VINDICATION OF UNITARIANISM, IN BKPLY TO MR. WARDLAW'S DISCOURSES OH THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY. Bt JAMES YATES, M.A. ' Read, nof to contradict or confute, nor to telieve and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and considt*." Lord Bacon. BOSTON : rUBUSHIO BT WILIS AND LILLY, FROM THE GLASGOW EDITION. 1816. ADVERTISEMENT. As Mr. Wardi^aw's Discourses have been reprinted and circulated extensively in this country, it has been thought, that a republication also of Mr. Yates' reply will be acceptable; and the more so, as it is written with remarkable ability and good temper. Some notes and an Appendix have been added by the American editor. Boston, January, 1816. CONTENTS, Page. PART I. — Introduction ------------ 1 Chap. I. On the general principles to be followed in investi- gating the truth of religious doctrines ------- 11 Chap. II. On the regard paid to the Sacred Scriptures by Unitarians --,---*,-------- 17 Chap. III. On the proper method of ascertaining the sense of Scripture ---------------- 31 Chap. IV. On the propriety of believing in mysteries - - 44 PART II.— Introduction -..- 58 Chap. I. The evidence for the unity of God from the light of nature ----------------- ib Chap. II. The evidence for the unity of God from the testi- mony of the Scripture; ----------- 65 Chap. III. Evidence that the Father is the only true God - 69 Chap. IV". Statement of the Unitarian doctrine concerning the person of Christ. Evidence that he was not God, but a distinct being from him ----------- 74 Cn.A^. V. Evidence that our Lord Jesus Christ is inferiour and subordinate to God the Father. 79 Chap. V^I. Evidence for the Unitariaji doctrine concerning the ivisdom and knowledge of Christ, vis. that they were im- parted to him by God the Father --. 98 IV , CONTENTS. Chap. VII. Evidence for the Unitarian doctrine concerning the origin of Christ's power, vis. that it was given to him. 92 Chap. VIII. On the use of the phrases "Holy Spirit," &c. in the Sacred Scriptures ------------ 114 PART III.— Introduction 135 Chap. I. Statements of what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and of the evidence requisite in each case to prove it - ib. Chap. II. Examination of the evidence for a Plurality of Per- sons in the Godhead ------------ 146 Chap. III. Examination of the evidence for a 'Prinity of Per- sons in the Godhead ------------ 157 Chap. IV. Of the doctrine of Christ's divine and human natures ---------------- 174 Chap. V. Examination of the passages, in which the peculiar titles of Deity are supposed to be applied to Jesus Christ 182 Chap. VI. Examination of the passages, in which the peculiar attributes of Deity are supposed to be ascribed to Christ 218 Chap. VII. Examination of the passages, in which ihe pecu- liar works of Deity are supposed to be ascribed to Christ 231 Chap. VIII. Examination of the passages in which supreme worship is supposed to be given to Christ ----- 238 Chap. IX. Examination of the remaining arguments produced by Mr. Wardlaw to prove the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ .--257 Chap. X. Examination of the evidence produced to prove the distinct Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit - - 269 Chap. XI. Prevalence of Unitarianism in the early ages of the Christian Church. Origin and progress of the Trinitarian doctrine ---------------- 276 Chap. XII. Other doctrines of Mr. Wardlaw's Discourses. Correspondence between him and the Author. Conclusion. 284 APPENDIX. VINDICATION OF UNITARIANISM, &c. PART I. INTRODUCTION. In commencing a reply to Mr. Wardlaw's " Discourses on the Socinian Controversy," I undertake a task by no means consonant to my own feelings. The discussion of disputed points in theology, even when conducted in the calmest manner, has a tendency to impede the exercise of the devotional and benevolent affections ; and for this reason, having once formed my opinion by a diligent and impar- tial study of the Scriptures, I have in general avoided the paths of religious controversy, except when the circum- stances of my situation obliged me to enter anew upon arguments, which, though I hoped they would be useful to others, were to me always unprofitable. It is no palliative of my aversion to this employment, that my opponent is a man, for whom, so far as the difference of our religious sentiments has encouraged an intercourse, I entertain a very high esteem and warm attachment. Such an undertaking is however in the present case unavoidable. Mr. Wardlaw has quoted my sermon preached at the opening of the Unitarian Chapel in this city, and has blamed one of its assertions, relating to the Q practice of Trinifarians, as " Illiberal and unjust." (See p. ler.*) Upon raj head also chiefly falls the charge, which (Preface, p. vi.) he directs against the Unitarians of Glasgow in general, of " grossly misrepresenting" many of the sentiments held by the Orthodox, of* causing "the weak, the wavering, and the ill-informed" to become the " dupes" of this misrepresentation, and of leading them " a prey to the wiles of sophistry, and the imposing in- fluence of high pretensions to learning and candour." Such accusations from so respectable a quarter demand our most serious reflection ; and, having impartially considered how far they apply to us, we ought to come forward, either to vindicate ourselves with modest firmness, or to retract our assertions in t!ie same publick manner, in which they have been advanced. Besides, Mr. Wardlaw's discourses have been honoured, as they deserved, with great attention and countenance ; and, having been widely circulated by a large impression, are, I understand, now generally affirmed to be unanswera- ble. If therefore we continue to maintain our former prin- ciples, we are bound to show that his triumph is not so complete. This is necessary, not only to preserve the sentiments, which we dearly value, from contempt, decay, and reprobation, but to prove, that we do not adhere to them through wilful blindness and obstinate aversion to the truth. Though compelled to engage in this controversy against my inclination, I shall be supported by the hope, that my labour will not be bestowed in vain. In order that Unita- rianism may be gratefully and cordially embraced, it is only requisite that the arguments for and against it be im- partially studied. The moderation, candour, and good ■^ The references tlioughout the voliiitie have been altered, to apph (o the Boston edition of fVurdlaw's Discourses. sense, which the inhabitants of this place have in general evinced, whenever the principles of Unitarianism have been brought before them, and the uniform civility and kindness, which I have reason thankfully to acknowledge in persons of all descriptions, with whom I have had an} acquaintance, encourage me to expect, that by some (ew at least my publication will be perused with attention, a id that the statement of the evidence in favour of each of the opposite systems will thus be effectual in leading them to the truth as it is in Jesus. Having heard Mr. Wardlaw's discourses with great interest, and afterwards read them with great care, I have found much to admire, but nothing to change my conviction of the strict unity of God, and the subordination of Jesus Christ. I have no doubt that the delivery of them pro- ceeded from laudable motives. It gives me great pleasure to express the approbation due to the eloquence, with which they are composed, and the powers of reasoning, which they display. I heartily join in the universal con- fession, that the Trinitarian system could not have been more ably defended. Mr. Wardlaw has shown peculiar judgment in confining himself to those arguments, whicli have usually been considered as clear and decisive, instead of bringing forward all the passages of Scripture, which have been conceived to bear remotely upon the subject, and by insisting upon which other advocates have weak- ened the cause they intended to support. Whilst 1 have been pleased with the ingenuity and alertness displayed in defending points of difficult and abstract speculation, I have been edified by the useful observations of a practical nature, which are scattered through the volume, and which, I would hope, may redeem it from oblivion, when men have learned to value plain truths, pertaining to life and godli- ness, above what is mysterious and inexplicable. Having willingly given to these discourses the commeu- dation which they merit, let me now be permitted to state in what respecls I think them defective. Mr. Wardlaw affirms solemnly (p. 93.) that his only object is truth ; and, doubtless, the defence of the Calvinistick doctrines, which he believes to be true, was his only object. But there is a wide difference between defending a particular system, previously assumed as true, and pursuing truth independently of system, — a difference, which will mate- rially affect the manner, in which a man states his own arguments, and views the arguments of others. Mr. Wardlaw's whole style and language in this controversy show, that he has never put his mind into that state of cahn and impartial deliberation, which is necessary to collect and arrange the proofs on either side, and to judge in favour of which opinion the evidence preponderates. On the contrary, he has set out with a bold, undaunted, and impetuous zeal for a certain system ; and, believing this system to be true, and that " with its establishment and progress are connected the glory of God and the salva- tion of men," (Preface, p. vii.) he exerts his utmost powers to impress it upon the mind, and labours to fortify his argument hy bringing out all the images and strong expres- sions, all the affecting and solemn tones, all the facts and allusions, all the faults and errours of his opponents, by which he can strike his hearers with astonishment and horronr at the foil}', the blindness, the perverseness of those, who refuse to be converted by such brilliant and decisive evidence. That an orthodox preacher should have re- course to these expedients in order to rouse the languid conviction of his own flock, may be perfectly proper; but they are utterly subversive of that temper of cool, patient, and unbiassed investigation, which may be expected in one. 6- who makes it his "simple and exclusive object" to ascer- tain Truth. We find also in Mr. Wardlaw's volume a kind of man- agement and generalship, which a Votary of Truth would scorn. Having very few proofs to adduce, he makes the best use of what he has ; brings them forward many dif- ferent times, dwells upon them at great length, turns them about, and shows them in the most pleasing variety of lights. Yet, lest after all they should fail to make a suffi- cient impression, he takes care to inform his hearers, that these are only a specimen of what he might have brought forward ; the passages, which contain his doctrine, are so numerous, that he should weary their patience and exceed his own strength, if he were to produce them all, and hence he is obliged to select a few of the more prominent. This "principle of selection," as Mr. Wardlaw calls it, I fear I shall have frequent occasion to expose, and to show that, where he professes merely to bring out a sample, he has nearly or entirely exhausted his store. Another manoeuvre, by which Mr. Wardlaw guards his readers against the seductions of Unitarianism, is this. Instead of presenting a fair and full view of the Unitarian system in its leading principles and general aspects, he makes it his object to bring into notice every thing absurd or dangerous, that was ever written by a Unitarian. In- deed, through zeal to collect all the offensive matter to be found in Unitarian publications, he has in one instance, at least as the passage will be applied by his readers, violated fact. After some very excellent remarks on the impropriety of indulging a presumptuous rashness in the pursuit of truth, he quotes a passage from the Appendix to the Life of Priestley, showing with what indifference this fearless temerity enables a man to contemplate the conclusion, that there is no God. (See p. 168.) If he 6 had turned to the title-page of the volume, and page iv of the preface, he would have seen, that the author, whose words he has quoted without mentioning any name except that of Priestley, was Mr. Thomas Cooper, Presi- dent Judge of the fourth district of Pennsylvania; and, if he had made the inquiry which became him before producing this passage as an illustration of the spirit che- rished by Unitarians, he woidd have learned that Judge Cooper is 7iot a Unitarian. To the odium and ridicule, which may be excited by such attempts. Unitarians are from the nature of their principles peculiarly exposed. Since they encourage free inquiry to a far greater extent than any other sect of Christians, and, though united in maintaining a few great principles, allow a variety of opi- nion upon minor topicks, individual authors often espouse sentiments and employ language, to which the great body would refuse their sanction. It is easy for a nibbling ad- versary to seize hold of these peculiarities, and to drag them into open day. But a generous disputant will despise the low trick of gravely refuting the fancies, mistakes, or hasty conclusions of individual writers, instead of consid- ering the broad principles espoused by the whole party. What a long train of grotesque figures might / summon to decorate ray triumph, if I were to collect the rash or fool- ish expressions of individual Trinitarians, and to enter into a minute discussion of their bearings and consequences. The Comedy of Errours would be so protracted, that the world itself would scarcely contain the books that should be written. Another expedient of Mr. Wardlaw's to excite contempt towards the doctrines of Unitarians is the frequent use of Notes of Admiration, which are exhibited either single, double, or treble (! !! !!!) so as to form a graduated scale, by which every person, who has sense enough (o count One, TwOj Three, may estimate the precise quantity of folly in the sentiment exposed. But if a phrase or opinion is really ridiculous, why may it not be left to make its own impres- sion? What occasion is there to render it ridiculous by such an apparatus? Is it not enough, that a poor Unitarian critick should be called, ignorant, extravagant, sophistical, and credulous ? Must he also hear his translations repeated from the Pulpit in an affected tone of astonishment, or see them issuing from the Press bristled round with Dashes and Notes of Admiration ? Those who know the usual mildness and urbanity of Mr. Wardlaw's manners, may naturally expect, that the same amiable temper should pervade a work, having an immedi- ate reference to the nature and design of Christianity. But, with the exception of a few gleams of benevolent compas- sion for his opponents, he has not offended against the " an- cient and fundamental rules of theological controversy," either by the neglect of contumelious language, or by avoid- ing positiveness and dogaiatism. To the charges of impi- ety^ obstinacy, disitigenuousness, mildness, &c. so often preferred against Unitarians, we ought not to be insensible. But every indulgence should be allowed to one, who con- ceives that his most important principles are basely and violently attacked, especially if he thinks that they are in any danger of being overthrown. Instead therefore of en- tertaining the least particle of resentment, I would adopt the pathetick and forcible apology of St. Augustine for the er- ronrs of his opponents; "Illi saeviant in vos, qui nesciunt quo cum labore verum inveniatur, et quam difficile cavean- tur errores. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt quam rarum et arduum sit, carnalia phantasmata piae mentis serenitate superare. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt quantis gemi- tiijus et suspiriis fiat, ut quantulacunque parte possit intel- 8 ligi Deus. Postremo, illi in vos saeviant, qui nullo tali ef- rore decepti sunt, qnali vos deceptos vident."* The only use, which I wish to make of Mr. Wardlaw's petulant expressions, is to be more on my guard against the admission of similar language into my own pages. Al- though I cannot venture to make any promise of greater moderation, yet it is my intention in the following reply, in general to answer only the arguments in Mr. Wardlaw's publication, leaving the contumely for those, who choose to defile themselves with it. Another principle, which I have laid down for myself, is to vindicate those doctrines alone, in maintaining which all Unitarians are agreed, without entering into the discus- sion of the subordinate questions, concerning which they differ among themselves. This method is not only neces- sary in a work, which professes to be a vindication of Uni- tarianism, but it has the advantage of greatly abridging the labour both for myself and for my readers. According to this plan, many large portions of Mr. Wardlaw's book, consisting of criticisms on " The Improved Version," and discussions of opinions which do not affect the general principles of Unitarianism, will be passed over without any notice. I think it probable, that the chief effect produced by this controversy will be a conviction in the minds of candid and sensible judges, that the differences of sentiment be- * Let those rage against you, who know not with what labour truth is discovered, and with what difficulty errours are avoided. Let those rage againr.t you, who know not how rare and difficult an attainment it is, to subdue carnal imaginations by the serenity of a pious mind. Let those rage against you, who know not with what heavy sighs and groans the knowledge of God is even in the least degree acquired. Let those rage against you, who have never been deceived by such errours as they observe in you. tween the two contending parties are much less than is com- monlj supposed. In perusing the Discourses of my oppo- nent, it has often occurred to me, that his Orthodoxy is little more than Unitarianism in a Mist; and, if our readers shall still think, that there is any thing real or sub- stantial in those mysterious tenets, superadded by Mr. Wardlaw to the plain truths, in holding which we are both agreed, I trust such persons will however acknowledge, that, under the government of a Being infinitely wise and good, it is impossible that the everlasting happiness of mankind should depend upon their perception of such dim points and dusky distinctions. is JO CHAPTER I. oy THE liEKERAL TRIKCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN INVESTIGATING THE TRUTH OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES. The use of Reason in matters of religion is threefold ; firsf, to derive from the appearances of nature the proofs of the Existence, the Altiibufes, the Providence, and the IMoral government of God ; secondly, to establish the Truth, Excellence, and Divine Origin of the Jewish and Christian Religions ; and thirdly, to determine the senbe of the Sacred Scriptures. The use of Revelation is to deliver doctrines and precepts, highly conducive to the virtue and happiness of mankind, but which, unless proceeding immediately from God, would be either unknown or little regarded. When the Divine Origin of the Jewish and Christian Religions has been proved by rational evidence, any doc- trine, which is shown by a just interpretation of the Scrip- tures to be contained in those Religions, ought to be received as indisputably true. If Reason be rightly employed, its dictates can never be in opposition to the testimony of Revelation. On the contrary. Reason and Revelation mutually support each other. It is proper therefore to illustrate and confirm every religious doctrine by appealing both to the assertions of the Scriptures, and to the appearances of Nature and the course of Providence. To these propositions, I presume, Mr. Wardlaw will readily assent. They express the principles, upon which he appears in general to have proceeded in the manage- ment of his various arguments. These principles are also universally acknowledged among Unitarians. Con- 11 cerning preliminaries therefore we are upon the whole agreed. We appeal to reason and to the Scriptures for the proofs of our respective doctrines, assigning to each the province, which I have marked out. Mr. Wardlaw indeed is not perfectly accurate in the statejnent of his own grounds of argument ; in his Preface, (p. ix.) he observes, that " in defending what he conceives to be the essential articles of Scripture Truth he has confined him- self entirely to the Scriptures themselves;'' but in many parts of his work he endeavours to confirm his opinions by the evidence of facts. Thus, in his first Discourse, (p. 5 — 8,) he adduces the evidence for the Unify of God fro7n the Uniformity of plan in the material creation ; and in the 8th, (p. 224,) after having maintained the Doc- trine of Atonement chiefly upon Scripture grounds, he proposes to confirm it by " another branch of evidence,'^ namely, « the moral effects, which it is fitfed to produce, and to which the faith of i( has uniformly given birth." I mention these circumstances, not for the sake of carping at minute inconsistencies, but on account of the importance of accuracy and precision as to the principles of our rea- soning, and because I shall probably employ, to confirm my own views of the doctrines of the Scriptures, that evidence, the use of which Mr. Wardlaw disclaims in his Preface, though he has repeatedly brought it forward in his Discourses. As I am anxious, that our readers should not only per- ceive the errours and false reasonings contained in Mr. Wardlaw's publication, but should derive from it whatever benefit and improvement it is adapted to afford, I would direct their serious attention to the admirable observations relating to the pursuit of Truth, which occupy a large portion of the 6th Discourse.