the Tef- 
 tator makes way for the heir, by removing from 
 the poflefiion a perfon who had a flronger title ; 
 
 * Heb. ix. 16. 17, 
 
 1-3 
 
21-6 
 
 but the death of Chrift, by removing certain dif- 
 abilities and incapacities from the called them- 
 felves. And this the Apoftie intimates in this 
 very place, when he fpeaks of the death of Chrift, 
 as having for its immediate end, " the redemption 
 " of the tranfgreffions that were under the firft 
 " Teftament:" where by ' tranfgreffions' I under- 
 ftand him to mean thofe prefumptuous violations 
 of the divine law, which were inexpiable under 
 the firft Teftament, in oppofition to legal fins, or 
 thofe for which the law had provided an expiation. 
 I truft it is now fufficiently apparent, that the 
 * idea' upon which the Apoftle dwells in the inter- 
 mediate paflage, between the fifteenth verfe and 
 the twenty-fecond, is not that which you fuppofe, 
 namely, that " the death of Chrift ratified the 
 "new covenant;" and that "in then exifting 
 " circumftances, its blefiings could not have been 
 •' aflured and extended without it." And when 
 he afterwards " ftates the faft, (v. 22,) that, in 
 " the Mofaic inftitutions, almoft all things were 
 *' purified by blood, and that there was no inftance 
 *' of remifiion of ritual offences without the fhed- 
 " ding of blood;" he ftates it not as an indepen- 
 dent faft, with which the fubjeft of Chrift's death 
 had no concern ; but as a circumftance with which 
 the whole of his argument was intimately con- 
 cerned : for it does not, as you reprefent the cafe, 
 
247 
 
 merely " lead him to remark that there was a 
 *' peculiar fitnefs, that, in the new difpenfation, 
 " purification fhould be made with fuperior facri- 
 *' fices;" but he actually infers from it, that fince 
 the heavenly things themfelves were better than 
 their patterns, it was neceflary that they fhould 
 be purified with better facrifices. Thefe things 
 you touch but flightly, permit me, therefore, to 
 place before you, the whole of the following 
 paflage:* "It was therefore neceflary that the 
 " patterns of things in the heavens fhould be pu- 
 " rifled with thefe ; but the heavenly things them- 
 ** felves with better facrifices than thefe. For 
 *' Chrift is not entered into the holy places made 
 " with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but 
 " into heaven itfelf, now to appear in the prefence 
 " of God for us: nor yet that he fliould offer 
 " himfelf often, as the high priefl cntereth into 
 " the holy place every year, with blood of others; 
 " for then mufl he often have fuffered fince the 
 " foundation of the world : But now once in the 
 " end of the world hath he appeared to put away 
 *' fin by the facrifice of himfelf." It is manifeftly 
 agreeable to the whole tenor of the Apoflle's ar- 
 gument, that by " putting away fin," we are here 
 to underftand purifying the finner from the ftain 
 and pollution which he had contracted : it is the 
 
 • Htfb. ix. 23-26. 
 L4 
 
248 
 
 guilt of fin, not its power, which Chrift took away 
 by the facrifice of himfelf. You, therefore, do 
 not give the true fenfe of the paflage, when you 
 teach, that * to put away fin' means " to give 
 *' every fuitable aid and encouragement in the 
 " acquifition of holinefs in heart and hfe."* 
 Heb. X. 14. 
 
 " By one offering he hath perfected for ever 
 *' them that are fanftified." 
 
 For the force of thefe words we are referred to 
 V. 1.2. and 1 1, and are told that " the writer there 
 *' argues from the continued repetition of the legal 
 " facrifices, that their efficacy was limited and 
 " temporary, and that they could not give thofe 
 " who offered them a complete affurance of for- 
 " givenefs: on the contrary, the death of Jefus 
 " ratified a perpetual covenant, by which God 
 " promifed that he would no more remember the 
 " paft fins and iniquities of thofe, who complied 
 " with the terms of that covenant. There was, 
 " therefore, no need of more facrifices ; fince 
 " thofe, who, by their belief in Jefus, were 
 " brought into a flate of fpiritual privilege, who 
 " thus were fanftified, obtained a complete affiir- 
 " ance of forgivenefs, by means of his one offer- 
 " ing."t That the continued repetition of the 
 legal facrifices is a proof that their efficacy was 
 
 « Page 035. f Page 336. 
 
249 
 
 merely temporary, is rightly ftatej : of coiirfe, u 
 any, thev could give oaiy a tempoiary "afluraacs 
 •' of forgivenefs to thofe who oiiered them," or 
 rather to thofe for whom they were offered. But 
 I fee no reafon to fuppofe that the aflurance which, 
 they gave, was not, during the time of its conti- 
 nuance, complete. Indeed, I do not perceive, 
 that an allurance of forgivenefs makes any part 
 of the Apoftle's argument. lie tells us, that the 
 facritices by which the, prieft and people, and th.e 
 whole legal economy, were purified and fanflified, 
 had no power to take away fin forever ; and this 
 he argues from the continual repetition ot them; 
 for if thev had poildfled luch a power, the people^ 
 knowing ihemfelves to have been puritied for ever 
 by one offering, would have felt no want :>f a re- 
 peated cleanfing, and fo the facritices would have 
 reafed to l>e offered. But this not being the cafe, 
 tiicre was a remembrance again made of fins every 
 year.* But with the facrif. e of Chriff, it was 
 otherwife. There needed only one offering; and 
 they who were fanftified by that one offering, 
 were purified for ever, and wanted no further 
 cleanfing.-; I fee nothing acre concerning the 
 ratification of a perpetual covenant, c: a complete 
 ii/Jurance of pardon. The Apoflle is fpeaking of 
 the aftual reraiflion of fins, of their being fo com- 
 *Heb, X, 1-3. t 11-14. 
 L5 
 
250 
 
 pietely taken away by the offering of Chriil, that 
 they will never more be had in remembrance in 
 the fight of God. And this Ihews that ' forgive- 
 iiefs is obtained by the death of Chrift,' not, as 
 you fuppofe, by its being the means of affuring 
 and extending the bleffings of the Gofpel, nor by 
 affording every fuitable aid and encouragement in 
 the acquifition of hohnefs in heart and life; but 
 by adually taking away fins; by purifying the 
 confcience, and cleanfing it from that defilement, 
 which, while it remains, completely difqualifies 
 for the fervice of God ; and, if not removed, would 
 for ever have excluded from his prefence and 
 favour. 
 