* * In this part ofhis work, (p. 167.) Mr. Wardlaw charges me with illibe^ rality and injustke for having said in my Sermon on the Grounds of Uai- 12 • That " in bringing either sentiments or practices to the test of God's word, it should be our sincere desire to have our minds divested of all prejudice, so that we may come to the Bible, not with a view to find confirmation of opin- ions previously formed, but with humble and earnest solicitude after an answer to Pilate's question, What is Truth ?" that, in the investigation of truth, we should be sedulously on our guard against the deceitfulness of our own hearts, and " fervently implore the enlightening influ- ence of the Holy Spirit ;" that we should retain on our minds a constant, deep, and humble sense of our weakness and liableness to err," and avoid that " daring and pre- sumptuous rashness," so "gratifying to the self-complacent vanity of the human heart," bijt so contrary to the spirit both of true Christianity and of sound Philosophy; that we are apt to be misled by attachments not only to what is old and lon^ established, but likewise to what is new and what is singular ; and that we are often biassed not merely tarian Dissent, that, " thinking it unsafe to make faith the result of rational inquiry, the Trinitarian determines to ground it upon early prejudice." But is it not a well known fact, that Trinitarians do coinmonly inculcate upon their children the chief Doctrines of Calvin- ism, before they are capable of comprehending and appreciating the evidence, by which those Doctrines are supported ? And is not the motive, (as I have stated in my Sermon,) the benevolent motive of this conduct, that the parents are apprehensive that their children will probably never embrace the Calvinistick tenets at all, if they are not impressed upon their minds at the earliest age ? The fact then being as I have represented, I imagine 1 have been unfortunate in the manner of stating it. If so, I can only wish all readers of my Sermon in future to contemplate the simple fact, and to correct the unfavourable impres- sion arising from the improper manner. At the same time I must observe, that I had affixed a note to the part of my Sermon, in which the passage so offensive to iMr. Wardlaw is contained, excepting the Indepen- dants and the Baptists in some degree from being classed with those, tu whom my observations applied. 13 hy prejudices of the understanding, but also by predis^ posiiions against " wiiatever is humbling to human pride and whatever is mortifying to human corruption ;" these are maxims, of the truth and importance of which I am strongly sensible, and which I wish may be impressed upon the mind of every one of my readers. Whilst I, as well as Mr. Wardlaw, " am no enemy to free inquiry," 1 am convinced, that the most rational way of using Reason is to employ it with caution and with modesty. • The concluding; observations of this discourse are so excellent and important, that I shall take the liberty of quoting them at length. " All truth is good. The truth revealed in * the glorious gospel of the blessed God,' is peculiarly good : — good in its own nature ; — good in its holy and happy influence ; — good in all its present, and in all its eternal consequences. Let me exhort you, my brethren, to hold it fast purely^ firmly, meekly, practically. — Purely ; without any admix- ture of errour : — -firmly ; not ' halting between two opinions,' fluctuating and undecided, or imagining that truth and errour may be embraced and held with equal safety : — meekly, maintaining it with an humble consciousness of your own natural blindness, and a feeling of your entire obligation to the enlightening Spirit of God ; — with benevolent affection to the persons of your opponents ; and with the patience and gentleness of Christ : — practical- ly ; exemplifying, in the whole of your conduct, personal and social, private and publick, in the family, in the church, and in the world, its renewing, and purifying, and gladden- ing eflScacy. " To all, I would say, and say with the earnestness of aflfactionate entreaty, ' Search the Scriptures.' Examine them for yourselves. Examine them with a seriousness 14 becoming the importance of the inquiry, and the magni- tude of those consequences that are necessarily connected with it. Derive no foolish and vain excuse for neglecting to do this, from those differences of sentiment which yon may observe to subsist amongst the professed followers of Jesus Christ. The sentiments of olhers are nothing to you. It is not of others, but of yourselves^ that you must give an account to God. Let each individual, therefore, attend to the gospel, as if he were himself the only creature to whom it is addressed. O ! beware of satisfying your- selves at present, with such excuses as, you must be con- scious, will never bear the scrutiny of the great day. — Your immortal souls are at stake. Be, therefore, in earnest. Take nothing upon trust. What you bear from us, or from others, examine by the light of the Divine word. If Tve speak not according to that word, there is no light in us. It is not what me say, but what God says, that is ' able to save the soul.' " That we should hold the truth jmreJy, firmly, meekly, and practically, is a sentiment, in which all good Chris- tians, both Trinitarians and Unitarians, will cordially unite. But it is of especial consequence, that we should hold it PRACTiCALLV, Hot allowing the articles of religious faith to lie dormant in our minds, after we have once received them, or to float before our fancies as subjects of amusing speculation, but applying them daily and hourly to the im- provement of Out hearts and the regulation of our conduct. It is only, when thus applied, that Truth has any value ; nay, it is only when thus applied, that we can hold truth at all. For however Arm may be our belief, and however lively our conceptions, when we come fresh from the con- templation of any religious subject, 3 et, if we do not com- bine our knowledge with habitual practice, the impression 15 upon the understanding will become fainter and fainter, until at last it will appear more fleeting and unsubstantial than a passing meteor. If therefore Unitarians maintain, as one of their distinguishing principles, that the Father is the only proper object of religious worship, let them be careful, that they devoutly worship the Father. If they believe, that, one of the principal objects of the mission of Jesus Christ was to deliver his admirable precepts of morality, let them obey those precepts ; that another great end of his coming was to set before mankind an example of perfect virlue, let them imitate that example ; that the chief design of his death and resurrection was to establish the doctrine of a future stale of retribution, let them pre- pare for that state of retribution ; that a good life is the condition, upon which alone God will grant pardon and accepfance and eternal bliss, let them lead a good life. We well know, that a man may maintain these opinions most strenuously, that he may talk loudly and reason learn- edly about their truth and beautiful simplicity, about their immediate and necessary influence in cherishing love to God and love to man, and yet may neglect to examine whether they have produced these excellent fruits in his own heart, and, while he is labouring with unwearied zeal to reform and enlighten others, may himself become a cast- away. Although agreeing in general with my opponent concern- ing the principles, by which we ought to be guided in deter- mining the truth of religious doctrines, yet there are some particulars, in which his work is calculated to convey false ideas to the minds of his readers, and others, which he has not discussed so fully and clearly as their importance seems to require. I think it necessary, therefore, to consider in the three following Chapters, the regard actually paid to 16 the Scriptures by Unitarians; the proper method of ascer- taining the sense of the Scriptures ; and the propriety of believing in mysteries.* ■ [* These cautions against allowing our religious belief to terminate in speculation, are certainly valuable. In the principles, however, men- tioned by Mr. Yates as distinguishing Unitarians, he seems rather to have enumerated the peculiarities of a sect of those Christians, rather than to have given those general views which are common to all. Mr. Yates belongs, we believe, to that denomination of Unitarians who hold the simple humanity of Christ. It is, however, only in a few passages that his peculiar bias is discovered. In general he means by Unitarianisra simply the doctrine of the perfect Unity of God, the Fatlier of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with those doctrines, and no others, which necessarily flow from that great truth. — Editor.] 17 CHAPTER II. ON THE REGARD PAID TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES BY UNITA- RIANS. To some very excellent observations, tending to show the propriety of seeking the Doctrines of the Christian Religion in the Apostolick Epistles, as Avell as in the His- torical Books of the New Testament, Mr. Wardlaw sub- joins these words; (p. 166;) "I earnestly wish my Unita- rian friends, (for such I desire to esteem them as fellow men, although I cannot give them the right hand of fellow- ship as Christian brethren,) to consider this with becoming seriousness, and to beware ; — and it is my fervent prayer, that others may be preserved from that fatal delusion, which it is my present object to expose ; that they may be saved from treating with unseemly levity the word of the most High God, and may continue to approach it, as they ap- proach to its Divine Author himself 'with reverence and godly fear.' " This benevolent wish, when I first came to it, filled me with a sudden glow of gratitude, and I cordially joined in the spirit of Mr. Wardlaw's prayer, extending it to pro- fessed Christians of both the opposed denominations. For I apprehend, that both parties are chargeable with mani- festing a culpable disrespect for the Bible, by being far too negligent in the study of its pages as well as in the practice of its precepts. But, whilst I confess with sorrow, that Unitarians do not in general apply to the Scriptures with sufficient diligence, humility, and seriousness, yet it is ne- cessary for me to apprise the Reader, that Mr. Wardlaw's 4 IS iangua2;e, wlieie he speaks of their principles and practice upon this subject, is adapted to make a verj false impression upon his mind. Mr. Wardiaw not only represeniS the Unitarians as for- cing the Scriptures by racks, and screws, and all the instru- ments of torture, to speak a language agreeable to their system, (p. 41. 65—68. 88. 141. 177,) but gives it out in numerous passages, that, after they have used the most arbitrary and reprehensible freedom in translating, they still pay very little regard to the authority of the sacred Au- (hors. He affirms, (p. 106,) that "some of the leaders of Unitarianism have gone so very far as to charge the New Testament writers, and particularly the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with unappropriate applica- tions of Scripture, far-fetched analogies, and bungled and inconclusive reasonings." He quotes a passage from Mr. Belsham, in which that author denies the doctrine of the Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures ; and produces seve- ral extracts from Dr. Priestley's " History of Early Opin- ions," in which he advances it as his belief, that the sacred writers were not secure from errour, either with respect to facts or doctrines. Mr. Wardlaw also asserts, that the ad- versaries of the Divinity and Atonement of Christ in gen- eral entertain notions respecting the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures equally "vague and undefined;" that, "al- though they do not express themselves with the same decid- edness, they are all characterised by a similar laxity of principle on this important point ;" and that " they shake themselves loose of the Epistles with very little ceremony indeed." (p. 160—162.) It would be an unfaithful desertion of the truth I have undertaken to defend, if I were to admit the candour, the fairness, or the justice of these statements. It it my duty to present the reader with more accurate information on 19 subjects, upon which Mr. AVardlaw has assumed such a bold and imperious tone of reprehension. Whether the Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures be a doctrine of the Christian Religion, is one of those questions, upon which Unitarians are divided in opinion. It would therefore be inconsistent with my present design to enter into the discussion. Bnt it is totally foreign from the inquiry concerning the Trinity of Persons in the God- head, and the Divinity and Atonement of Christ. When Unitarians endeavour to show, that the Scriptures do not contain these doctrines, they always suppose their Divme Authority ; and, although, for the reason just slated, I do not espouse any particular hypothesis, yet I shall conduct all my arguments so as to make them agreeable to the high- est supposition ever advanced, vis. that not only every sentiment but every ivord was dictated to the sacred pen- men by the immediate suggestion of God. Upon this subject the sentiments of the Orthodox have, I believe, been no less at variance than those of Unitarians ; and, as Mr. Wardlaw has quoted a number of passages from Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belshara in order to convey to his readers an impression, that Unitarians in general deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, lest by the testimony of (he Scriptures their tenets should be overthro^^n, so, if I chose to entangle converts by such an artifice, I might produce passages to the same effect from Jerome, Episcopius, Mr. William Lowth, and other eminent Trinitarians, to intimate that the advocates of the Orthodox system are reduced to the same necessity. The intelligent reader is now apprised, with what skill and ingenuity Mr. Wardlaw has here applied that " prin- ciple of select ion, ^^ which he professes to Jiave employed for another purpose, /too shall select a few quotations, which may serve as a counterpart to liis, and show what 20 degree of respect Unitarians have really entertained for the sacred Scriptures. Whose was that great maxira, which Protestants have so often repeated with a noble indignation, in reply to the pretensions of the Church of Rome, " The Bible, the Bible, the Bible only, is the Religion of Protes- tants ?" It is found in the writings of the ingenuous, the high-minded Chillingnorth, who, having in the early part of his life wavered with a modest caution between difterent religious system^, at length settled in the doctrines of Socinianism. Whose was that otiier senliiuent, which the Lovers of the Bible have so of(en cited with admiration and delight ? It was the sentiment of that bright ornament not merely of Unilarianism, but of mankind, the universally revered [>]iiiosopher, Mr. Locke, who, when a relation inquired of him, what was the shortest and surest way for a young gentleman to attain a true knowledge of the Christian Religion, returned this answer ; " Let him study the Holy Scripture, especially in the New Testament. Therein are contained the words of eternal life. It has God for its AUTHOR ; salvation for its end ; AND truth, with- out ANY mixture of ERROUR, FOR ITS MATTER." If Mr. Wardlaw wished to give a true representation of the principles and practice of Unitarians, why did he not select such quotations as these, in addition to the passages of a different complexion ? About one hundred and fifty years ago, some of (he most learned Trinitarians confessed, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not founded on the Scriptures, but on the tra- dition of the Church. The Unitarians were tlien obliged to maintain, as a previous step to the establishment of their opinions, that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule whereby to determine religious controversies. " The So- einians,^' said they, " are of a contrary mind. Hath the Holy Scripture, that is, hath God, said it ? They will 21 believe, though all men and angels confiadict i(. They will always prefer the infinite wisdom of God, before Ihe fallible dictates of human or angelick reason." Unitarian Tracts, V. I. No. 9. p. 4. printed in 1690. Those, who have the means of intimacy with Unitarians, know, that there are, and always have been, many individuals among them, who have been accustomed to spend days and nights with inex- pressible satisfaction and delight in the study of the Sacred Volume. Those, who are versed in Theology, know, that the Expositions and Commentaries, written upon the Books of Scripture by Unitarians, are generally acknowledged, iu those parts at least which have not a reference to the con- troverted doctrines, to possess extraordinary merit ; and that the works, composed by Unitarians to vindicate the Scriptures against the objections of unbelievers, are singu- larly useful, clear, and convincing. Indeed, were it not for the labours of such men as Dr. Lardner and other learned Unitarian authors, we could scarcely be said to possess the Word of God at all. For it is upon the proofs, furnished and stated by these writers, that our assurance of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures now principally de- pends.