 In the Prefervative, fpeaking of the high 
 pricfl's offering in the holy of holies,"* I ftated, 
 that the nature and intention of the fervice in 
 which he was engaged, evidently fhews that he 
 was a mediator or interceffor between God and 
 the people, to both of whom the fervice which he 
 performed in the inner tabernacle, had refpeft." 
 As you have neither denied the pofition itfclf, nor 
 called in queftion the foundation upon which it is 
 built, I conclude that it is unobjedlionable. You 
 will, therefore, allow me to exprefs my furprize, 
 that you fhould refufe to acknov/ledge a corre- 
 Iponding ofhce in our Saviour Chrift. Thus you 
 
 * Fres. page 29. 
 
251 
 
 argue, " Tliat his being flyled mediator, lias no- 
 *' thing to do with the doftrine of atonement, is 
 " obvious from Gal. iii. 19. where Moles is fpo- 
 " ken of as a mediator, inafmuch as he was the 
 *' medium of divine communication as to the old 
 " covenant. For the fame reafon Jefus is called 
 *' mediator. He was God's miniftcr between Hira 
 *' and finful man, delivering the Gofpel, or the 
 " word of reconciliation to mankind, as Mofes 
 *' delivered the law to the Jews/'* But, Sir, let 
 me aik, might he not be fuch a mediator as you 
 defcribe Mofes to have been, the minifter of God 
 to man ; and at the fame time, fuch a mediator a.s 
 the high prieft was, appearing before God in be- 
 half of men? The two are by no means incom- 
 patible. And let me further aik, haxl the media- 
 torial office of Mofes nothing to do with atone- 
 ment ? What thea mean thefe words of the Apof- 
 tle ? " When Mofes had fpoken every precept to 
 " all the people according to the law, he took 
 '• the blood of calves and of goals, with water, 
 '< and fcarlet wool, and hyfiop, and fpriukled both 
 *' the book, and all the people ; faying. This is 
 " the blood of the Teftament which God hath in- 
 " joined unto you. Moreover, he fprinkled v/ith 
 *' blood both the tabernacle, and all the veflels of 
 " the minlflry, and almoft all things are by the 
 
 « Page 337. 
 
 l6 
 
252 
 
 *' \z-w fiurged-wiih. blood, and without fhedding of 
 *' blood, is no rcmiffion."* I infer from hence 
 that Mofes, as mediator of the former Tellament, 
 did not merely communicate the purpofe ol God 
 to the Ifraelites; he alio dedicated the Teflament 
 itfelf ; and I infer further, that our Saviour Chrift 
 is not the mediator of the New Teftament, folely 
 becaufe he delivered the Gofpel to mankind, but 
 alfo becaufe, as Mofes purified the patterns of things 
 in the heavens, with the blood of the appointed 
 facrifices, fo Chrift purified ' the heavenly things 
 themfelves with better facrifices,' even with his 
 own hlood.f 
 
 I have now, I believe, confidered every thing 
 of importance in your remarks upon this beautiful 
 and truly valuable Epiftle ; and have fhewn that 
 you labour under much mifapprehenfion refpeft- 
 ing the priefthoodand offering of Chrifl; and that 
 in confequcnce you have frequently milinterpreted 
 the Apoftle's meaning. We have feen that your 
 mifapprehenfion of the priefthood of Chrift relates 
 chiefly to the place where he made his offering, 
 and to the time when he made it. From the 
 Apoftle we learn, that as the legal high prieft 
 appeared with his offering before God, in the holy 
 of holies; fo Chrift, our high prieft, after his 
 afceulion into heaven, appeared for us in the pre- 
 ■* Ilelj, ix. 1.9-2<2. f See verse 23. 
 
258 
 
 fence of God, and there made his offering. Bqt 
 you maintain that he made his offering while he 
 was yet upon earth ; and that it was then made, 
 when he voluntarily fubmitted to death, in order 
 to aflure and extend the bleffings of the Gofpel : 
 Hence the offering mult have preceded the death 
 of the viftim : whereas the Apoftle teaches that 
 Clirift's was an offering of blood, correfpomding 
 with that of the high prieft in the holy of holies, 
 which confiffed of the blood of vidims, which had 
 been previonlly flain. With refpeft to the efficacy 
 of ChrilVs offering, the utmoft which you afcribe 
 to it is, that it may be the means of taking away 
 lins, by inducing men to cultivate holinefs. But 
 the Apoftle afcribes to it a politive and immediate 
 efficacy, and affirms that as the legal offerings 
 took away fin in a legal fenfe by purifying the 
 body, and fanftifying to the worlliip oi the taber- 
 nacle ; fo the offering of Chrift takes away fin in a 
 moral fenfe by purifying the confcience, and ianc- 
 tifying to the fpiritual worlliip of the living God. 
 
 I Ihall now pt oceed to confider your interpre- 
 tation of the other paffages of Scripture, which 
 are cited in the Prefervative. 
 
 Eph. v. 25. 26. 
 
 *' Chrift alfo loved the church, and gave him- 
 " felf for it, that he might fanftity and clean'' it 
 " [Gr. that he might fanftify it having cleanfed it] 
 " with the wafhing of water by the v.ord." 
 
254 
 
 In this paiTage thewajhing of water is commonly 
 underftood of the facrament of baptifm ; and the 
 "jjordvi fuppoH^d by Chryfollom, and many of the 
 Fathers, to mean the prefcribed form in which 
 baptifm is adminiftered ; * In the name of the Fa- 
 ther, &c.' You render the words thus,* " that 
 " having cleanfed it by the walhing of water, he 
 *' migiit fanftify it by the word :" and you obferve 
 of the paliage thus' rendered, that it " brings into 
 " view what the common rendering conceals, the 
 *' means of fanftification." But, as if aware that 
 this interpretation would not readily be acquiefced 
 in, you immediately add ; " Since, however, his 
 " obedience unto death was, in then exifling cir- 
 " cumftances, neceflary in order to give effeft to 
 " his word, (or doftrines,) his death may be faid 
 " to be the means of fan£lification." By fandifi- 
 cation you plainly mean what you elfewhere call 
 ' holinefs in heart and life,' of which the death of 
 Chrift, according to your own ftatement, is not 
 properly the tneans, but the indiredl and remote 
 occafion. But oi fan^lficatioyi in another fenfc, 
 as it fignifies feparation from common ufe, and 
 dedication to the fervice of God, the death of 
 Chrifl is the direft and immediate caufe, and may, 
 therefore, properly be called the means. And 
 fuch is the fanftitication of which the Apoille 
 * Page 332, 
 
255 
 
 fpeaks in this paflage. The fame is alfo the mean- 
 ing in Heb. x. lo. where we are faid to be 
 *■ fan^'ified through the offering of the body of 
 Jefus Chrift.' And in much the fame fenfe in 
 Tit. ii. 14. Chrift is laid to have given himfelf for 
 us, that he might — purify to himfelf a peculiar 
 people. 
 
 I. John i. 7. 
 
 *' If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, 
 *' we have fellowfhip one with another, and the 
 *' blood of Jefus Chrift, his Son, cleanfeth us from 
 ♦' ail fin." 
 
 You obferve, that " this laft claufe is fo fre- 
 " quently quoted feparately from its connexion, 
 " that it is perhaps often forgotten in what cafe 
 " the blood or death of Jefus becomes the means 
 " of our deliverance and purification from fin ; 
 *' if we walk in the light."* It is manifeft that by 
 * deliverance and purification from fin,' you mean 
 fannification in your former fenfe of that word: 
 fo that according to you, the meaning of the 
 Apoftle is, If we walk in the light, then, or in 
 that cafe, ' the blood of Jefus Chrift cleanfeth us 
 from all fin.' If fuch had been the Apoftle*s 
 meaning, he would doubtlefs have written not 
 cleanfeth, but hath cleanfed. But fuch was not the 
 Apoftle's meaning •, as will appear more plainly^ 
 • Page 322. 
 
256 
 
 if we confider the occafion of this Epiftle ; which 
 upon the face of it is /lolem'ical; and, as I have 
 ah-eady had occafion to obferve, was written to 
 oppofe the errors of the Gnoftics. It was a lead- 
 ing tenet of thefe Heretics, that the body is a mafs 
 of corrupt matter, within which the foul is fhut 
 up, as in a dark prifon. And they held that Chrift 
 the Son of God, came into the world to deliver 
 men from this darknefs, by illumining their minds 
 with the knowledge of God. They boafted that 
 they alone were in polleffion of the true dodlrine, 
 unmixed and uncontaminated : that the doftrine 
 delivered by the Apoftles, was not pure, but was 
 intermixed with legal precepts of no force or 
 obligation:* for they maintained that there was 
 no difference in human adions, and that no ac- 
 tion was in itfelf finful, or at all interrupted the 
 communion of the illuminated Ibul with God. 
 An ! by thus making Chriftianity to confifl wholly 
 in knowledge, and not at all in practice, they 
 deflroyed the fani'^ion of moral obligation, and 
 gave a loofe to all the boifterous paffions of our 
 nature. And accordingly we find that while fome 
 among tliem exercifed the greatefl fe verities, in 
 order to detach, as much as polfible, the rational 
 foul from all connection with impure matter, there 
 •were others, more voluptuoufly inclined, who 
 * Iren, atlv, liCPr, lib. iii. c. 2. 
 
257 
 
 indulged without reftraint in the grofleft immora- 
 lities.* Thefe impious and extravagant opinions 
 the Apoftle oppofes, by declaring on the other 
 hand, that no one can be faid to have fellowfliip 
 with God, who indulges iinful propenfities, and is 
 guilty of immoral practices; and that it is only by 
 ' walking in the light, as he is in the light,' that 
 * we have fellowfliip one with another,' God with 
 us, and we with God. But left it fliould be 
 thought that ' to walk in the light, as God is in 
 the light,' implies finlefs perfe£lion; and confe- 
 quently, that by committing fin, a man would 
 forfeit his privilege of communion with God, the 
 Apoftle proceeds to obferve, that the Chriftian's 
 perfeftion confifts, not in an abfolute freedom from 
 lin, (a ftate unattainable by any man,) but in 
 being cleanfed by the blood of Chrift from the 
 pollution of fin. It is thus that the blood of Chrift 
 cleanfeth from all fin: and hence he is faid in 
 Rev. i. 5. to have 'waflied us from our fins in his 
 own blood.' 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 28. 
 
 " This is my blood of the New Teftament, 
 " which is fhed for many for the remiffion of fins." 
 
 In commenting upon this pafiage, you obferve, 
 that " the blood of the new covenant muft mean 
 " the blood (hed to ratify the new covenant ; and 
 * See Mosheim's Eccles, Hist, vol, 1, page 137. 
 
258 
 
 " as the grand purpofe of the new covenant was 
 " to redeem men from their iniquities, to turn 
 ** them ' from the power of Satan to God, in order 
 " that they might receive forgivenels afta/v of fins;' 
 *' it is faid that the blood of Jefus was fhed m a<p((jiv 
 *' etiA,apriuv with a view to the remiffion or for- 
 •* givenefs of fins."* Refpe£ting the ratification 
 ol the new covenant, by the blood of Chrift, I 
 muft refer to what I have already faid in page 240. 
 The words of St. Paul, A6ts xxvi. 18. *to turn 
 them from the power of Satan unto God,' you un- 
 derfland to mean ' to turn them from the ways of 
 fin to the practice of righteoufnefs ;' and they are 
 manifeflly introduced here for the purpofeof fhew- 
 ing that eepais forgivenefs, is the direft and immedi- 
 ate confequence of this reformation of life and man- 
 ners: and that, therefore, the death of Chrifl does 
 no more than prepare the way for forgivenefs, by 
 promoting that reformation of which forgivenefs is 
 the confequence. And thus the reader is led on to 
 fuppofe that * with a view to the forgivenefs of fins,* 
 IS the true rendering of «y aficr/v ayi-afrtm in the text. 
 But the prepofition us has not the force which you 
 here afiign to it, either in this or in any other 
 place, as far as I know. It very frequently ^t- 
 notes the Jjfwl cauje; and fuch is its force in this 
 place. *' This is my blood of the New Teftament, 
 *' which is fhed for many, for, that is, in .order t$ 
 * Page 312. 
 
259 
 
 " the remilTion of fins." And thus, contrary to 
 your aflumption, the remiffion of fins is the direft 
 and immediate confequence of the death of Chrift. 
 Nor is this fenfe at all at variance with the above 
 recited words of St. Paul; which relate to the 
 turning of the Gentiles from Idolatry to the pro- 
 fefiion of the true God, that they might receive 
 remifiion of fins and inheritance among them, 
 that are fanftified [roa yiyixa[i.ivois;) of which in 
 their former ftate they were incapable : nor hath 
 any other way been revealed by which they, "who 
 •' were iometimes far off, are made nigh," but the 
 blood of Chrift.* In the paflage under confidera- 
 tion there is a manifeft reference to the blood of 
 the Old Teftament, mentioned in Exod. xxiv. 8. 
 fo called, becaufe it was the blood by which the 
 Old Teftament was dedicated and carried into 
 efFefl. For the people being fprinkled with this 
 blood, were purified and fanftified, and became 
 the people of God. In like manner the New 
 Teftament was not dedicated without blood : But 
 the blood of this Teftament was no other than the 
 blood ofChrift himfclf, (hence called " the blood 
 of fprinkling,"f) "which was Ihed for many for 
 the remiffion of fins." 
 
 Rom. iii. 25. 
 " Whom God hatli fet forth to be a propitia- 
 " tion through faith in his blood." 
 
 * See Eph. ii. 13. f Heb. xii. 24. and 1 . Pet. i. 2. 
 