* * The ability and success, with whicli Unitarians have discussed the Evidences of Revelation, are admitted by Mr. Wardlavv in the fol- lowing remarkable passage : " Many a time, after perusing treatises containing evidences of the Divine Authority of the Christian Religion, has the inquiry forcibly impressed itself on my mind. Of what advan- tage is all this to the Writer, if after all he has left the question un- answered, or wrongly answered, fVhat the Christian Religinn is ? The outworks of Christianity have been often most ably and successfully defended, while that, which all these outworks have been reared by Providence to protect, and from the value of which consequently they derive their importance, has been either entirely overlooked, or most erroneously exhibited." (p. 369.) Poor Dr. Lardner ! He continued a reprobate, and is doomed to ever- lasting torment, though to hira under Providence we in a great mea- sure owe our Christianity ! And, if such excellent men as he studied the 22 Notwithstanding the comparatively small number of the Unitarian denomination, I doubt whether the whole body of Orthodox Christians ever presented an example of more ardent and indefatigable zeal in the study of the Scriptures, than that of the able and upright Dr. Jebb, who, on account of his serious persuasion of the truth of Unitarianism, resigned the honours, the emoluments, and the hopes of a splendid and wealthy Establishment, and who, that he might qualify himself to understand better the language of the New Testament, committed to memory the whole of the Epistles of Paul in the original Greek. When the learned Professor Griesbach, not many years ago, was preparing to present to the world an accurate edition of the New Testament, the only person in all Eu- rope, who came forward to patronize this invaluable work, was a Unitarian. The expenses of the publication were defrayed, and copies of the new and correct edition of the Greek Testament liberally distributed, by a late illustrious Evidences of Revelation so long, without ever perceiving the nature of the religion they were employed in defending, or deriving any advan- tage from their labours, what benefit is likely to accrue to the simple and the ignorant. [Mr. Yates' expressions with regard to our obligations to Dr. Lard- ner, seem not to have been sufficiently weighed. He means, no doubt, principally to say, that the collection of ancient testimonies made by this great critick, is absolutely indispensable to the complete vindica- tion of the authenticity and genuineness of the sacred writings. All Christians we suppose will readily assent to this position. Mr. Yates' words may be construed, hoMcver, to mean more than this, and to imply, that what was done by Dr. Lardner could have been done by no other man. But sucli a sentiment, if it was so intended, is surely hazarded too hastily ; since the materials for such a work as the Credi- bility would still exist and might be used, however unlikely it may appear, that a man of such profound learning and admirable judgment and perl'ect ingenuousness would again be found to devote his life to so immense a labour. — Editor.] 23 uobleman,* who, having resigned the office of Prime Min- ister of Ihe British Empire, was happily induced to direct his attention to the far more important business of his reli- gious instruction and edification, and who, having by a most serious and diligent study of the Evidences and Doctrines of Christianity been converted to Unitarianism, declared, that he derived far more solid comfort and intense delight from meditating on its consolatory truths and acting upon its holy principles, than he had ever experienced in the former part of his life from the splendour of (he Royal court and the influence of the most elevated rank and office. I esteem it as an honourable instance of the regard paid to the Scriptures by certain individuals of the Unitarian persuasion, that they have lately attempted an Improved Version of the New Testament, the chief excellence of which they state to be, that it is translated from the correct edition of the original Greek, published by Dr. Griesbach. No candid Christian will deny, that the endeavour at least was laudable ; but the censorious may easily find real or supposed defects in the execution of so difficult an under- taking, which they may make the subjects of indecent ridi- cule and severitj^f The last example, which I shall cite to refute the charge of a general disregard to the authority of the Scriptures *The Duke of Grafton. See Belsliam's Sermon on his Death, and Memoirs of Lindsey, ch. XI : also Griesbach's Preface to his Greek Testament. [t For some farther observations on the " Improved Version," the reader may consult Part III. Chap. IX. of this volume. He will there see, how unjustly the whole body of Unitarians are made responsible for this work, the production of some individuals only, and freely and severely animadverted on by Unitarian, as well as other ciiticks. Its^ co| merits or defects, whatever they may be, have no proper connexion with the great doctrine discussed in this volume. — Editor.] :i 24 among lj nilaiian-i, is tjiat of one of the most eminent Eng- j lish divines, Dr. John Taylor. This universally respected author was the Professor of Theology in the Dissenting j Academy at Warrington, Avhere many of the Unitarian | ministers, now living, received their education. He always prefaced his Lectures with the following Charge addressed , to his pupils, which may be considered as a fair represen- tation of the views and sentiments usually maintained by Uiiitarians with respect to the pursuit of religious truth. " I. I do solemnly charge you, in the name of the God ] of Truth, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Waj, \ the Truth, and the Life, and before whose judgment-seat i you must in no long tiuie appear, that in all your studies ; and inquiries of a religious nature, present or future, you | do constantly, carefully, impartially, and conscientiously i attend to evidence, as it lies in the Holy Scriptures, or in i the nature of things, and the dictates of reason ; cautiously | guarding against the sallies of imagination, and the fallacy j of ill-grounded conjecture. j " H. That you admit, embrace, or assent to no princi- j pie, or sentiment, by me taught or advanced, but only so far as it shall appear to you to be supported and justified by proper evidence from Revelation, or the reason of things. "in. That, if at any time hereafter, any principle or sentiment, by me taught or advanced, or by you admitted and embraced, shall, upon impartial and faithful examina- tion, appear to you to be dubious or false, you either suspect, or totally reject such principle or sentiment. " IV. That you keep your mind always open to evi- dence. — That you labour to banish from your breast all prejudice, prepossession, and party-zeal. — That you study to live in peace and love with all your fellow Christians, and that you steadily assert for yourself, and freely allow 25 to others, the unalienable rights of judgment and con- science." I hare produced these instances, not for the sake of boasting, but as a necessary vindication of the Unitarian body. I repeat, that, although these are in general our convictions, our endeavours, and our avowed principles, we do not always go to the Holy Scriptures with those high feelings of veneration and gratitude, to which they are entitled, and that we do not study them with a degree of attention and assiduity proportioned to the inestimable importance of their contents. For myself, and for all, I confess, that in the discharge of this, as well as of every other duty, we are greatly deficient, and stand in need of the forgiveness and long-suifering of our merciful Father in heaven. I should not be satisfied with myself, if I did not attempt likewise to do justice to the honoured, injured name of Priestley, whom Mr. Wardlaw treats throughout his volume (see particularly, p. 160 — 168. 175, 176) with marked disrespect, arid upon whom in one passage (p. 176.) he animadverts " in the severest terms of reprehension." I shall not however plead the affectionate esteem of those, who adopted his sentiments, who partook of his cheerful, kind, and instructive conversation, and who knew from experience that gentleness and sweetness of manners in so- cial intercourse, which sometimes converted into friends those, who had entertained the strongest prejudices against him on account of his religious opinions : it would be said, that such witnesses were evidently swayed by sectarian prepossessions. Nor shall I quote the high-wrought eulo- gies of foreign literati : for it would be replied, that these are the testimonies of mere philosophers. I shall quote the words of Christian Ministers, who differed from Dr. Priestley in religious sentiment, who had opportunities of 5 26 knowing Ills ieal character from living in his neighbour- hood, and who froai a strong sense of duty bore their testi- mony to his worth, when the popular fury was at its height against him. Dr. Samuel Parr, in learning and intellectual attainments as well as in the virtues of the heart, probably the brightest ornament of the Established Church of England, has then stated in the following terms the proper mode of considering the merits of Dr. Priestley. " Let Dr. Priestley, indeed, be confuted, where he is mis- taken ; let him be exposed, where he is superficial ; let him be repressed, where he is dogmatical ; let him be re- buked, where he is censorious. But let not his attainments be depreciated, because they are numerous, almost without a parallel. Let not his talents be ridiculed, because they arc superlatively great. Let not his morals be vilified, be- cause they are correct without austerity, and exemplary without ostentation ; because they present, even to common observers, the innocence of a Hermit and the simplicity of a Patriarch, and because a philosophick eye will at once discover in them the deep-fixed root of virtuous principle, and the solid trunk of virtuous habit." — Letter from Ireno- polls to the Inhabitants of Eleutheropolis. Soon after the disgraceful riots at Birmingham, the As- sociated Dissenting Ministers of two neighbouring coun- ties presented to Dr. Priestley an Address, expressive of their common concern at Ihe horrid outrages, which he had sustained. I transcribe, below, its commencement. Alas for the man, who can read it without emotion! "Address to tfie Rev. Dr. Priestley. " SIR, " V/e the dissenting ministers of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, of the Presbyterian, Independent, and Bap- 27 list persuasions, associated as brethren and interested in the common cause of religious liberty, present our very respectful and affectionate condolence for the outrages to which y^ou have been subject. Though many of us differ from you in matters of religious faith, we trust that we have belter learnt the spirit of our excellent religion, than not to esteem in you that character of piety and virtue, which is the best fruit of every faith, and that ardour for truth and manly inquiry, which Christianity invites, and which no form of Christianity ought to shrink from ; as well as to admire those eminent abilities, and that unwea- ried perseverance, which give activity to the virtues of your heart, and to which, in almost every walk of science, your country and the world have been so much indebted. " That such virtues and such abilities should invite persecution, is a melancholy proof, that neither philosophy nor Christianity have yet taught their most dignified and amiable lessons to our country. But though man will feel, and your enemies have attacked you in that way wherein you feel perhaps most sensibly, yet we rejoice to find in you that decent magnanimity, that Christian bearing, which I'aises you superiour to suffering; ami that a regard to God, to truth, and to another world, have even irom the bosom of affliction enabled you to extract a generous con- solation. Whether in your religious inquiries you have erred or no, we firmly believe, that truth and the best in- terests of mankind have been the object of your constant regard ; and we trust, that that God, who loves an honest and well-meaning heart, will dispense to you such protec- tion, as to his wisdom may seem most fit. To his benevo- lent and fatherly protection we devoutly recommend you through the remainder of your life ; praying, that you may be long preserved, that you may survive the hatred of yoin- ungrateful country, and that you may repay her cruel injuries by adding, as you have hitherto done, to her treasure of science, of virtue, and of piety. 23 " This tribute of our esteem and sympathy for you, Sir, we entreat you to receive with that regard, which we know the purity of it deserves ; and, though not recom- mended by (he rank of life we hold, we trust that you, a philosopher and a Christian, will think it not undeserving of a place among the very respectable testimonies of es- teem and condolence, which both at home and abroad your merits and your sufferings have invited." ^ ^ iiC- :i5- iJt :3t ^ •A* "vr w "Tr •75* •«* TT- Signed hf forty-tkree Ministers of the Three Denominations. Dr. Priestley was characterised by a wonderful activity and energy of mind, the most open frankness and sim- plicity in the expression of his thoughts, and an undaunted earnestness in the pursuit of truth. These properties of his understanding, while they enabled him to make some important addition to almost every department of human knowledge, and to perceive the baselessness of some of the doctrines, in the firm belief of which he had been educated, perhaps led him to reject too hastily other opinions, which woidd have been retained by men of a less keen, ardent, and inquisitive disposition. It is a weakness of the human mind, that, when once released from the boundaries, within which it has been pent up by prejudice or education, like waters bursting through a high embankment, it is apt to run beyond the level, at which it would nalurallj' subside by length of time or the absence of all restraint. I am disposed to think, that this great man allowed himself a freedom and boldness in speculation, which caused his inquiries to terminate in partial errour, and which might have produced serious evils in a mind less thoroughly imbued than his with virtuous principles and devotional habits. Those, who have not sufficient vigour of intellect to comprehend what is truly important in his doctrines, 29 exhaust their strength in petulant attacks upon (he trivial erroiirs of sentiment or expression, which tliey are able to select out of his hundred publications. " Mst5-0VT6C Si, hA^gZt " TlttyyxaKrfTia., kop-jkk ^;, *' A/oc TT^oc ogvt^ei 9-s/sv." PiND. Ol. II. 154— 1.')9. " He only, in whose ample breast "Nature hath true inherent genius ponr'd, " The praise of wisdom may contest ; " Not they, who, with loquacious learning stor'd, " Like crows and chatt'ring jays, with clam'rous cries, " Pursue the Bird of Jove, that sails along the skies."* [ * In these remarks on the respect to the Scriptures paid by Unitari- ans, Mr. Yates confines himself to the defence of that class of them, who are believers in the simple humanity of our Lord. Indeed the charge has scarcely, if at ail, been extended to those who embrace higher views of his nature ; certainly not by any one in any degree ac- quainted with their writings. The reproach on Humanitarians also has been almost wholly founded on a few passages in the writings of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, which nearly all who agree with them in other respects, would unite in censuring. How unjust then is it to ascribe the individual opinions of these gentlemen to all who think with them on the subject of the unity of God. The reibrmer Luther hastily styled the Epistle of St. James, epistola charfacea, mere waste paper. But what should we think of the candour of our Roman Catholick brethren, if they should found on this sentiment of that great man, a charse asainst all Protestants of a similar contempt of that portion of Scripture ? It is very desirable in this, as in every inquiry, that we should sepa- rate the true question in debate from every subject not necessarily connected with it. The controversy, with respect to the nature and degree of the inspiration of the sacred records, has no peculiar bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity. All Unitarians would cheerfully leave the cause to be decided on the ground which Mr. Yates' has taken, p. 19. They would esteem themselves but too happy, if the determina- tion of the question, whether there is one Supreme Object of worship. 30 or three Supreme Objects of worship, should be left to the clear and simple language of the Bible, explained by any consistent laws oi' in- terpretation. — The question of inspiration belongs in truth to the Deis- tical controversy. Tliose, who maintain that the sacred writers, in recording the facts and instructions of which they were divinely in- formed, were left to the use of their own language, and to the influence of their own mental peculiarities, take this ground solely because they believe, that the sacred authority of the Scriptures cannot otherwise be defended. They think, that the modes of quotation, the varieties of phraseology in narrating the same fact, the circumstantial discrepan- ces, the rhetorical and even grammatical inaccuracies, together with the striking peculiarities of style, which every one discerns in the different writers of the New Testament, can be satisfactorily explained on no other theory. They believe that the contrary supposition encumbers the defence of Christianity with insuperable difficulties, while their own even lends new strength to it. They affirm that the sacred writers no where, either explicitly or impliedly, lay claim to any higher inspiration, than consists in an exemption from errour in the facts and doctrines which they deliver as the mind of Christ. For this a plenary verbal explanation seems in no degree required. Indeed if it were necessary that a miracle should be wrought to suggest each word to the 7vriter, it is equally necessary that every rfcrfe?