260 
 
 Youobferve, that in this paflage, "theApoftle, 
 " employing a moll: beautiful allufion to the Mo- 
 " faic ritual, reprefcnts Jefus as a mercy-feat 
 " /A,ar>jf;ov (to all who complied with the terms of 
 " Chriftian redemption,) fprinkled with liis own 
 " blood."* Chrift is reprefented both as a prieft, 
 and as a facrifice; as a prieft making reconcilia- 
 tion, and as himfelf the facrifice with which re- 
 conciliation is made. But I know not that he is. 
 ever reprefented as the mercy-feat, or the place 
 where the prieft makes reconciliation ; nor, as far 
 as I know, is it ever faid, that he fprinkled him- 
 felf with his own blood. It is true, <^fl!5-»^(ov figni- 
 fies a propitiatory or mercy-feat: but o-x-^-nfios lig- 
 nifies a propitiator or reconciler. This I doubt 
 not is the word which the Apoftle employs upon, 
 the prefent occafion, and fo it ought to have been 
 rendered. Accordingly he reprefents Chrift as the 
 perfon who propitiates, or makes reconciliation 
 with his own blood; that is, as performing the 
 fame office, which he afcribes to Chrift, Heb. ii. 
 17. where he is called " a merciful and faithful 
 " high prieft, in things pertaining to God, to make 
 " reconciliation for the fins of the people." 
 Rom. iv. 25. 
 
 " Who was delivered for our offences, and 
 " was raifed again for our juftification." 
 * Page 282, note.* Sec also page 30. 
 
2G1 
 
 In the Preferuatlve, I introduced this paflage,*' 
 in oppofition to the language which you had held 
 in your d'lfcourfe, refpedling the death and rcfur- 
 Teflion of Chrift.f You now exprefs yourfelf 
 fomewhat diiferently. To atteji is no longer 
 brought forward, as the end, either of the death 
 or of the refurreftion of Chrift. And though they 
 are both called attejiations, yet they arc attefla- 
 tions to one and the fame thing, namely, ' to the 
 covenant of merCy and life ;' and the former is 
 called ' the atteftation of Jefus,' the latter ' of God 
 himfelf 'I In what fenfe you underftand the firll 
 claufe of this paflage, has been already fiifficiently 
 flated: how the refurreflion of Chrift had efficacy 
 in our juftification, you thus explain. " The 
 '• Apoftle fays, i.Cor. xv. 17. ' But if Chrift hath 
 " not been raifed up, your faith is vain, ye are 
 " ftill in your fins,' you have no adequate ground 
 " to hope for the bleffings of pardon and everlafting 
 '• life, as offered by him: if he were not raifed up, 
 " he was not the Son of God, his declarations 
 " had not divine authority, his death fealed no 
 " covenant of free mercy and forgivenefs, your 
 " condition is forlorn, as it was before your faith 
 " in Jefus gave you thofe infpiring hopes, by 
 ♦' which the power of fin, and the fear of death, 
 
 * Preserv. page 11. f Discourse, page 6. 
 X Letters, page 315. 
 
262 
 
 " have been overcome, and yourfelves tliereby 
 *' made fit to be partakers among the faints in 
 " Hght,"* I perceive in all this no explanation 
 of the text. There is nothing here which tells 
 rae, what efficacy the refurre£lion of Chrift has 
 in our juftification, or why it was neceflary for 
 that purpofe. Juftification is in holy Scripture 
 frequently ufed in a forenfic fenfe, being put in 
 oppofition to condemnation. " It is God that 
 *' juftifieth, who is he that condemneth?"t And 
 fuch is its meaning in the preient inftance. Chrift 
 *' was delivered for our offences :" that is, he died 
 for us, that we might efcape condemnation : "and 
 *• was raifed again for our juftification," that we 
 might be abfolved from guilt, and accounted 
 righteous. And hence the Apoftle declares, " If 
 " Chrift be not raifed, your faith is vain; ye arc 
 *' yet in your fins,";}: ye have no ground to expeft 
 through him the great biefting of the New Tcfta- 
 ment, forgivenefs of fins; the very foundation of 
 which is that Chrift, who ' was delivered for our 
 offences,* ' was raifed for our juftification.' Un- 
 der the law the victims intended for fin-offerings, 
 muft be flain ; but the blood murt alfo be offered 
 by the prieft, in order to give effcd to the facri- 
 fice. In like manner the refurrc<Slion of Chrift 
 was neceflary, in order that his death might be 
 » Page *14. t Rom. viii. 33. J 1. Cor. .\v, 17. 
 
263 
 
 effe£lual to the falvation of finful man. If he had 
 only died, if he had not alfo been raifed from the 
 dead, he could not have alcended into heaven ; 
 he could not have appeared for us in the prefence 
 of God ; he could not, as our great high prieft, 
 have made his offering in the holy of holies; he 
 could not by this offering have cleanfed and fane- 
 tified his church; and as a confequence of all this, 
 we fhould flill have been in our fins. 
 Rom. v. 10. 
 
 " If vphen we were enemies, we were recon- 
 *' ciled to God by the death of his Son, much 
 " more being reconciled, we fliall be faved by 
 *' his life." 
 
 The preceding verfe runs thus, " Much more 
 " then, being now juflified by his blood, we (hail 
 " be faved fi-om wrath through him.'* Taking 
 the two verfes in conneflion, you obferve, "This 
 " paflage is a remarkable one : ill the firft place 
 " it lliews that juilification, and final falvation, 
 ♦' are two diftinft things; and fecondly, that the 
 " Apoflle confidered the life of Jefus, his being 
 " raifed from the dead, as the chief means of fal- 
 «• vation."* That juftification zndfinal falvation, 
 are two diflind things, no one I befieve ever 
 doubted. To be jujiificdy is to be accounted 
 righteous : and fo are all they whofe fins are for- 
 • Paje 315. 
 
264 
 
 given. For whom God forgives, them he looks 
 upon as righteous; he remembers their fins no 
 more; they are in his fight as though they had 
 never offended. Hence the pardon of fin is fre- 
 quently called the righteoufnefs of God: it is that 
 righteoufnefs without works which is imputed to 
 believers. Salvation is properly deliverance; but 
 by final falvation, we commonly underftand, not 
 merely deliverance from wrath or punifhment, but 
 further, admillion to the enjoyment of everlafling 
 bleflednefs. But the falvation of which the Apof- 
 tle fpeaks is deliverance from ivrath; and his ar- 
 gument is this : If when we were finners, Chrift 
 fubmitted to death, in order that our fins might 
 be forgiven, and God be reconciled unto us ; much 
 more, being thus placed in a flate of reconciliation, 
 Ihall be faved by him from wrath, now that he is 
 rifen from the dead. For " who fhall lay any thing 
 " to the charge of God's ele(El ? It is God that 
 *' juflifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is 
 " Chrift that died, yea, rather that is rifen again, 
 " who is even at the right hand of God; who alfo 
 *' maketh interceflion for us."* 
 
 1. John ii. I. 2. 
 " If any man fin, we have an advocate with 
 ♦' the Father, Jefus Chrifl, the righteous : and he 
 *' is the propitiation for our fins." 
 
 * Rora. viii. 33. 34. 
 
265 
 
 Concerning the firfl branch of this paflage, you 
 obferve, that "ifthe zppeWatlon advscate, given 
 " by the Apoftle John, prove any thing refpefting 
 " the efficacy of our Saviour's prefent interpofition 
 " in rendering God merciful," it proves too much 
 <' — that the deat/i of Chrift had not the efficacy 
 *' affigned to it."* An advocate is one who ap- 
 pears in behalf of a perfon accufed, and pleads 
 for him that he fhould not be pronounced guilty, 
 lliis appellation, when applied to Chrift, muH 
 be taken, not literally, but analogically; and ferves, 
 like that of high firicft, to inftruft us in the nature 
 of Chrift's office, and of the work which he under- 
 took for us. Even the legal high prieft was, ana- 
 logically, an advocate for the Ifraelites; he ap- 
 peared for them in the prefence of God, where he 
 interpofed in their behalf, and interceded for them 
 that God would not hold them in iln^ but would 
 be reconciled to them, and take them again for 
 his people. In like manner Chrift, analogically 
 fpeaking, is our advocate with the Father; for he 
 afcended into heaven, that, by his interpofition 
 in our behalf, he niiglit make reconciliation for 
 our liHs: and the all prevailing power of his in- 
 tercclhon is thus expreffed by the Apoftic; 
 " Wherefore he is able to fave to the uttermoft; 
 " them that come unto God by him, feeing he 
 
 « P.\ge 3^7. 
 
 M 
 
?66 
 
 " ever liveth, to make intercefiion for tT^em."*' 
 But let it not be feid that the efficacy of this work 
 of Chrift, in our behalf, proves that his death 
 *' has not the efficacy, which has been afligned 
 *' to it." As w^ell might it be faid that the effi- 
 cacy of the high prieft's miniftry in the lioly of 
 holies, is a proof of the want of efficacy in the 
 blood which he offered. AVho does not at once 
 perceive the futility of fuch reafoning? The 
 blood has all tlie efficacy which has been affigncd 
 to it ; but not till it has been offered by the high 
 prieil. In like manner it is Chrifl's appearing for 
 •us in the prefencc of God, which applies to us 
 the benefit of his death. 
 
 In coniuuftion with the latter part of tliis 
 paflage, " he is the propitiation for our fins," you 
 bring forward a parallel place in this Epiflle, ch. 
 iv. lo. " Herein is love, not that we loved God, 
 •' but that he loved us, and fenthisSon to be the 
 " propitiation for our fins:" and you obferve, that 
 " this laft paflage, (as well as feveral other parts 
 •' of the Epillle.) fo clearly proves that Jefus by 
 " being z projutiadon or reconcUlat'ion l>.xa(/.oi, did 
 "in no way make God merciful or propitious, 
 *•' that one cannot but wonder that Chriftians 
 " Ihould ever have adopted ideas fo derogatory 
 *• from the divine chara61:er."t If by ' making 
 
 * Heb, vii. U" J. f Page 325. 
 
267 
 
 God -pt'opitious/ you mean ' efFefting a change in 
 the divine mind,' I have already faid that we in- 
 tend no fuch thing. But we are taught in Scrip- 
 ture, that ' the wrath of God is revealed from 
 heaven, againfl all ungodlinefs and unrighteoufnefs 
 of men,' and we believe that Chrift, by being the 
 propitiation for our llns, placed finfui man in a 
 flate of reconciliation with God. How this belief 
 at all derogates from the divine character, I am at 
 a lofs to perceive ; on the contrary, I can hardly 
 Imagine any thing which more ftrongly illuftrates 
 the love of God than this a£t of grace. 
 
 You think it probable that the term ^.ar^or 
 hrojiitiation, has ' an allufion to the propitiatory 
 iacritices of the Mofaie ritual :' but you are of opi- 
 nion that " in order to render the term any proof 
 " of the doftrines of fatisfa6lion, vicarious punifh- 
 " ment, he. two things muft be fl:iewn. i. That 
 *' the Apoftle intended to reprefent the death of 
 " Chrift as really a propitiatory facrifice like thofe 
 " under the law : and 2. that thofe propitiatorv 
 " facrifices made fatisfaftion for fin, or rendered 
 " God propitious to men, he. Now neither of 
 " thefe is the fadl."* With the do^rine of fatis- 
 faftion, in your fenfe of the exprelTion, and of 
 vicarious punilhment, I have nothing to do. I 
 am concerned only with the doftrine of atone- 
 
 * Page 325. 
 M 2 
 
268 
 
 ment. But as this doftiine is not unaffe^led by 
 your argument, I fuppole that you intended to 
 include it under your 6cc. I Ihall, therefore, 
 proceed with my remarks. The firft thing which 
 you deny is, " that the. Apoflle intended to re- 
 *' prefent the death of Chrift as really a propitia- 
 *' tory facrifice, like thofe under the law." If by 
 really, you mean literally, I will not difpute the 
 point with you. But reality is not only not in- 
 confiftent with analogy, but is even requifite to it: 
 for in an analogy, all the circumltances concerned, 
 both the things related, and alfo the ground of 
 the relation between them, are all real. I there- 
 fore contend, that Chrift, by dying for our lins, 
 became really a propitiatory facrifice. This you 
 deny to be the faft ; for the following reafon, " If 
 *' Chrift agreed with the propitiatory facritice in 
 ** one circumftance: viz. in placing the offender 
 "•in a ftate of reconciliation with God, he differed 
 *' from it in many others." And then in a note, 
 you cite from Dr. Sykes, a long lift; of differences, 
 with which, as they are all befide the point in 
 queftion, I Ihall not fill my page. It Is fufficient 
 for me, that the circumftance in which you ac- 
 knowledge an agreaaent, is the very one upon 
 which the analogy is founded, and from which the 
 fimilitude of the relations is derived. Let us.exa- 
 . mine the fufficiency of fuch an agreement in a very 
 