- should also be inspired ; or otherwise the miracle would be rendered useless by the inherent defects of all human language. Besides, if it were necessary that every word should be given originally by a miracle, does not the same necessity exist, that it should be preserved by a miracle, unal- tered by errour or negligence, in subsequent ages ? Might we not therefore expect that the pen of every transcriber would be supernaturally guided, as indeed the Jews fondly, yet consistently, believed of their sacred writings, till the modern collation of Hebrew Manuscripts undeceived them ? It is by these and similar arguments, that some of the truest and best Christians have justified their doubts of the common opinion of the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scrip- tures. Wiiether solid or not, it is evident that their arguments ^ro- ceedfroin their reverence to the Bible, and their desire that the evidence of its sacred authority may be relieved of every objection. They doubtless may be wrong in their opinions ; but it would be better to answer theii" arguments tlian to impeach their motives. At all events, their errours have nolliing to do with the question of the Trinity, and it is only a ver;- ungenerous argumentvm ad invidiam to introduce them into this discussion. — Editor.] 31 CHAPTEH III. ON THE PROPER METHOD OP ASCERTAINING THE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. EvERV person of sober reflection will allow, that, besides maintaining in all our inquiries after religious truth a meek, teachable, and pious disposition, we ought also to exercise diligence and discretion in the use of proper means for ascertaining the sense of the Scriptures. I propose in this chapter briefly to explain the principles, which, I conceive, will be adopted by all, who, instead of aiming to support a favourite system, to feed the cravings of a restless imagi- nation, or to serve their temporal interests, simply ask, What saith the Scripture ? Whenever we wish to determine with accuracy the sense of any portion of the New Testament, (for to the New I shall chiefly apply my remarks,) three particulars claim our attention; 1st, the correctness of the Greek text; 2ndly, the mode of translating it into English ; and 3dly, the mode of interpreting that translation. I. In the first place, it is obviously necessary, that we should know what Greek words were originally written in the passage under consideration. The manuscripts and printed editions of the Greek Tes- tament differ from one anolher in numerous passages, and these differences are sometimes of great importance. But it is plain, that the passage can have been written in one way only the Apostle, from whose pen it proceeded. It is therefore the objeet of the impartial critick to ascertain the genuine reading by consulting ancient manuscripts, versions, and commentaries. In doing this he is guided by strict rules, which are acknowledged by all learned men of what- 32 .] ever religious sentiuienls, and which have been adopted ! from an impartial consideration of the circumstances of the case, and not to support the principles of any sect or partj. i If therefore he is obliged, in conformity to these rules, to '. reject one reading and to adopt another, his decision does 1 not arise from any desire to advance the progress of his own private opinions, but results from the uniform applica- i tion of those rules, by which alone the writings of the New i Testament can be restored to their original uncorruptness. | It is of importance to observe this circumstance, because, j when Unitarians reply to an argument by saying, that the 4 passage in the original has been corrupted, ignorant persons ] always suspect, that they make arbitrary alterations in the ^ Sacred Text merely to suit their system. In this ground- less suspicion they are sometimes countenanced by those, " who ought to teach them better. Dr. Jamieson of Edin- burgh, in his learned History of the Culdees, (p, 93,) an- swering some author, (Bp. Lloyd,) who had obviated the argument arising from the occurrence of a certain phrase in another author by saying, that that phrase was perhaps in- serted into the later copies, remarks, "This however for- cibly reminds one of the Socinian mode of reasoning. It is well known, that, when writers of this class are much puzzled with any passage of Scripture, which opposes their system, they raise the cry of interpolation." Concerning the manner, in which this assertion is made, I restrain my- self But its complete falsehood I must notice, because the progress of Unitarianism, as its adversaries clearly foresee, depends in a great measure upon the credit of the more learned Unitarians for fidelity in criticising and trans- lating the original Scriptures. Some learned men in our own country, and many more upon the continent, have exerted themselves with great acuteness and a most laudable assiduity in collecting, pub- ^3 Ushing, and comparing the Various Readings of the Greek Testament. Above all, the Christian world is indebled to the learned, impartial, and indefatigable Dr. Griesbach, late Professor of Theology in the University of .Jena, who devoted almost his whole life and talents to the correction of the text, and, as the result of his labours, published an edition of the Greek Testament, restored nearly to its pri- mitive incorrupt ion, and accompanied by a view of the va^ rious readings contained in other printed editions, and in the ancient manuscripts, versions, and commentaries. This edition has been already reprinted many times, and in vari- ous parts of the world, and is at present received every where by the learned as the standard text of the Christian Scriptures. Dr. Marsh, a Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and by far the riiost learned theologian in our nation, says, that " Griesbach has admit- ted critical conjecture in no instance whatsoever, and, where he has expunged, corrected, or added, the evidence, (which he has accurately produced,) is in point of autho- rity three and four-fold in his favour." (Marsh's Michaelis, ch. XII. sec. 3. note 2.) Since Professor Griesbach was a Trinitarian, it cannot be supposed, that he was influenced in his decisions by any desire to favour the opposite doctrines ; and yet he was so perfectly impartial, that the Unitarians pay profound deference to his judgment, and see no rea- son to charge him with an undue attachment to those read- ings of the text, which seem favourable to the Orthodox system.* * For an excellent account of the life and labours of Griesbach, see the Monthly Repository, v. III. p. 1 — 9. A late number of the Month- ly Review, (see appendix to vol. LXXIII,) contains the tbilowing ac^- count of the critical celebrity of Griesbach, in the review of a Ger- man work on Greek literature. " A melancholy tribute of gratitude and admiration, which every critical student of the Scriptures will re-echo, is paid at the close of 6 34 After giving this short account of Griesbach's edition, I scarcely need saj, that I uniformlj follow it, and could not without great arrogance question the propriety of r.uy alteration, M'hich this most learned, judicious, and impvinMl crilick has sanctioned with his decisive authority. BnS I saj' more ; I maintain, that exevy minister, who pretends to a crilical acquaintance with the Scriptures, and who is not either timorously insincere or highly presumpiuous, will make use of ihis edilion in preference to any other ; because this contains the books of the New Testament, as nearly as can now with certainty be ascertained, in the state in which they proceeded from the Apostles and Evangelists, whereas into the editions, formerly used, inferpolations and corruptions are occasionally introduced. Those who be- lieve, that the words, as well as the sentiments of the sacred writers, were suggested to them by immediate inspiration, ought on that account only to hold this edition in greater reverence. Mr. vVardlaw justly remarks, that, " in making our ap- peal to the Scriptures, we should beware on all occasions of secretly indulging a wish to discover any part of them, however small, to be spurious," (p. 171.) and he utters the most solemn warnings against " wresting the Scrip- tures," or " applying them to purposes, which they were not designed to serve," so as " to impute to the Author of Truth sentiments contrary to what he meant to express,' and to fix " the seal of Heaven on falsehood and forgery.' J) the Preface to tlio meiliory of tlie leam.ed Griesbach, who lately died at Jena, in which university he was the most eminent professor. His profound comparative knowledge of manuscripts and editions, and the sin2;u!ar sagacity and impartiality of his verbal criticism, have given to his text of the Christian canon an oracular value. The ortlodox and the herctick bow alike to the unprejudiced indiflcrence of 1 i- dog- matism ; and, wliere inspiraiion appears not to guide, Griesbacii i? now allowed to detenpine.." as (p. 34.) B'lt it should be observed, that, besides wishing a genuine expression io be spurious, a person, interested in the support of a system, may also wish a spiirioiis expression to be o-enuine, and that it is not more wicked and profane to misapply a i^enuinc portion of the word of God, than to pro- duv-.e as an nncorrnpted passage of Scripture, what is only accounted such in the estimation of the uninformed. Concerning the variations in the text of Griesbach, whicli relate to the Divinity of Christ, Mr. Wardiaw addresses his hearers in the following terms ; p. 14G, 147. " Of all the texts, then, in the New Testament, to which I have directed your attention on this interesting topick, how many are there, do you suppose, whicii undergo any altera- tion in the text of Griesbach, the most recent, and, on all hands, acknowledged the most perfect ? — You will be sur- prised, perhaps, — especially any of you who may have been in the way of hearing Griesbach so often and so triumphantly appealed to, as he usually is by our opponents, — when I assure you that there is not one : — that not a single text of all that have been quoted is in the slightest degree touched by this high and vaunted authority!" " The fact as to this matter stands as follows. — There are three texts connected with the present subject which this eminent critick sets aside: namely, 1 John v. 7. ' For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one: — Acts XX. 28. Feed the church of God, which he halh pur- chased with his own blood:' — and, 1 Tim. iii. 16. ' Great is the mystery of godliness, God wes manifest in the flesh.' — T!ie first of these texts is rejected as entirely an interpola- tion. In the second, the reading ' the church o( the Lord^ is preferred, on a preponderance of authorities, to the read- ing of the received text, ' the church of God.' In the third, 'God was manifest in the fiesh' gives place to ^Me who was 36 nianilested in the flesh, was justified by the Spirit, Sec' Now to no one of these three passages have I referred, in proof of the doctrine which it has been my object to establish." In this passage Mr. Wardlaw acknowledges, that the text of Griesbach is '• the most perfect," accompanying his con- fession however with an angry sneer, which shows that he ill endures to see the implicit deference paid to the deci ions of Giiesbach by competent judges of all parlies, and will never forgive him for having, in obstinate conformity to his stupid Rules, thrown down three main pillars of the Trini- tarian system. B.if, besides the spirit of this passage, I have some fault to find with its accuracy. In pages 41, 85, 86, 136, that is, five several times, Mr. Wardlaw has quoted to prove the Divinity of Christ, Rev. i. 8. " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end- ing, saith (he Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." But the verse, as corrected by Giiesbach, reads thus ; " I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." The emendation is of considerable importance, because it determines completely the reference of the pas- sage to God, and not to Jesus Christ. Yet Mr. Wardlaw affirms, tiiat " not a single text of all that have been quoted is in the slightest degree touched by this high and vaunted authority !" In page 40, he has quoted among bis specimens of the " current language of the New Testament," J Tim. iii. 16. " God was manifested in the flesh." In page 33, the same ex- pression is brought forward, and marked as a quotation. In page 184, the phrase is again produced, and, though not marked with inverted conimas, M'ould impress his hearers at least, if not his readers, with the force of a familiar passage of Scripture. Yet Mr. Wardlaw affirms of this passage to- ojether with the other iwo set aside by Griesbach, " Now to n no one of these three passages have I referred in proof of the doctrine, which it has been my object to establish." If our friend had delected such inaccuracies in the work of any Unitarian, they would have afforded an occasion for a loud and long Carmen Triumphale, followed by grave ad- monitions against dishouesti/ and " impressing the seal of Heaven on falsehood and foigerj." I believe, however, that these mistakes have arisen from mere carelessness, though carelessness is not easily excusable in one, who is writing on such important subjects and with such imposing solemnity. II. After it has been determined, how a passage was origi- nally written by its inspired author, the next inquiry relates to ihe proper mode of translating it into English. The translation of the Bible, now in use, is sufficiently accurate for common purposes; its impressive and venera- ble diction will probably never be excelled ; and, consider- ing that it was made more than two hundred years from the present time, when the criticism of the Scriptures was in its infancy, it is highly creditable both to the talents and to the candour of its authors. Nevertheless it ought to be remem- bered, that the forty-seven gentlemen, employed to make it by King James, were not miraculously inspired. They I were fallible men, and it is acknowledged by persons of all sects, that in many instances they have failed. Mr. Ward- law occasionally objects to their translation in the most de- cided terms, (see particularly, p. 101. 71. 85. 338. 186. 38. 116.)* and I think it probable that, in all that I shall hereafter advance to disprove the Tiinitarian system, I shall not depart from the Authorised version in a greater number of instances than my opponent. Althodgh many persons in the common walks of life may be obliged to confine their attention to this translation, yet it f* Also 298. 351. 425. English ed.] 58 is> obviously fhe diitj of the ministers of religion to go to the fountain-head, not to trust to this or any other imperfect Ver- sion, but to bestow their labour upon the Greek Original, and with this view to make themselves acquainted both with the languages of the Classical Writers of Greece and Rome, and with the idioms of the Oriental tongues. He, who is inquiring into the sense of a particular passage, will do well to examine how it has been rendered by former translators. He ought however to be careful, that he does not neglect to exercise his own judgment, out of servile de- ference to the opinions of others. Slill more should he be upon his guard against translating a passage merely in ac- coramodation to his preconceived ideas. Let him be guid- ed by the rules of grammar, and the meanings which are given to words in the best lexicons. Thus he may produce in English an exact representation of what the inspired au- thor has Vi^ritten in Greek. But if, disdaining the dull em- ployment of searching through dictionaries and applying the rules of grammar, he satisfies himself with any translation, that pleases his fancy or supports his system, he forces the Scriptures to speak the language of his creed, instead of making his creed conformable to the real assertions of the Scriptures. It however sometimes happens, that the original admits of being translated in two different ways. In this case, it be- comes the student to bear both of the translations in his mind, and t6 desist from making a choice between them, un- til he has learned the doctrine of the Scriptures from other unambiguous passages. It is then allowable to adopt, as ex- J pressive of the true sense of the original, that translation, which is agreeable to the sentiments clearlv laid down in other parts of Scripture. But it is evident, that a passage in these circumstances cannot with propriety be adduced as a proof of any doctrine. 3» UI. Let us now suppose, that the student of the Scrip^-. tuics has franslated accurately info Enji,lish a genuine and uncoiTupted passage of the New Testament. The next in- quiry relates to the mode of interpreting that translation. Here it is that our judgment is in the greatest danger of be- ing warped by prejudice, because here we cannot be guided by such strict rules of criticism as in the two former branches of inquiry. When it is our object to explain an English trans- lation, we ought to be especially on our guard against using the system, which we have adopted, as a key to discover the sense of the passage. For daily observation shows, that a man, who is wedded to a certain set of opinions, accus- to;ns himself to find those opinions, whatever they are, ia every page of the Bible ; according to which loose and fan- ciful plan of interpretation the Scriptures may be made to express an infinite variety of meanings, or, what is the same thing, to have no meaning at all. The principles of inter- pretation which I shall now briefly mention, are such as no reflecting person will dispute. In considering the sense of any passage we should first inquire, whether the words may not be taken in their literal and primary acceptation. A literal explanation of a pas- sage is always to be preferred, until some good reason is as- signed for departing from it. Nevertheless it is evident to all, and it is acknowledged by persons of every sect, that in numberless instances the words of Scripture are to be understood figuratively. Where therefore we meet with a passage, which, if literally explained, would be a manifest violation of common sense, or directly contradict what is asserted in other parts of the Bible, we must conclude that the words are not to be taken in their primary signifi- cation. To determine the true sense, we must examine other passages, where the same forms of expression occur, and where persons of all parties agree to interpret them in 40 the same way. Bj employing the plainer and undisputed passages as guides to the interpretation of those which are obscure, we mav discover the true sense of all. Instead of having recourse to these severe and unaccom- modating rules, it is very common with Trinitarians to adopt without further inquiry any explanations, which ex- cite their feelings or please their fancy. To this conve- nient and captivating, but licentious and unprincipled me- thod of interpretation Mr. Wardlaw has in many inslancei given the sanction of his example, not considering, that the meaning which appears to him grand, interesting, and even obvious, may thus strike his mind only because it falls in with his preconceived opinions. To him and to all who argue after such a manner, I would put this serious ques- tion ; " Do you evince any of that reverence for the Scrip- tures and that holy thirst after divine truth, with the want of which you so liberally charge Unitarians, if, in compar- ing different interpretations of Scripture, you do not make it your object merely to detect those which are false, but discard all which you think frigid, poor, and tame. I can- not but consider such a conduct as indicative of an under- standing, which has little relish for clear simple truths, and is therefore always longing for awful mysteries, and seeking for something to rouse the feelings and amuse the imagina- tion in proportion as it offends the judgment. I am happy to think that Unitarians study the Scriptures with different views. Instead of endeavouring to find in every page of the Bible something grand and astonishing, we only search for what is true; we inquire what is the strict and gram- matical sense of the passage before us ; we thus endeavour to fuid out what has actually been taught to mankind by the inspired prophets and apostles ; and then, instead of complaining that the doctrines of the New Testament are too mean to be the subjects of a divine revelation, and at- 41 . templing fo arlorn and aggrandize t force. We forbear (o speak in in this connexion of the temerity of being " wise above that which is written" on a subject confessedly so high and mysterious, or to inquire ou which side the real reverence for the !?criptures is displayed. Edit.] fl 51 thaf my understanding is weak and deceitful, and hence I a;n prepared to ad.nit the truth of any unintelligible p." )position, which is supported by (he authority of Scrip- ture. It is usual with Trinitarians to answer the objections against the tnysteriousness of their principal tenets by saying, that there is mystery in every thing around us. I have already stated the fact, which it would be the height of presumption to deny, that concerning every class of beings there are truths, clear to superiour inteliigenr.es though seen inlistinctly, or not at all, by us. I have no objection therefore to those just representations of the feebleness and limitation of the hu nin faculties, vviiich are adapted to teach us candour and indulgence for the erroars of others, and modesty, hu nility, and caution in forming oir ovn opinions. Bjt I mnst protest against those deso- lating pleas for religious mystery, which tend to sap the foiindations of all human kno.vledge, and to introduce an irkso ne skepticism upon every subject. Mr. VV^ardlaw (p. 19.) intimates, that, if we make it a rule to understand the Iterms of a proposition before believing it, we must abandon '"some of the fundamental truths even of Natural Reliaiion.'* Hume himself went scarcely farther.* When such senti- ments are advanced, the contest is not about a few disputed outworks of the Christian system ; the whole fabrick of religion totters ; to prevent its very foundations from giving way, we are bound by all the humane and all the pious obligations to assert, that upon the primary truths of religion our ideas may by proper attention become clear * See Hume's " Dialogues on Natural Religion ;" which demonstrate that Orthodoxy and Skepticism are raised upon the very same basis, vis. the alleged indisdnccness of our ideas upon all subjects, and es- pecially upon matters of religion. 52 and certain, aiul that it is only upon subjects of subordinate consequence that we are left in obscuritj. As an example of his maxim, that we cannot always un- derstand even the fundamental truths of Natural Religion, Mr. Wardlaw produces the attribute of Omnipresence, (p. 19, 32, 1.30.) He affirois, that we use the expression, " God is here," and say " that he is at the same moment equally present in the remotest part of the universe," with- out annexing to these words any distinct ideas. " Have we," he asks, "ever endeavoured to analyze the conceptions, which these modes of expression appear to convey^ Is God," he continues, " a spiritual substance, infinitely extended ? Against this notion of infinite extension there have been advanced powerfid, perhaps insurmountable, objections; and the truth is, that, if we imagine we possess any conception at all of the mode of the Divine omnipre- sence and omniscience, we greatly deceive ourselves." Thus Mr. Wardlaw appears to me to renounce bis belief in the Divine omnipresence. Theologians, in treating upon this subject, have made a distinction between the virtual, and the actual omnipresence of God. His virtual omni- presence is the attribute, by which he is able to produce effects in every part of space. His actual omnipresence is the extension of his substance through every part of space. The former Mr. Wardlaw appears to allow, but to deny the latter. But in the latter, as well as the former, all sound theists believe. The notion of a spiritual substance infi- nitely extended is too vast to be fully embraced by our understandings. It is however a clear and distinct idea, nor is there any force in the objections urged against it. The true state of the case with respect to our knowledge of all the Divine Attributes is, that we may obtain clear ideas of their nature, although we cannot form adequate conceptions of their extent. Astronomers teach us, that 53. the distance between the earth and the sun Is more than 93 millions of miles. No one has in his mind the idea of a straight line so long as 95 millions of miles. Such a con- ception is too great for our capacity to comprehend. Never- theless all understand the meaning of the terms employed in (he proposition ; all firmly believe the fact; and may even draw deductions from it with unfailing certainty. In like manner, when we say, that God is either infinitely extended, or infinitely wise, or powerful, or good, we annex distinct ideas to the terms "extended," "wise," "power- ful," and " good," although our ideas necessarily fall short of the truth, so far as respects the degree, in which these qualities belong to the Almighty. Whilst therefore we admit and lament, that the concep- tions of the generality of Professing Christians are probably inaccurate and confused even upon the fundamental truths of Natural Religion ; we maintain that all men of ordinary capacities may by the proper use of their understandings obtain notions of the Deity clear, distinct, and well-defined, and that Mr. Wardlaw's plea for believing in mysteries as the primary truths of religion, is therefrre ill-founded and fallacious. Before quitting the subject of mys'teries, it is proper to explain the use of the term in the New Testament. The word " Mysterjf^ is there employed in a sense widely difTerent from those given to it by modern Trinitarians. It does not denote any thing either irrational or incomprehen- |sible ; it signifies, that which is for a time unknown, but iwhich nevertheless may be clearly understood. Mystery is properly a Greek word ; the English term, by which it may be most exactly rendered, is the word Secret. The \Mysteries of a Trade are the Secrets of that trade, clearly comprehended by those who exercise it, but unknown t« men of other professions. The Eleusiniau Mysteries 54 among the ancient Greeks were (lie secrets of the worship of Ceres, which were open to the initiated, but hidden trom the vulgar. So the mysteries of the Christian rehgion are the secrets, which were unknown to mankind unlil Jesus Christ came to reveal or discover them. But, being re- vealed, they are found to be plain and consistent truths, and contain nothing, which is either difficult to be under- stood, or apparently absurd. Let us examine some passages of the New Testament, where the word occurs. Mat. xiii. 11. When our Lord was asked by his disci- ples, why he spoke to the multitude in parables, he replied, " Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given :" that is, The disciples were favoured with the knowledge of the h'dden designs of God concerning the establishment and propagation of the Christian Religion : but the multitude had not such a revelation ; to them the purposes of God were still mysteries, being concealed from their inspection. Rom. xi. 25. " For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (lest ye be wise In your own conceits,) that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in ;" that is, To prevent vou from priding yourselves on account of your superiority in religious knowledge to the rest of mankind, 1 tell you this secret, that many of the Israelites will remain in unbelief; while the gospel will be generally received among the Gentiles ; — a prediction, which the event has proved to be true ; — a fact, which probably could not have been known without supernatural illumination, but which, being revealed, is perfectly plain and simple. In the same epistle, (Rom. xvi. 2.5, 26.) the religion of Christ is called " the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and, 55 by the Scriptures of the prophets according to the com- mandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." The same Apostle, in writing to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. ii. 7 — 10.) calls the matter of his own preaching a mystery ; " We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery ;" and he then more fuily explains himself by adding, "even the hidden wisdom, which iione of the princes of this world knew^ — but which God hath revealed to Christians by his spirit." Because he was employed in publishing and explaining to mankind the purposes of God, which were before kept secret, but now revealed, he says, (1 Cor. iv. 1.) "Let a man so account of us as ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.^' In his sublime description ot the last day, he calls the general resurrection a mj stery, (1 Cor. XV. 51 — 54.) because this great event v;as w.'iolly unknown to mankind, until it was foretold by Jesus Christ, who brought life and incorrnption to light. In his epistle to the Ephe- sians. Si. Paul applies the term Mystery \o the purpose of the Almighty, which he kept concealed until the promulgation of the Gospel, of uniting the Jews and Gentiles into one Church. God is described, (Eph. i. 9.) as ^^ having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in hiinseif;" and the mys- tery is then explained to be, " that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he would gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in earlh.'^ Heaven and Earth, according to the curious and important observation of Mr. Locke, signify the Jewish and the Gen- tile world. Accordingly, in the 3d. chapter, (v. 1 — 6,) the Apostle, referring probably to this brief and enigmatical ex-* pression, says, that on this subject he had written to them afore in few words; he then speaks of the mystery as " in I Bther ages not made known unto the sois of men, as it is 56 now revealed unto the holt/ apostles and prophets hy the spirit ;" and lastly, he explains this mj slery to consist in Ihe following fact, " that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers ofGod^s promise in Christ by the gospel.'^ The word Mystery is employed in a few other passages ; but those, which haAe been produced, render it abundantly plain, that, according to its Scriptural use it does not denote any thing, which is either contrary to reason, or incaj)able of being clearly understood. It signifies simply a secret ; that which is concealed for a while, but may be disclosed and made manifest. The doctrines of the Christian religion were mysteries so long as they were known only to God ; but they ceased to be mysteries so soon as they were revealed. The occurrence therefore of the term Mystery m the New Tes- tament gives no countenance to the idea, (hat the religion of Christ contains any thing incomprehensible, or even difficult to be conceived. To declare a mystery is not to raise diffi- culties, but to resolve them. It was the office of Jesus (Matt, xiii. 35.) to " idler things, which had been kept secret from the foundat ion of the world.^' I shall conclude this Chapter with a quotation from an eminent divine, who will not be charged with an undue prepos- session against reiysteries in religion, since he was one of the most distinguished advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity. *' I know not whence it comes to pass, tiiat men love to make plain things obscure, and like nothing in religion but riddles and mysteries. God indeed was pleased to institute a great many ceremonies, (and many of them of very ob- scure signification,) in liie .Tewisli worship, to awe their childisli minds into a greater veneration for his Divine Ma- jesty. But in these last days, God hath sent Iiis own son into tJie world to make a plain and easy and perfect revela- tion of Iiis will, to publish such a religion as may approve 67 i/self toour reason, and captivate our affections by its natu- ral charms and beauties. And tiiere cannot be a greater in- jury to the Christian religion, than to render it obscure and unintelligible. And yet too many there are, who despise every thing which they understand, and think nothing a sutScient trial of their fiiith, but what contradicts the sense and reason of mankind. "'^'- * Dr. William Sherlock's " Knowledge ofChrist," p. 131. Forfiirther considerations on the subject of mysteries in religion, the reader is re- ferred to the old Unitarian Tracts, vol. I. Foster's Sermons, vol. I. No. 7. Toulrain's Sermon on Mystery. Campbell's Gospels, Diss. IX. part 1st. Rees' Cyclopedia, Article, Mystery. Schleusner's Lexicon, ■Voce Mva-Tfiicv. S PART II. IN^TRODUCTION. Having endeavoured to determine with clearness and pre- cision the principles, by which every inquirer after religious truth ought to be guided, I proceed to bring forward the evi- dence in favour of the two controverted systems, and to judge of them by the standard of these principles. In the 2d Part, I shall state the opinions and arguments of Unita- rians concerning the Unity of God, the Subordination of Jesus Christ, and the use of the terms " Holy Spirit" and <' Spirit of God" in the Sacred Scriptures. In the 3d Part, I shall consider the objections, by which Mr. Wardlaw has attempted to invalidate the Unitarian doctrines. CHAPTER I. THE MVIOENCE FOR THE UNITY OF COD FROM THK I,I6HT OP NATURE. By the Unity of God, Unitarians do not understand merely a vniiy of coxinsel, or that there is no distraction of plans, or opposition of inclinations, manifested by the course of na- ture. They mean that the Universe is subject to one simple and undivided Mind, one all- wise Designer, who is uncreated, unchangeable, and everlasting, sufficient, without the aid of any counsellor, assistant, or associated God, for the production 59 of every effect, which is exhibited throughout endless time and infinite space. This doctrine they conceive to be prov- ed by the appearances of the material universe, as well as by the express testimony of Revelation. The argument for the Unity of God, derived from the ap- pearances of nature, proceeds upon the maxim, which is adopted in all reasonings from effects to causes, that No MORE CAUSES OUGHT TO BE SUPPOSED THAN ARE NECES- SARY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EFFECTS. If wc keep in vicw this universally admitted axiom, and trace the connexions and analogies, which pervade the several parts of nature, we shall perceive, that it is in the highest degree unreasona- ble to believe in more Gods than one. The being, who made one blade of grass, might make another ; he, who has invented aiid formed a perfect tree, might invent and form every plant, which grows upon the earth. One intelligent being therefore, capable of produc- ing a part of the vegetable creation, is capable of producing the whole ; so that the supposition of more than one is totally unnecessary. But this supposition is also improbable and absurd. All plants, however various, have many common properties, and are formed according to one general model. They are all nourished by air, earth, and moisture ; they are all propagated by seed ; they are all defended from the severity of the weather by bark ; they all have roots, stalks, leaves, adapted to their several functions ; and not an in- stance is known of any species of plant, which does not bear flowers, provided with the admirable apparatus of stamens, pistils, or other organs, necessary far perfecting the seed. That all these contrivances should have occurred to many independent Deities, is incredible. They form one model, according to which all the various races of vegetables are fashioned, and this model must have been the contrivance of one mind. 60 AVe may apply the same mode of reasoning to the animal creation. The God, who could make one man, could make any number of men. The supposition of one God therefore is sufficient to account for the formation of the human race. It is also in the highest degree improba- ble, that a number of independent Deities would by any chance or fatality conspire to create a race of beings, so singular, so complicated, and at the same time so admirably adapted to their siUialion. In like manner it maj'^ be observed, that all the tribes of animated creatures, quadru- peds, birds, insects, and fishes, exhibit in the organs, by which they eat, breathe, move, and perform the other funclions of life, some common features of resemblance, which prove that the whole animal creation owes its exis- tence to one contriving mind. If, in the next place, we consider the connexion, which subsists between the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we shall perceive that he, who causes all plants to spring out of liie ground, is the very same being, who gives life to all animals. Plants were evidently intended to supply food lo animals, and animals are furnished with all the necessary oigans for procuring nutriment from plants. The flowers and fruits of certain plants require the co-operation of certain animals, as the necessary medium for perfecting and dispersing the seed, which end is accomplished by contri- vances in the one class of beings, corresponding to contri- vances in the other class. Another adaptation of the vegetable to the animal kingdom, which is pregnant with the most salutary results, appears from the' celebrated discovery of Priestley, that, when animals have vitiated the air by breathing it, plants produce in it that change, which renders it again fit for respiration. But not only are these two tribes Jf beings adapted to one another so as to co- operate towards the accomplishment of the most important 61 purposes ; they are also to a considerable degree similar