269 
 
 familiar inftance. The table, upon which I am 
 now writing, is fupported by a leg : fo I call it, and 
 you, I doubt not, call it by the fame name : and I 
 luppofe you will further agree with me in main- 
 taining, that though iVot a kg ftriftly and literally, 
 it is, neverthelefs, fomething real. But fuppofc 
 fome one was to arife, and argue againft us, thus ; 
 What you call a leg, is not really fo ; for though it 
 agrees with a leg in one circumftance, viz. in 
 being the fupport of that to which it belongs, yet 
 it differs from a leg in many others : it has, for 
 example, neither fkin nor bone ; neither mufcle 
 nor joint; nor can the table, by its alliftance, walk, 
 about the room ; — Hiould we not immediately 
 exclaim, what is all this to the purpofe^ in refpett 
 of the fupport which it affords, it is to the table, 
 what a leg is to its body ; and we want no more ; 
 for being thus fimilarly related, it is analogictillv 
 a leg: and whoever contends that a relation m 
 one refpeft, is not fufficient in order to the gram- 
 matical analogy of which we are fpeaking, might 
 as well deny, that the firil of four magnitudes is 
 to the fecond, as the third is to the fourth, becaufe 
 there is no other relation between tlie antecedents 
 and their confequents, but in refpeft of quantity 
 only. And juft lb it is i^ the cafe before Us: the 
 death of Chrift under the Gofpel, and the pro- 
 pitiatory facriiics;s under the Uw, however they 
 
270 
 
 differed in other refpefts, it matters not, agreed 
 in this ; namely, in placing fmful man in a flate 
 of reconciliation with God : confequently, regard 
 being had to this circumftance, as the propitiatory 
 facrifices are to the law, {o is the death of" Chrifl 
 to the Gofpel : therefore, the death of Chrifl, is 
 analogically a propitiatory facrifice. — The fecond 
 thing which you deny is, " that the propitiatory 
 " facrifices under the law made fatisfaftion for fin, 
 " or rendered God propitious." For your denial 
 you aflign this reafon, that none of them " imply 
 *' a vicarious fubJ}hutiony^ Now, Sir, I am not 
 aware that vicarious fubflitution is neceflary, in 
 order to make fatisfadtion, even in your fenfe of 
 the word ; certainly not in mine. But as far as 
 J can judge from the tenor of your argument, you 
 are of opinion that the correfpondence of the 
 death of Chrifl, with the propitiatory facrifices 
 under the law, cannot be made a proof of the 
 do6lrine of atonement, unlefs it can be fhewn that 
 thefe facrifices rendered God propitious by remo- 
 ving, not legal fins merely, but fins in a moral 
 fenfe. Hut I have already fhewn, not only that 
 this is not neceffary ; but alfo that my own argu- 
 ment requires, that the legal facrifices with which 
 we are concerned, fhould remove only legal fins, 
 and be no more than the means of refloring to 
 
 * Page 32G. 
 
271 
 
 legal piivileges. But I need not repeat what I 
 have already advanced upon this fubjedt. 
 
 Enough, I trufl, has now been faid of the prieft- 
 hood andvofferkig of Chrifl ; and from the whole 
 it mull, I think, be manifeft, that the death of Chrift 
 has an efficacy correfponding with that of the pro- 
 pitiatory facrifices under the law, with refpeft both 
 to God and to men : that with refpeft to men, it is 
 the means of purification and fan6tification ; and 
 with refpefh to God, the means of propitiation: 
 that is, in other words, Chrift, by his deatli, made 
 atonement to God for finners ; or to adopt your 
 own language, haih placed finful man in a flate of 
 reconciliation with God. 
 
 I know not that any thing further is wanting 
 to illuftrate the other analogies. It can now 
 hardly be m.ifunderftood in what fenfe tlie death 
 of Chrift is confidered in Scripture, as a ra>ifom, a 
 lirice, and a jmnijlimcnt ; and how, being fo consi- 
 dered, it becomes to us tlie immediate caufe, or 
 the means of deliverance. Neverthelefs, as there 
 is fomething in your remarks upon the death of 
 Chrift, coniidered as a ranfom,^' which, though 
 virtually explained already, may be thought to 
 require further notice, I Ihall trouble you with a 
 few obfcrvations upon this part of your work, in 
 
 * Page 310, 
 
 >i4 
 
272 
 
 the hope that what I have to offer may tend to 
 the further illultration of the whole fubjeft. 
 
 Matt. XX. 28. 
 " The Son of Man came not to be miniftered 
 *' unto, but to minifter, and to give his hfe a 
 " ranfbm for many." 
 
 I. Tim, ii. 6. 
 *' Who gave himfelf a ranfom for all." 
 In order to account for the application of this 
 term ra?ifom, to our Saviour's death, you have re- 
 courfe to the view which you have been accuf- 
 tomed to take of his death, and of the ends for 
 which he died. Thus you flate the matter. 
 *' Jefus came to bring pardon and everlafling hfe, 
 *' by Gofpel promifes and declarations to redeem 
 *' m.en frcm iniquity; to aifure and extend the 
 " blefHngs which he brought, he gave up his life; 
 " he could not otherwife have completed the 
 " grand fcheme of fpiritual redemption or delive- 
 " ranee, of which he was appointed the mediator. 
 " He procured for us, then, the poflellion of thofe 
 " bleflings by means of his death; and it was, 
 '• therefore, our ranfom or means of deliverance. 
 " I do not know how to exprefs my own fenle of 
 " the importance and value, and to us, the merit 
 *' of his death, than by this, his own reprefentation 
 " of it. It was, as we have already feen, the 
 *' netejfary means of our deliverance, yet was 
 
273 
 
 " voluntary on his part; it was our ranfomy* 
 That the infufficiency of every fuch ftatement may 
 be more apparent, I will employ a familiar illuf- 
 tiation. Let us fuppofe a fhip in its courfe to 
 encounter a ftorm fo violent, that the mailer, in 
 order to a fuccefsful profecution of his voyage, 
 found it necellary to put into fome port to refit; 
 and let us fuppofe that he there found a number 
 of captives, whom he was moved by compa0ion 
 to releafe. Will you affirm that they?cmz, or the 
 [mtting into /lort, was the neceflary means of the 
 deliverance of thofe captives, and their ranfom ? 
 Yet fo it was according to your mode of arguing. 
 If the florm had not arifen, the mafter would not 
 have put into that port, and fo thofe captives 
 would not have been delivered. Would you 
 helitate to anfwer, The ftorm, indeed, gave occa- 
 fion to the putting into that port ; and the putting 
 into port gave occafion to the deliverance of the 
 captives; but it is an abufe of words to call either 
 on this account the means of their deliverance, 
 or their ranfom ; a name which can be applied to 
 nothing but the price aftually given for the delive- 
 rance. When therefore, Chrifl is faid to have 
 given his life a ranfom, this can mean no other 
 than that his life, analogically fpeaking, is the price 
 of redcmpticn, l 
 
 ♦Page 310, 311. 
 
^74 
 
 But thus you objeft to our affigning this mean- 
 ing to the word ranfom, when apphed to Chrift. 
 " If any imagine that it was literally fpeaking, the 
 *' price paid to fome one for our dehverance, I 
 *' have only to fay, that they muft confrftently 
 " maintain that the price was paid to God; but 
 " the Scriptures declare, that we are redeemed by 
 " the blood of Chrift, from our vain eonverfation, 
 " (or conduit,) and by his death reconciled to God, 
 " (i. Pet. i, 18. and Rom. v. 10.";* And upon 
 a fimilar occafion fpeaking of the death of Chrift, 
 you fay, " that it was not literally a price, is 
 " obvious: for this would imply a feller, and 
 " afTuredly we were not 'bought' from God, but 
 " ' to God.'t (See Rev. v. 9,") That the death 
 of Chrift was not literally a price, we contend as 
 well as you : it was analogically a price : and furely 
 you will not contend that becaufe a price, literally 
 taken, implies a feller, therefore, it alfo implies a 
 feller, analogically taken. If fo, fuch muft be the 
 cafe in every other inftance; and every analogical 
 word muft imply the fame, as it implies literally: 
 becaufe for example, my own leg implies a thigh, 
 therefore, the leg of my table muft have a thigh 
 attached to it : and becaufe a head implies brains, 
 therefore there muft be brains in the head of a 
 nail. I have already faid that the relation, with 
 ♦PajeSll. tPi^geSlD. 
 
275 
 
 which we are concerned In analogical language, 
 is, like the mathematical ratio, not a relation in 
 every rcfpe£t, or in any refpe£l whatever, but in 
 a certain refpeft, either aftually given or implied: 
 nor have we any thing to do with any other. 
 
 Towards the conclufion of your work, I find a 
 feries of obfervations upon certain abufes of the 
 doftrine of atonement; chiefly fatisfaflion and 
 vicarious puniflmient; words which, in your fenfe 
 of them, imply, the former, that God demanded 
 and infilled upon rigid and full compenfation for 
 the {ins of men ; the latter, that Chrift was aftually 
 fubllituted in the place of flnners, and by dying 
 upon the crofs, literally underwent, in their Head, 
 tlie puniflinient of their fins. But I beg to remind 
 you, that the abufes of a doftrine, are no argu- 
 ment againft the doftrine itfelf: and, fince the 
 doclrine for which I contend, is not chargeable 
 with thefe abufes, you are in this part of your 
 work no antagonifl of mine, but are fighting 
 againft fome unknown perfon, who is nothing at 
 all to me. Having, therefore, no call to engage 
 on either fide, I lliall quietly lit down an uncon- 
 cerned fpedlator of the fight. 
 
 I cannot take my leave without requeuing you 
 not to cbnfider as perfonal any thing unpleafant 
 which you may difcover in the preceding pages. 
 I (hould have been fi^lfe to tlie caufe of truth and 
 
276 
 
 religion, If I had not done my utmoft to detefl: 
 erroneous interpretations, and weak or irrelevant 
 arguments; and if, having detected them, I had 
 not expofed them with firmnefs, and without a 
 childifh fear of giving offence. At the fame time 
 I feel it my duty to conduft myfelf in fo doing, 
 with temper, and without acrimony. And thus 
 it has been my endeavour to conducfl myfelf. If 
 therefore, you fhould difcover any thing in which 
 I may appear to have afted otherwife, I iiequeft 
 you to believe that it proceeded inadvertently from 
 the pen, and not dcfignedly from the heart. 
 
 It would, I confefs, afford me the trueft fatis- 
 faftion, if what I have advanced in the preceding 
 pages, ihould be the means of making you lefs 
 tenacious of your Unitarianifm, and lefs hoflile to 
 a doftrine, which, being unhappily viewed in a 
 falfe light, you continue to " oppofe, as unfcrip- 
 *♦ tural, injurious to the divine charafter, and 
 ** baneful in its moral tendency."* As to the 
 latter objeftion, I beg leave to call to your recol- 
 Icftion, your own confellion, that the doftrinc of 
 atonement, as it is reprefented in the Prefervative, 
 does not tend " to defiroy the fcriptural foundatio/i 
 " of Chriflianpra£tice."t I may boldly add, that 
 in the encouragement, which it gives to the fin- 
 ner, to repent and turn to God, and to do works 
 • See Pag« 338. f Page 268. 
 
277 
 
 meet for repentance, It leaves the Unitarian doc- 
 trine behind, at an imn[ieafurable dillancc. That 
 it is neither unlcriptural, nor injurious to the divine 
 charafter, I am myfelf moll thoroughly perfuadcd, 
 and have endeavoured faithfully to fet forth the 
 grounds of my own perfuafion for the benefit of 
 others. After all, I am fenllble that I am an hum- 
 ble inftrument in the hands of God. It is through 
 his blefiing alone, that I can hope to Hop the 
 progrefs of heretical opinions, or to fix thofe who 
 are v^avering in the faith. May it pleafe him " to 
 *' bring into the way of truth all fuch as have 
 •' erred and are deceived." 
 
 Though perfonally unknown to you, yet, ha- 
 ving from report,, been taught to conceive highly 
 of your charafter, I beg to conclude with afllir- 
 ances of lincerefl elleem and refpecl. 
 
 N 
 
 F r i\ I s. 
 
 TIIEMMASS, rRlNTEHS, HIGH-STREET, BXETER, 
 
279 
 
 TEXTS 
 
 ILLUSTRATED or VINDICATED. 
 
 Gen. 
 
 i. 3 
 
 ... 64 
 
 Luke 
 
 xxiv. 47. . 
 
 .... 169 
 
 
 ii. 5 
 
 ... 72 
 
 Jolm 
 
 i. 1-14. .. 
 
 47 
 
 
 XV. 18 
 
 .1*11.14 
 
 xxiv. 8 
 
 vi. 2-7 
 
 xvii. 11 
 
 ... 243 
 ... 75- 
 ... 259 
 ... 221 
 ... 161 
 
 
 J 
 
 54 
 
 Exod 
 
 — 3 
 
 6ii 
 
 
 — 10 
 
 64 
 
 Lev, 
 
 — 14 
 
 66 
 
 
 iv. 26 
 
 v. 22,23. . . . 
 
 67 
 
 
 xix. 20-22. 
 
 ... 221 
 
 . 122,133 
 
 Psal. 
 
 li. IB 
 
 v.. 161 
 
 
 viii. 58. ... 
 
 67 
 
 
 xc. 2 
 
 .. 72,76 
 
 
 X. 11-15. . 
 
 223 
 
 Jer. 
 
 xxxiv. 18. .. 
 
 ... 243 
 
 
 xiii. 19. ... 
 
 G8 
 
 Ez. 
 
 xxviii. 2. 9. 
 