in their structure. The bark of the vegetable orders cor- responds, for example, to the skin of animals ; and many other striking points of analogy are well known to the natu- ralists. From tlie connexion and resemblance therefore, which are seen between the vegetable and the animal crea- tion, we are induced to conclude, that one designing cause contrived them both. Let us now consider the relations, which the innumerable tribes of plants and animals bear to the solid ground, to the rivers, the seas, the ocean, and the atmosphere : we shall be convinced that the constitution of the earth itself is ihe contrivance of the same God, who produced its various contents. The atmosphere, which encircles the globe, is one uniform substance, and cannot be supposed to have been formed by more than one cause. It is necessary for the support of plants and animals ; and, being thus intimately related to them, it must have been created by the same intelligent Author, who has made for them every other requisite provision. The collections of water on the earth also contribute to the welfare of the animal and vegetable tribes, by supplying through the medium of the atmosphere that moisture, which is no less necessary to them than the air and the soil. The seas, from which vapours are raised, the atmosphere, which with buoyant elasticity conveys them over the earth, and then drops them in showers upon the thirsty hills, the various tribes of plants and animals, which are nourished by this refreshing distillation, are closely bound together, and wisely accommodated for the joint production of the most beneficial effects. How could this result have been expected, if one Deity had poured out the seas, another spread forth the atmosphere, and another formed the races of animals and plants ? In this case it would have been in the highest degree improbable, that 68 one part ot the globe would have corresponded to another with such admirable exactness. Since therefore the earth we inhabit is one complete whole, all the parts of which arc mutually dependent, so that nothing can be taken away without injuring what remains, the unity of plan so strikingly discernible must be considered as proving the unity of its contriver. Biit the earth, though complete in itself, is only a part of another far greater system. In this system the unity of plan indicates with equal clearness the unity of its cause. In its centre is the sun, which dispenses the necessary ^portions of light and heat to all the surrounding bodies, and at the same time retains them in their orbits by its at- traction. The planets, including our earth, move round this centre with the greatest uniformity. They are subject to ihe same laws. They all describe in their courses the same geometrical figure, viz. the Ellipse ; they all move in the sa(ne direction, and with degrees of swiftness determined by one rule ; they have all nearly the same shape, that of a globe ; they all experience the changes of day and night, and the vicissitudes of the seasons. These features of resemblance place it beyond a doubt, that the same power- ful Creator, who formed the Earth, formed also the other planets, Avhich have the same constitution, and are subject, so far as we know, to the same laws. The close connex- ion between the planets and the sun proves also the unity of their cause ; and thus the whole solar system appears to be the work of one mind, who first contrived its plan and determined upon its laws, and then constructed the whole out of disorderly matter according to the sublime concep- tions of his eternal reason. Lastly, the Fixed Stars, though placed at immeasurable distances beyond the limits of our solar system, confess the same almighty Author. The light, which comes from &3 them, possesses all the admirable properties of the light, which comes from the sun. If the sun were placed at a sufficient distance from us, it would present exactly the same appearance as a fixed star. We cannot doubt there- fore that the fixed stars are suns, which resemble ours in their nature and uses, and which consequently must hav6 the same cause with ours. Thus, by traversing in imagination all the parts of crea- tion from the least to the greatest, and observing their resemblances and relations to one another, we arrive at the great conclusion, that all are the contrivance and workman- ship of one Almighty Mind. Should any one still object, that the universe may possi- bly have been planned by the counsel and co-operation of many Divinities, we refute the assertion in the following manner. Ei'her all of these supposed Divinities were fallible and limited in their capacities, or one of them at least was infinitely perfect. If any one of them was infinitely perfect, his wisdom and omnipotence were alone sufficient for the formation of the universe. To suppose the existence of any associated creator, is therefore to assign more causes than are neces- sary to account for the effects. One Infinite Mind is competent to the production of every thing which exists. To believe therefore in any other designer, either of con- fined or unlimited powers, is to violate the established principles of reasoning. The other supposition, that all the Deities concerned in the creation of the universe were limited and imperfect in their faculties, is equally untenable. Such beings could not co-operate. Discord would arise in their counsels^ False and confined views would suggest opposite schemes, the execution of which would fill all nature with confusion. The idea of a number of imperfect and finite Divinities is 64' laerefore contradicted by the beautitul uniformity of plan, which binds together all the parts of creation in indissoluble harmony, and whicli continues unimpaired through ages of ages. " If," says Lactantius, " there were in an army as many commanders as companies, it could neither be drawn up in order, nor led out to battle ; for all would follow their own private opinions, and do more harm than good. So in the kingdom of nature, unless there was one supreme head, to whom the care and management of the whole belonged, all things would be disjointed and fall to destruc- tion." 65 CHAPTER II. •XHfE EVIDENCE FOR THE UNITY OP GOD FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCRIPTURES, Notwithstanding the proof of the Unity of God af- forded by the harmonious correspondence of parts in the material creation, it is probable that this doctrine would have been unknown or little regarded, if it had not been taught to mankind by the clear and authoritative voice of Divine Revelation. In almost every page of the Bible it shines with incomparable lustre. To reveal, establish, and propagate this tenet, to which, however sublime and ra- tional, men have in all ages evinced a strong disinclination, was the great end proposed to be accomplished by the in- spiration of the Hebrew Prophets, and by the splendid se- ries of miracles recorded in the Old Testament. To pro- mulgate the same great truth among heathen nations, and ultimately to effect its universal reception in the world, ap- pears to have been one of the principal purposes, which God designed to answer by the mission of our Lord Jesus Christ. For examples of Scripture testimonies in proof of this doctrine, which are so well known that it is unnecessary to quote them at length, I refer to the following passages ; Ex. XX. 3. Deut. iv. 35, 39. vi. 4. 1 Sam. ii. 2. Ps. Ixxxvi. 10. Is. xliv. 6. xlv. 5, 6, 7, 14, 18, 21, 22. Mai. ii. 10. Mat. xxiii. 9. Mark xii. 29, 32. 1 Cor. viii. 4—6. Gal. iii. 20. Eph. iv. 6. 1 Tim. i. 17. ii. 5. vi. 15, 16. James ii. 19. Jude 25. 10 66 These texfs will be understood by all persons, whose minds are not pi e-enga:!;ed in favour of an opposite opinion, as asserting the existence of one only Supreme Mind. When, for instance, we read, that "ihere is one God, and there is none other but he," unless we are swayed by pre- judice, these words will at once suggest the idea of One Intelligent Being, alone possessed of every perfection, the cause and original of all things. The word God does not denote a collection of persons, or a cotmcil of intelligent agents; it signifies simply one person or intelligent agent. Consequently every text, \vhi( h affirms that there is but one God, implies that there is but one person in the God- head. Tie Unity of God, as one individual person, is also de- rote i throughout the Bible by the almost constant use of singular prononns, whenever any thought, action, attri- bute, or condition, is ascribed to the Supreme Being. In all languages the personal pronouns of the singular number are understood to apply only to one person. Thus, if I were writing a letter, by employing the pronouns of the frst person and singular number, /, Me, My, 1 should con- fine my assertions to myself as one individual person. Bj using the pronouns of the second person and singular num- ber. Thou, Thee, Thy, I should indicate that my asser- tions were addressed to my correspondent as one indi- vidual person. By introducing the pronouns of the third person and singular luunber, He, Him, His, I should de- note, that it was one person only, whom I was speaking of. If, on the contrary, 1 were writing a letter in conjunction with any other intelligent being, we should use the pronouns Tf^e, Us, Our; or, if I were addressing in my letter more persons than one, I should say, If, Yoit, Yoiir ; and, if 1 were wri'iiig any tliiu;;; of more than one person, I should say, They, Thciii, Their. 67 Such being the universal application of pronouns, it is evident, not only to those who have studied Greek and He- brew, but to all who know the use and meaning of human speech, that throughout the whole Bible God is almost uni- formly mentioned as one person, this being implied in the almost constant use of singular pronouns. When God appears to Abraham, he thus speaks ; (Gen. xvii. 1, 2.) "/am the Almighty God ; walk before me, and be fhou perfect ; and / will make my covenant between me and thee." To represent the address of more persons than one, the following language would have been employed ; " We are the Almighty God, (or. Almighty Gods,) walk before ns and be thou perfect; and ne will make oa/r cove- nant between lis and thee." The Levites are stated in the book of Nehemiab, (ch. ix. 6.) to have uttered the follow- ing language of adoration ; " Thou, even thoii, art Lord alone ; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are therein, the seas and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all ; and the host of heaven worshippelh thee.'^ This language necessarily signifies, that the Being, whom they designate " Lord alone," was one person. If he had been conceived to be more than one, the Levites would have expressed themselves thus ; " Ye, even ye are Lord, (or Lords,) alone ; ye have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, &c. and ye preserve them all ; and the host of heaven worship- peth you." As an example from the New Testament, and of the use of the pronoun of the third person, we may take Heb. xi. 6. "But without faith it is impossible to please him ; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.'* If the author of the epistle had conceived himself to be speaking of a plurality of persons, he would assuredly have said, " Without faith it is impossible to please 68 them; {ov he that cometh to God, Diust believe that they are, and that they are rewarders of them that diligently seek them.'^ These three texts are only produced hy waj of illustra- tion. The other passages, which assert the Deity to be one person by applying to him singular pronouns, extend from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of the Revelation. Like the sands upon the sea-shore, they can- not be numbered for multitude. The testimony of the Scriptures is therefore consonant to the voice of reason in teaching that there is but one Su- preme and Infinite Mind, the uncreated Jehovah, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, who is alone Eternal, Independent, and Immutable, the sole original fountain of life, perfection, and happiness. 69^ CHAPTER III. EVIDENCE THAT THE FATHER IS THE ONLY" TRUE GOD. Having thus shown, from the clear light of nature con- firmed by the ample testimony of Revelation, that all crea- ted things were produced by the power, and are directed by the providence of One Infinite Mind, or Person, I pro- ceed to establish another distinguishing article of the Uni- tarian creed, vis, that this one person is the same, who is repeatedly called in Scripture the Father, and conse- quently that THE Father is the onlv true God. No language can be more explicit than that which we find upon this subject in the first epistle of Paul to the Co- rinthians ; (ch. viii. 6.) " To us there is but one God, the Father.^* Equally decisive is the expression employed by the same Apostle in writing to the Ephesians ; (Eph. iv. 4 — 6.) "There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you allJ*^ These passages require no comment. They declare the truth to be proved, vis. that the one God, who is above all, is the Father, in these very words. He therefore, who derides or denies this Unitarian doctrine, derides or denies the Scripture itself. Another passage, held deservedly dear by those who advocate the doctrine of the proper unity of God, occurs in the solemn prayer uttered by our Lord before his cruci- fixion ; (John xvii. 3.) " This is life eternal, that they might know thee,the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Our Lord addresses one person, calling 70 that person " the only true God.^^ That the person ad' dressed was the Father, is evident from the commencement of the prayer, " Father, the hour is come," (ver. 1.) and from the repetition of the title " Father" in several of the subsequent verses, (ver. 5, 11, 21, 24, 25.) It followe therefore, that the Father is the only true God. Another passage, which proves the same doctrine, is that where Christ asserts, that the Father alone knew the day of general judgment. (Mat. xxiv. 36. Mark xiii. 32.) "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." If any other being besides the Father were God, he would have known the day of judgment. Since therefore the Father alone knew this day, it is manifest that he alone is the omniscient God. But the doctrine, that the Father is the only true God, rests not upon these few passages, however clear and deci- sive. It is expressed in the current language of the New Testament by the common use of (he term Father as another name for the One Supreme. Let the reader con- sult any of the following passages, and he will find that (he Supreme Deity, the One Only God, is (here designated by that single phrase, "The Father." Mat. xi. 27.* Luke X. 22.* John i. 18. iii. 35. v. 23,* 26, 36,* 37, 45. Ti. 37, 44, 45, 46,* 57. viii. 27, 29. x. 15.* xii. 49, 50. xlii. 1,3. xiv. 6, 8, 9,* 10,** 11,* 13, 24, 26, 28, 31.* XV. 9, 26.* xvi. 3, 15, 16, 17, 25, 27, 28,* 32. xviii. IL XX. 21. Actsi. 4, 7. 1 John i. 2, 3. ii. 1, 15, 16, 22, 23,* 24. iii. 1. iv. 14. 2 John 4, 9. N. B. An asterisk placed after a verse denotes the repe- tition of (he title " Father'^ applied to (he Dei(y. In o(her passages, (which I shall only refer (o, leaving the diligent reader to examine (hem for himself,) (he one only God is denominated, " God the Father ;" John vi. 71 ^r. Gal. i. 1, 3. Eph.vi.23. Phil. ii. 11. 2 Tim. i. 2. Titus i. 4. 1 Pelei- i. 2. 2 Peter i. 17. 2 John 3. Jude 1. " God and the Father," or " God even the Father;" James i. 27. iil. 9. " God our Father ;" 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. Eph. i. 2. Phil. i. 2. Col. i. 2. 1 Thess. i. 1. 2Thess. i. 1, 2. 1 Tiro. i. 2. Philem. 3. " God and our Father," or " God even our Father ;" Gal. i. 4. Phil. iv. 20. 1 Thess. i. 3. iii. 11, 1.3. 2 Thess. ii. 16. "The Father of mercies," which means " The very merciful Father ;" 2 Cor. i. 3. " The Father of GLORY," which means " The glorious Father ;'"' Eph. i. 1 7 . and, as our Lord employs the title, addressing his dis- ciples, " Your Father who is in heaven," Mat. v. 45, 48. vi. 1. vii. 11. xviii. 14. xxiii. 9. Mark xi. 25, 26. " Your heavenly Father," Mat. vi. 14, 26, 32. Luke xi. 13. " Your Father," Mat. vi. 8, 15. x. 20, 29. Luke Ti. .36. xii. 30, 32. " Thy Father," Mat. vi. 4, 6,* 18.* This collection of testimonies to the Unitarian doctrine might be swelled out by the addition of (he passages in which the one true God is called the Father of our Lord Jesus Clwist. These all bear upon the same point, but are omitted here, because (here will be occasion (o refer to them hereafter. Bu( more (han a hundred proofs have been produced already, which, I conceive, must impress every unprejudiced inquirer with the conviction, that the Father alone ought to be the God of Christians. The opinion of Unitarians upon this subject is fur(her confirmed by all (hose passages, which represent the Father as the proper object of Supreme worship. The form of prayer, which Jesus prescribed for (he use of his disciples, commences with this invocation, " Our Father who art in heaven." (Mat. vi. 9. Luke xi. 2.) When our Lord foretells to (he woman of Samaria (he approaching substi- tu(ion of spiri(ual in place of rilual worship, he distinctly 11 menlions the Father as the proper object of adoration ; (John iv. 21, 23.) " Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. — The hour cometh, and now is, when the true tvorshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.^^ In conformity with this general direction, our Saviour exhorted his Apostles to address themselves in prayer io the Father, as to the being who was able and willing to grant their petitions ; (John xvi. 23.) '* Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in ray name, he will give it you." See to the same purpose John XV. 16. Mat. xviii. 19. The conduct of our blessed Lord was agreeable to bis precept : (Mat. xi. 25, 26. Luke x. 21.) « At that time Jesus answered and said, " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes ; even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." That it was the practice of Jesus to address himself in the language of supplication to the Father, is likewise manifest from the following passages ; Mat. xxvi. 39, 42, 53. Mark xiv. 36. Luke xxii. 42. xxiii. 