 ... 59 
 
 
 xvii. 5 
 
 .. 77,!18 
 
 Wisd 
 
 vii. 26 
 
 ... 106 
 
 
 XX. 31. ... 
 
 45 
 
 Matt. 
 
 i. 20-23 
 
 ... 31 
 
 Acts 
 
 vii. 59. ... 
 ix. 14 
 
 ... 128 
 
 
 iv. 10 
 
 xvii. 2 
 
 ... 143 
 
 ... 87 
 
 133 
 
 
 X. 33-44 ... 
 
 .... 14 
 
 
 xix. 26 
 
 ... 7S 
 
 
 XX. 28 
 
 .. 13,164 
 
 
 XX. 28 
 
 ... 272 
 
 
 xxvi. 18. . 
 
 .... 259 
 
 
 xxiii. 15. . . 
 
 ... 66 
 
 Rom. 
 
 iii. 24 
 
 .... 168 
 
 
 xxvi. 28. .. 
 
 163,257 
 
 
 — 25 
 
 .... 259 
 
 
 
 118,141 
 
 ... 87 
 
 
 iv. 25 
 
 260 
 
 Mar. 
 
 ix. 2 
 
 
 V, 10 
 
 .... 263 
 
 
 xvi. 12 
 
 ... 87 
 
 
 viii. 33. 34. 
 
 .... 264 
 
 Luke 
 
 5.35 
 
 ... 33 
 
 
 ix. 5 
 
 .... 107 
 
 
 vi. 36 
 
 ... 125 
 
 l.Cor 
 
 2 
 
 X. 13 
 
 .i. 2 
 
 135 
 
 
 xxii. 69 
 
 ... 131 
 
 133 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
viii, 5 
 
 .... 215 
 
 ix, 6-15 
 
 .... 225 
 
 ix. 12 
 
 .... 236 
 
 280 
 
 l.Cor.i.3 136 Heb. 
 
 viii. 4-6 42 
 
 XV. 17 262 
 
 — 24 104 ^^ —13,14 237 
 
 Gal. iv. 4 33 —15 238,246 
 
 £ph. i. 3 103 —16,17 245 
 
 — 10 Q'S -18-23. ..241,251 
 
 ii. 13 259 —23-26 247 
 
 V. 3 104 X. 1. 2. 11. 14. . 248 
 
 — 25.26 253 — 10 255 
 
 Phillip.ii. 5-8 81 xii. 24 259 
 
 Col. J. 15-17 88 xiii. 7. 17 209 
 
 2.Thess.ii. 16-17 138 l.Tet-i. 2 259 
 
 I.Tim. i. 4 48 2.Vet.n\. 8 80 
 
 ii. 6 272 l.Johni. 7 255 
 
 Tit. ii. 13 100 ii. 1. 2 264 
 
 — 14 7,255 —22 4G 
 
 Heb. i. 3 105,233 iv. 3 19 
 
 — 8-10 98 —10 164,266 
 
 ii. 17 260 —14.15 19 
 
 vii. 25 265 —15 46 
 
 — 27 229 V. I ... 46 
 
 — 28 231 2 John 7 19 
 
 viii. 3 232 Rev. i. 5 257 
 
281 
 
 To the ohfcrvatlons in fiage 150, 15 1, notCy^' 
 concerning the nature of analogical language^ as it 
 YcJ^efls things, the reader is requejled to fiihjoin the 
 following : 
 
 Not only things themfelves, but alfo their 
 attributes, are capable of thefe tralatitious names, 
 both metafihorical and analogical: But there is this 
 difference between them; in the cafe of metapho- 
 rical language, the attributes, from and to which 
 the name is transferred, do not correfpond; but 
 the former is (if I may fo fpeaki of larger extent 
 than the latter ; fo that the name transferred does 
 not truly fet forth the nature of the attribute 
 denominated by it, but implies more than the 
 attribute itfelf comprehends, or than can be at- 
 tributed to its fubjeft. Whereas, in the cafe of 
 analogical language, the two attributes are of equal 
 extent, and fo correfpond as to be in fimilar rC' 
 lations to their refpedive fubjefts. Ex. gr. i. We 
 fpeak of a thirjly land. Thirf is properly the 
 attribute of an animal ; and implies a painful fen- 
 fation arifing from the w^ant of moillure, and 
 occafioning an eager deiire of drink. Both the 
 fubjedls, the land which is denominated thirfty, 
 and the animal which is really fo, have, in com- 
 mon, a drynefs which difpofas them to receive 
 moifture with readinefs: but the name thirfi, im- 
 plies more than this : it implies a painful fenfation 
 
282 
 
 with which thcdrynefs of the land has nothing to 
 do, and of which the land iiielf is incapable: 
 Therefore, the two attributes do not correfpond, 
 and the name is metaphorical. 2. We fpeak of 
 ayo//d^ judgement. Solidity is properly a material 
 attribute ; and in common language, thofc bodies 
 are called folid, which are deep, compaft, and 
 firm, in oppofition to fuch as are fuperficial, loofe, 
 and weak. But there is an intellectual depth and 
 firmnefs, correfponding with this attribute of body, 
 and having the fame relation to mind which that 
 has to matter. In confequence of this relation, 
 the name is transferred from the material attribute, 
 of which it is properly ligniiicant, to its corre- 
 fponding intelledtual attribute. And it is obvious, 
 that in this analogical ufe, it is as much fignificant 
 of fomething real, as in its literal and proper ufe. 
 
CQBHECTJONS, 
 
 Page 47, line 23, read Oiily-begottcn. 
 
 5 1 » IT, for man read flesh . 
 
 54, Hj /'fff^/ */"%?'• 
 
 8G, 15, rf«</ adapting. 
 
 88, *, 8, read oifirstyiM,/, 
 
 }44, lastj/wr relij^ion ;-«'«(/ dochiiie. 
 
 jl). iG, /yr deniod >r«rf asserted. 
 
 14C, 4, £/c/^ thfjirxl an, 
 
 110, 13, }•<?«'/ it it bad not taken place. 
 
 J9(j, li5v r(?tfrf itt t)jo same time. 
 
 gl5» la, /cr than /'^ffrf that. 
 
 §43, g] , m::, (ftp inUlal letter should be Caph. 
 
Lateiy PUBLISHED by the same AUTFIOR. 
 
 1 . The Doftrine of St. John, and the Faith of 
 the firfl Chriftians, not Unitarian; a Sermon 
 preached before the Univerfity of Oxford, in 179 1. 
 Price I J. 
 
 2. The Do6lrine of the Atonement, illuflrated 
 and defended, in eight Sermons, preaclied at the 
 Bampton-Ledlure, in 1795. Price 5^. in boards. 
 
 3. Examination of Dr. Marfh's Hypothecs, 
 refpeding the Origin of our three firft Gofpels. 
 Price 4J. 
 
 4. Of the Greek Prepofitive Article, its nature 
 and ufes ; a Grammatical DilTertation. Price 2s. 
 
 5. Prefervative againll Unitarianifm. Price is. 
 
Princeton Theological Semmary^Speer Libr^ 
 
 1 1012 01144 6970