34, 46. John xii. 27, 28. xiv. 16. xvi. 26. xvii. 1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25. In this respect, as in all others, the Apostle Paul was a follower of Christ. To give thanks for all things to the Father was his practice, (Eph. iii. 14. Col. i. 3.) and his precept. (Rom. xv. 6. Eph. v. 20. Col. i. 12. iii. 17.) Thus are we authorized by the examples and the com- mands of J^-sus, our master, and of the Apostle Paul, to consider the Father as the only proper object of supreme adoration. Hence we conclude, that he is the only God. So clear, numerous, and decisive are the proofs, which establish the L^nitarian doctrines, 1st, that God is one sim- 73 pie and undivided mind or person, and 2ndl7, that that one person is the Father. — And is il not an unspeakable satis- faclion to have the subject thus simplified and cleared of mystery ? Must not the humble worshipper, who laments that his piety is checked, not only by the importunities of appetite and the attractions of material objects, but by the real difficulty of contemplating with fixed attention a being unseen, unfelt, and unheard, rejoice in every discovery, which contributes to render the sublime work of praise more easy as well as more delightful ? But to enlarge on these views, though useful as well as agreeable, would be to depart from the line of strict Scriptural argumentation. I proceed therefore, in the next Chapter, to state and defend the Unitarian doctrine on the person of Christ. II 74 CHAPTER IV. 4TATE.MKIvT OF THE I'lVlTARIAN DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE PERSOKT OF CHRIST. EVIDENCE THAT KE WAS NOT GOD, BUT A DISTINCT BEING FROM KIM. In the Sermon, prearhed at the opening of the Unitarian Chapel in Glasgow, I have stated, (p. 12, 13.) that, all hough Unitarians diifer among themselves concerning the 3Iiracu- lous Conception and Pre-existence of Christ, some reject- ing, and others believing these tenets, yet Ihej all deny (hat he was the Elernal God ; and those of them, who believe that he created the material world, nevertheless conceive, that in the execution of this work, he was only employed as an instrument in the hands of the Deity, and unite with the general body of Unitarians in maintaining, that he was not possessed of underived wisdom and independent power. The distinguishing principles of Unitarianism therefore, which it is now my object to defend, are these; that our Lord Jesus Christ was not God, but a distinct being from him ; that he was inferiour and subordinate to the Father ; and that he received from the Father all his Wisdom and his Power. To these doctrines it is commonly objected, that they lower the dignity of the Saviour. Let the can- did reader bear in mind the maxim, acknowledged on all hands, and laid down at the commencenjent of our inquiry,, that the truth of religions doctiines ought to be tried, not by tiie standard of our fancies, wishes, and feelings, but by the Word of God. If, with a sincere desire of arriving at the truth, we apply to this source of information, we, in the fust place, observe 15 numerous passa^-es, which represent Jesus Christ as a diS' Unci being from God. Thus Sr. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, (ch. v. 1.) makes the following assertion ; " We liave peace with God through our Lord Jesus Chrisi.^^ Two different beings are here presented to our conteinpla- lion. The first is the being, to whom we are reconciled ; the second is the mediator, through whom we are reconcil- ed to him. The first is called God. Since therefore we know that there is only one God, it necessarily follows, that the second h not God. The same distinction is commonly made in the benedic- tions at the commencement of the epistles ; " Grace be to you and peace /ro/Ji God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ;'' Rom. i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. E.fh. i. 2. Phi!, i. 2. 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i. 2. Philem. 3. and with a slight variety of expression, Gal. i. 3- 1 Tim. i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2. Titus i. 4. *' Grace and peace be multiplied un.'o you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus ovr Lord ,-" 2 Peter i. 2. " Grace be with you, mercy and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesits Christ." 2 John 3. To these passages may be added the salutation of Paul, Eph. vi. 23. "Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.'' Also the blessing of tiie same Apostle upon the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. ii. 16. " Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work ;" and his devoi:t wish, 1 Thess. iii. II." Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Je^ms Christ, direct our way unto you." Each of these 17 passages expresses a pious and benevolent wish of favour and assistance from two distinct beings. One of the two is in every instance called "God :" to tiie other this title i)3^«t£, " through whom ye were called." But even here there is strong evidence for considering urt as the true reading. See Griesbach. Even allowing Dia to denote the original cause in two or three passages, still the probability that it denoted the instrumental would be in any doubtl'ul case as 100 to I. f Ot/TCD TWcjyv X3« ti^ttSi, i< ■xdLiT» 101 The conclusion, suggested by the miracles of Jesus to h'lti conleniporaiies, is most clearlj stated in his conversa- tion with Nicoderaiis, recorded in the 3d chapter of John's gospel. Nicodemus thus commences his address, " Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God ; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.^* The more intelligent and impartial Jew, it appears, considered the miracles of Jesus as a proof, that he was "a teacher come from God," which is the exact light, in which thej are regarded by all Unitarians. They reasoned, " No man can do such miracles as Jesus does,'* (they did not say, as a Trinitarian would, " Except he be God, as weil as man," but,) " except God be with him." Precisely in the same manner is the origin of our Lord's miraculous powers accounted for by the Apostle Peter, who, in Acts x. 38. is represented staling to Cornelius and his household the substance and foundation of the Christian faith. " That word," says he, " ye know, which was published thioughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil ; for God was with him.^^ And on the day of Pentecost, when his mind was fully illuminated concern- ing the pre-eminent dignity of our Lord's character, he thus describes it to the assembled multitude in the name of the other Apostles ; *' Jesus of Nazareth, a man approv- ed of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did b^' {through) him." (Acts ii. 22.) The Apostle Peter therefore, even when " filled with the holy spiril," instead of considering the miracles, exhibited by our Saviour, as any evidence of his proper Deity, believed that he performed them, only because " God was with him," because " God had anointed him with the holy fpirit and with power," and because in fact " God did the miracles through him,^^ God being the real author of the miracles, and Christ the medium, through the instrumental- ity of whom they were exhibited. A circumstance, which throws a clear light upon this subject, is, that exactly the same account is given (Acts xv. 12.) of the way, itt which the Apostles were enabled to perform miracles. " Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barna- bas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by (through) them.** Conformable to this explanation is the view presented by the Apostle John at the conclusion of his gospel. After describing a great variety of miracles, exhibited by our Lord, he thus explains his design in recording them ; " And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book ; but these are written, that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christy the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John xx. 30,31.) We see, that the beloved disciple, who always spoke of his master in the most glowing terms of admiration and affection, and who wrote his history, when many were disposed to fall away from the faith, in order to prevent their love from waxing cold, never regarded the miracles of Christ as a proof that he was God, but only as a proof, that he was the Messiahj Ihe Son of God. Let the candid reader now ask himself, Are Unitarians to be blamed for denying that the miracles of Christ evince his proper Deity, when it appears from the New Testa- ment, that they were never so regarded by the beloved John, by ihe zealous Peter, nor by any of the apostles and first disciples of our [jord ? The Jeyrs, whose nation had been signalized by the display of miracles during many former ages, and who doubtless were best able to judge of the nature of their testimony; the Apostles, who attended 103 •ur Lord during his ministry for the express purpose of being qualified to publish through the world the evidences of his dignilj and authority ; the Primitive Believers, who by beholding these miracles were converted to the faith of the gospel, and who must have felt the full force of the awful and authoritative manner in which they were per- formed ; the sick, the lame, the blind, the lunatick, who were restored to perfect soundness of mind and body through the all-commanding efficacy of our Saviour's word ; all these, with every motive powerfully working upon them of gratitude, of personal attachment, and of personal expe- rience and actual inspection, only inferred from the miracles of Jesus, that " God was with him," that he was " a teacher come from God," " a prophet," and " the Messiah, the Son of God." 2. Having considered the inferences, derived from the miracles of Jesus by those, who saw them performed, let us, in the second place, inquire what account he himself gave of the power, by which he exhibited them. If we appeal to his own declarations, we find him utterly disclaiming underived power, asserting in the plainest terms, that he could of his own self do nothing, and that whatever power he possessed was conferred upon him by his Father. Thus (Mat. xi. 27. Luke x. 22.) he says to his disciples, " All things are delivered unto me of my Father." To the Jews he declares, (John v. 19, 30, 86.) "Verily, verily, I say unto you. The soti can do nothing of him- self." " / can of mine own self do nothing." " The works, which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." And to his desponding Apostles he admi- nisters consolation by the following' account of his divine authority; (John xiv. 10.) "The words, that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father, that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works." 104 To these clear assertions vre may atld another testimony^ still more solemn. That the power, by which Jesus per- formed miracles, did not belong to him as his uncommuni- cated and inherent possession, is ip.anit'est from his prayer at the raising of Lazarus, and from the previous address of Martha. John xi. 21, 22. "Then said Martha unto Jesus, " Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died : but I know, that even now, whatsoever thou ivilt ask of God, God nill give it thee.^^ From the last words we may conclude, that Martha knew it to be the cusfom of Jesus to pray to God for the accoaiplishment of any miracle, which he wished to perform, and that God always granted his petition by performing the miracle through hiin. If however the address of Martha leaves this matter doubtful, all uncertainty is removed by what we read in the 41st, 42d, and 43d verses ; " And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, ' Father, I thank thee, that thou hast heard me ; and I knew, that thou hearest me always ; but because of the people, which stand by, I said it, that they may believe, that thou hast sent me :' and, when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, ' Lazarus, come forth.' " This passage proves, that our Saviour never performed any miracle without a prayer to God the Father, either tacit or expressed aloud, in which he acknowledged him- self to be dependent upon him for power to perform the miracle. " I knew, that thou hearest me always." This implies that he "always" before exhibiting a miracle, uttered in his mind a prayer to God, and that God always acceded to his prayer. " But because of the people, which stand by, I said it, that they may believe, that thou hast { in his own nature, but was given to him by the only true God, the Father. Perhaps I may be blamed for degrading the character of the Saviour. To this I answer, that I use no language and make no assertion concerning him, which I do not find con- stantly employed by himself and his apostles, and which does not appear necessary to vindicate the unrivalled glory, the supreme, underived, and independent power, of the one living and true God, who was and who is and who is to come, the Almighty. 16 114 CHAPTER VIII. as THE rSE OF THE PHRASES " HOLT SPIRIT," &C. IS THE SACKB» SCRIPTURES. The various applications of the word " spirit'' in the New Testament have been viewed by learned theologians, as presenting great difficulties. I confess with respect to myself, that I do not clearly understand several passages, in which this term occurs, and think it better to remain in doubt than to form an opinion too precipitately. I must therefore remind the reader to exercise his own judgment upon what I shall advance in this as well as in every other chapter of my volume. Notwithstanding the difficulty of explaining some particular passages, (a difficulty, which oppresses the Trinitarians as much as their opponents,) I conceive, that the doctrines, which I shall state under the three following heads, are fully established, and that the word spirit is never applied by the Sacred Writers, as it is by the Orthodox of modern times, to an intelligent being, distinct from God the Falher, co-equal and co-eternal with him, and like him possessed in an infinite degree of all natural and moral perfections. I. In the first place, there is reason to believe, that the phrases '' Hoh/ Spirit,'' and ''Spirit of God" are used in the Sacred Scriptures to signify the One True God, THE Father. It was the object of the three first Chapters of this 2d Part, to prove those two leading principles of the Unitarian creed, that there is only one person in the Godhead, and that that one person is the Father. I now remark, that in 11!* various passages of Scripture, the phrases " Holy Spirit" and " Spirit of God" are only other names for the same unrivalled Being. That this should be the case is perfectly natural. "God is a spirit," and he is " Holy ;" why then should he not be called, " The Holy Spirit r' It is very common in Scripture to employ " the spirit of a person'^ in oider to denote the person himself. Thus St. Paul says to his Christian bretliren, (1 Cor. xvi. 17, 18.) "I am glad of the coming of Stephanas, and Fortu- natus, and Achaicus ; — for they have refreshed my spirit and yours ;" that is, " they have refreshed me and youJ" The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians and that to Philemon conclude with this benediction ; " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.^' Most of his other epistles however conclude thus; "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you^ There can be no doubt, that both expressions have the same signification. " Your spirit'' means the same with " You.'' Since therefore " the spirit of a person"" is a phrase employed to denote the person himself " The spirit of God" may naturally mean God himself In the following passage this periphrasis is employed in speaking both of man and of God. 1 Cor. ii. 11. " For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him ? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God." The meaning of the verse is evidently this; "As no one is acquainted with the secret purposes of a man, except the man himself so no one is acquainted with the secret purposes of God, except God himself." Thus the Spirit of Man signifies the Human Mind ; and, in like manner, the Spirit of God signifies the Divine Mind. When Elihu, in the book of Job, asserts, (ch. xxxiii. 4.) " The Spirit of God hath made me," he doubtless means, 116 " God hath matle me." In the 139th Psalm the omnipre- sence of God is described in the following beautiful and sublime language ; (vcr. 7.) " Whither shall 1 go from thy spirit J* or whither shall I tlee from thj presence ?" (\er. 8.) "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there." Here it may be remarked, that '•'' thy splriV^ ■a\u\ '■'■thy preftnce'^ are em- ployed in the former verse, as equivalent lo the single word ^Hhou''^ in the latter. The same sense would have been conveyed, if the llrst question had been, " Wiiilher shall I go from thee?^^ or, if the last verse had been, "If I ascend up into heaven, thy spirit is there ; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thy spirit is (here." The Spirit of God here signifies the spiritual and intelligent substance of God. The Prophet Isaiah (Isa. Ixiii. 10.) thus describes the disobedience of the Israelites, and the consequent dis- pleasure of their holy God. " But they rebelled, and vexed his holy spirit ; therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them." The holy spirit of God is employed in ihe first part of the verse to denote the same being, who is called by the single pronoun " He" in the latter part, and the Lord, or Jehovah, in many places of the same chapter. These examples from the Old Testament appear sufficient to prove, that in Scripture lan- guage the expressions " Holy Spirit^' and " Spirit of God'^ are sometimes used to signify God himself. I shall now produce all the passages of the New Testa- ment, which seem (o be most easily and naturally explained upon (his principle, taking the liberty to use the word " Spirif^ for (he sake of uniformity in every quotation, whether Pneuma be so translated in the Common Version, or by the almost obsolete word " Ghost.^^ In Acts V. 3, 4. we are informed (ha( Peter addressed Ananias in the following terms; "Ananias, why hath Satan 117 filled thine hear! to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land ? Whiles it remained, was it nol thine own? and, after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart ? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.^^ In this speech of the Apostle, lo "lie unto the Holy Sj>irjt," and to "lie unto God," appear to be synonymous expressions. Perhaps it may be proper to interpret in the sa.ae manner the expression of Peter in the 9lh verse, *' How is it, that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord .^^' We may consider this phrase as p^raliel io the expressions " /o tempt God''' and " /u tempt the Lord,"" which we find in other parts of Scripture. Tiie following passages resemble one another in repre- senting the Holy Spirit as saying or speaking words, which were uttered through Prophets under the Old Testa- ment dispensation. Acts i. 16. "This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by (through) the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas." Acts XXV iii. 25. " Well spake the Holy Spirit by (through) Esaias the Prophet unto our fathers, saying, ' Go unto this people,' " &c. Heb. iii. 7. "As the Holy Spirit sailh, * To-day if ye will hear his voice,' " &c. Heb. x. 15, 16. " The Holy Spirit also is a witness to us ; for, after he had said before, ' This is the covenant that I will make,'" &c. If we compare these passages with numerous others, in which it is asserted of a Scripture, that God, or thk Lord, spake it through the Prophet, we shall see reason to believe, that the Holy Spirit is in these instances another name for God. In like manner, (Acts xxi. 1 1.) the Prophet Agabus introduces a communication, supernaturally sug- gested to his mind, with the expression, " Thus saith the Holy Spirit,^' which appears exactly parallel to the expres- iion often used by other Prophets, " Thus sailh God.'^ 118 In the above mentioned cases, the suggestions of the Spirit were uttered aloud by the Prophet, or commitled by liim to writing, he serving as the organ to publish the thoughts of the Divinity. In many other cases, a purpose or sentiment was suggested to a Prophet merely for the direc- tion of his own conduct. The language of the Scriptures in such instances commonly is, that God speaks to him, not that God speaks through him to others. We find in the New Testament several examples of this kind, in which the Holy !Spirit is said to speak, and from a comparison of these with the other cases of supernatural, but silent, sug- gestion, in which God is said to speak, I think it probable, that the Holy Spirit is used in these passages as another name for the One True God. The passages I allude to are the following : Acts viii. 29. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, *' Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." Acts X. 19. " While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said vnto him, "Behold, three men seek thee." xi. 11, 12. " TJiere were three men, already come into the house where I was, sent from Cwsarea unto me, and the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting." xiii. 2 — 4. " As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, Ihe Holy Spirit said, " Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the '. vork, whereunto I have called them." — " So tl;cy, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto Seieu- cia." XX. 23. " Save that ihe Holy Spirit witnesseth in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me." 1 Tim. iv. 1. " Now the Spirit speakelh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith." In each of these cases a sentiment or an action is suggested to ihe mind of the inspiied person, and the words, expres- sive of that sentiment or action, are also suggested by the same extraordiiiarv influence. The obviotis wav of denoting the origin oi such ideas in the mind, is to say, that 119 God speaks these things to the person inspired. In the. exainjiles before us it is said, that '^ the Holy Spirit^'* meaning God, " spake," " bid," or " witnessed." The other examples, in which "the Holy Spirit" appears io be but another name for the Father, are the follow- ?hg. The reader will find upon examination, that, if in- stead of this phrase he substitutes the word " Godj'^ the sense will be complete, and the language conformable to the usual style of the Scriptures. Luke ii. 26. Acts xv. 28. XX. 28. 1 Cor. ii. 11 — 14. Eph. iv. 30. Heb. ix. 8. and especially, 1 Cor. xii. 6 — 1 1, where the Apostle, speak- ing of the various supernatural endowments of the first Christians, says, that " the same God worketh all in all," and shortly after, " But ail these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing unto every man severally vr!ta, more properly signifies) bloning, upon the I disciples, which was to afford an external sensible symbol j of the passage of energies, powers, and influences, froiii i Jesus to them. 5 These observations may illustrate the fact, that among all ; the derivative applications of the term Pneuma, the use of j it to signify the extraordinary communication of knowledge ; and power is perhaps the most simple, easy, and natural. ■ The instances of the use of the word *' Spirit" in this j sense are very frequent in the Old Testament.' See, for j example, Gen. xli. 38, 39. Ex. xxxi. 3. xxxv. 31. Num. | xi. ir, 25, 2G, 29. xxiv. 2. Dan. v. 11, 12. But it will I be desirable, for the sa'ie of brevity, to consider its occur- ^ rence in the New Testament only, and to divide tlie exam- ples of its application in this sense into dislinct classes. ] 1. In various passages of the Christian Scriptures, a per- ^ son is said to be " filled with the holy spirit," or " full of , 121 the holy spu-it." See Luke i. 15, 41, 67. iv. 1. Acts ii. 4, iv. 3,31. vi. 3,5. vii. 55. ix. 17. xi. 24. xiii. 9, 52. Eph. v. 18. To say, Ihat any one was ''JiUed with God,'' or ''full ofani/ persoiiy" would evidently be a strange and unualural ex- pression. Btif what places it beyond a doubt, that the holy spirit means in these passages only powers, gifts, and in- fluences, is, that in the same Scriptures the terms "filled" and " tuii" are repeatedly applied to denote the existence of mere qualities: and, as all ihe above j)assages except one are cited from St. Luke, so the application of the terms " filled" and "full" to other qualities is particularly fre- quent in tlie histories of the same author, which circumstance enables us to apply Mr. Wardlaw's excellent rule, (p. 37.) " that a writer is the best interpreter of his own phraseology." We find these terms applied to denote properties, either good or had. Jesus Christ is described as "full of grace and truth ;" John i. 14. Persons are said to have been "filled witn wisdom;" Luke ii. 40. "filled with kiiotv- ledoe;'' Rom. xv. 14. Col. i. 9. " filled with jo^';" Acts ii. 28. Rom. XV. 13. 2 Tim. i. 4. " filled with comfort;'' 2 Cor. vii. 4. " filled w'lih the fruits of ri^hteoumess ;" Phil. i. 11. " full of goodness ;" Rom. xv. 14. " full of good works and alms-deeds ;" Acts ix. 36. Men are described as " filled Vf'ith wrath, fear, madness, wonder and amazement, indig- nation and envy, Luke iv. 28. v. 26. vi. 11. Acts iii. lO. V. 17. xiii. 45. xix. 28. One man is said to have been " full oi leprosy," Luke v. 12. and another "full of all subtilty and all mischief;" Acts xiii. 10. The use of the phrase " holy spirit" in connexion with the adjective ^^ full" is further elucidated by its occurrence in conjunction with other words in the same clause of a sen- tence, where persons are said to be full of the holy spirit AND of some other quality. Let Ihe reader consult the 6th chapter of Acts. He will find in the 3d verse, that the 17 122 twelve Apostles direct fiie discij)Ies " to look out among them seven men of lionest report , f nil of the holy spii'it and WISD031." In ver. 5. Stephen, one of the seven chosen, is described as '• a man full of faith and of the holy spirit.'* In ver. 8. the same ideas are conveyed, with a slight variety of expression, by saying, that " Stephen, /if// of faith ' AiVD POWER, did grc:it wonders and miracles among the peo- ple." Here the word ^^ power''' seems to be used as synony- mous to the expression *' /to/*/ sp/ri/.'' In ver. 10. it is added, that the Jews " were not able to resist the wisdom AND the spirit, by which he spake." " The wisdom and the spirit" therefore were both properties, and were both resisted as properties. In like manner, (Acts xi. 24.) Bar- nabas is said to have been " full of the holy spirit and of faith ;" and, (Acts xiii. 52.) we are told, that " the dis- ciples were filled with joy and with the holy spirit.'' From these considerations it is indisputable, that, when any one is in Scripture affirmed to be full of, or filled with, theholy spirit, the idea of the personality of thatiioly spirit is entirely excluded. It denotes only gwa/i/tes, or s/rt/eso/mmt?. 2. In the following passages, persons aie said to receive the holy spirit, John vii. 39. xx. 22. Acts ii. 38. viii. 15, 17, 19. X. 47. xix. 2. 1 Cor. ii. 12. 2 Cor. xi. 4. Gal. iii. 2, 14. To receive a divine person is an idea, which cannot en- ter the mind. But to receive a power, a disposition, an affection, is a nnttiral and intelligible phrase. One of the instances, here referred to, merits a particular consideration. Acts xix. 2. When Paul asked the disciples al Ephesns, " Have you received the holy spirit, since ye believed ?" They replied, " We have not so much as heard, whether there be any holy spirit." They evidently meant, that they had not been informed of the communication of miraculous gifts and powtrs. For of the existence of God they could not be ignorant. 123 As in this class of passages the holy spirit is spoken of as *' receiveil," so .3. !ji the following instances, it is asserted to have been "giceti:^' liuke xi. 13. John iii. 34. Acts viii. IC. xi. 17. XV. 8. Rom. V. 5. 2 Cor. i. 22. v. 5. 1 Thes. iv. 8. 1 John iii. 24. iv. 13. In the lirst of these passages, from the Gospel of Luke, the wonis of Jesus to his disciples are, " If ye then, being ev'j, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy spirit to ihem, that ask him ?" In the parallel passage of the Gos- pel of Matthew, (Mat. vii. 11.) the last clause is thus varied; "Hovv much more shall your Father, which is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him ?" The holy spirit therefore consisted of " good gifts," or " good things." Tne second of the passages, here cited, speaks of the spirit as given hy measure; which not only shows, that it was a gift, but that it might be imparted in various degrees. It must therefore signify Divine inspiration, of which some have had one measure, and some another. In Acts xi. 17. the Apostle Peter expressly calls the holy spirit a gift. " Forasmuch as God," says he, "gore thew the like gift.'' 4. A fourth class of passages consists of those in which the holy spirit is figuratively represented as something show- ered down upon the favoured individuals. In Acts ii. If, 18. God is said to " poiir out of his spirit upon all flesh ;" and, in Acts x. 45. the expression is, that " on the Gentiks was poured 07it the gift of theholy spirit.'" In his Epistle to Titus, (ch. iii. 5.) Paul speaks of " the hoiy spirit, which God hath shed on us abundantly.'' That " (he holy spirit" is here intended to iienole dispositions and in- fiuences, is manifest, not only from the use of the word shed, which could not be applied to 9. person, and from the abun- 124 dance of the gifts bestowed^ but also from the application of the same phrase bv this author in speaking of the " love of God." Rom. V. 5. " The love of God," as he beaulifulij expresses himself, " is shed abroad in our hearts." If the love of God can be shed, or poured out, upon a man, so may also the other talents and affections, of which the holy spirit consisted. The Apostle Peler also (Acts ii. 'S3.) explains the extraordinary appearances of the day of Pentecost by saying to the assembled multitude, " Jesus, having rereived of the Father the promise of the holy spiii, hath shed forth fhis^ ivhich ye now see and hearJ'^ What did the persons present see and hear!* They saw in the Apostles the dis- play of sudden and supernatural knowledge; they heard languages before unknown I presume,* will he refuse his assent to the concluding re- mark of that quotation, that each ir.finite mind is *' a God ;" for the proper definition of a God is, a self-existent and all- powerful Mind. To assert therefore, that there are three such minds, is the same thing as to assert, that there are three Gods ; and the charge of Tritheism, which was pre- ferred against Dr. Sherlock, lies equally against Mr. Ward- law. If it be asked. What kind and degree of evidence would be suflScienf to establish the doctrine of the Trinity, thus understood, I reply. No evidence whatsoever ; not even the clearest declarations of the Scriptures themselves. For its own intrinsick absurdity is more decisive oo"rtms/ it, than any contrary evidence could be for it. To use the words * [" The Thr*»e persons Iiavc existed from eternity, equal, and mutu- ally independent." — Warulaw, p. 294. — Edit.] 141 of Priestley, it is a doctrine,'* which councils and parliaments may decree, but which miracles cannot prove." If teaches, that one God is three Gods, one infinite Mind three infinite Minds. It asserts, that (he Deity is one in the same sense, in which he is three ; and this Mr. Wardlaw himself (p. 22) allows to be ♦' an irreconcilable contradiction." Agreea- bly therefore to the axioms, laid down in the Chapter upon Mysteries, (P. I. ch. 4.) we ought to reject this docjrine, even though it were plainly stated in the Scriptures ;* because it is in itself impossible, and because it contradicts one of the fundamental articles of both Natural and Reveal- ed Religion, the Unity of God. IJI. I come now to the third principal statement of the Trinitarian doctrine, vis. the opinion of those, who say, that the subject is so completely removed beyond the view of the human understanding, that it is impossible for us to form upon it any clear or accurate conceptions. Trinitarians of this class disapprove of all attempts to- wards explaining the doctrine. When questioned upon the subject, they can scarcely be persuaded to declare, whether they consider the three persons of the Trinity as three distinct minds, or only as three relations, or aspects, of the same mind. The fact is, they are suspicious, that the doctrine will not stand the test of examination. They have a secret foreboding, that, if it be stated in clear terms, so as to become assailable by argument, it will fall to the ground. Its safety depends upon its entire removal from the field of discussion. To this elusive representation of the doctrine Mr. Ward- law has recourse. In the part of his volume, relating more directly to this subject, (that is, in the First and the begin- * [Or, to speak more properly, the Scriptures themselves ought to be rejected, as Mr, Yates himself has elsewhere explained it. Edit.t 142 ning of the Second Discourse,) he strives to render the doctrine of the Trinity invulnerable by reducing it to a shadow. We have seen, that, in the subsequent part of his work, he gives an exact account of the meaning of the term Person as applied to the Trinity ; but he says here, that it is only used ^^for want of a better rvord,^' and that a "clear conception" of its precise import is utterly unattainable. Through more than the latter half of his volume, he treats the distinction of Persons in the Godhead as a clear and in- telligible doctrine, endeavouring to prove, that they are personal agents, who enjoy all the perfections, and exercise independently of one another all the functions, of Deity ; but here he asserts, that * the nature and mode of that distinction" is perfectly incomprehensible. He there dwells in aniinated language upon the doctrine of the Trinity, as in the highest degree interesting to the affections, and influen- tial upon the conduct, of men ; but here he in fact confesses it to be an almost unmeaning sound. There, as we have seen, he maintains the persons of the Godhead to be one and three in the same sense; here he " does not pretend to know, or to say, ho7V they are one, and how they are three." The greater part of his volume is filled with arguments and observations relating to the Trinity, in composing which he doubtless annexed some ideas to the words which he employed ; but here he contends, that the doctrine cannot possibly be shown to contradict reason, because it is a thing, *^ which we do not at all understand.'' If it be asked, What evidence is proper to establish the doctrine of the Trinity thus represented, I recur, as before, to the principles laid down in the Chapter upon Mysteries. The assertion, that " in the unity of the Godhead there are three subsistences, or persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," is, in this case, a mystery according to the second of the senses, there illustrated. It is " a propo- 143 r sillon, to the terras of which no distinct ideas are annexed." Let us then apply our general maxims to this particular case. We allow, that, although we be " left in total ignorance** of the meaning of the proposition, there maj unquestion- ably be some hidden truth in it, perceptible to an angelick, or a Divine, understanding. If therefore it be uttered by one, who exhibits the clear proofs of supernatural inspiration, in deference to his Divine authoritv, we shall admit its truth. But our minds are forcibly impressed with the fol- lowing considerations. 1. Of what use can this declaration be to us, if we con- nect no ideas with the terras, in which it is expressed ? Concerning the abuse of the gift of tongues am*ng the first Christians, St. Paul makes these remarks ; (1 Cor. xiv. 7 — 9 ;) " Even things without life, giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped ? For, if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle ? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue 7Vords easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken ? For ye shall speak into the air." These ob- servations have a clear and exact relation to the subject before us. How can the empty sound of unintelligible- names have any influence upon our conduct? Can it console us in distress ? Can it guard us against temptation ? Can it guide us in the path of duty ? No ; it is addressed only to our outward ears, and not to our understandings. It can therefore exert no influence upon our minds ; it can have no efficacy upon our practice. 2. We can have no suflScient warrant for believing, oa the authority of the Scriptures, the unintelligible proposition, that " there exist three persons in one God," unless we find 144 in the Scriptures Ihese very words. Annexing no distinct ideas to the terms of the proposition, we cannot prove its truth by a comparison of those terms with other assertions or phrases, to which distinct ideas are attached. Thus the question may be brought to a spee^t this enough to settle the question ? Is not St. Mark, when he reports the words of Jesus, as sure a guide to the import of the Old Testament, aS Mr. Wardlaw ?— Editor.] 153 opposition however to the thousands and tens of thousands of passages, which imply by the use of singular pronouns, that God is one person, the Trinitarians have coliecled together as many as three, which by the use of plural pronouns are supposed to indicate a phuality of persons in the Godhead. These passages I shall now produce. Gen. i. 26. " And God said, ' Let ms make man in otir image, after our likeness.' " Gen. xi. 7. " And Jehovah said, * Go to, let MS go down, and confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' " Isa. vi. 0. "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, • Whoru shall I send, and who will go for ws.-" " From among these three passages Mr. Wardlaw has selected the two former as examples. The remarks, which I would submit in reply, are these. 1. First, r would observe, that by bringing forward these passages Mr. Wardlaw acknowledges the validity of the opposite argument of the Unitarians, which is established upon similar grounds. He acknowledges, that the number of persons in the Godhead is indicated by the personal pronouns, employed in speaking of the Godhead. His argument proceeds on the supposition, that the use of a plural pronoun in speaking of God intimates, that there is in God a plurality of persons : of course he will admit, that the use of a singular pronoun in speaking of God denotes, that God is one person only. As a Unitarian, tiiere is nothing, which I more desire than the concession, that the number of persons in the Godhead may be inferred from the use of the personal pronouns in the Sacred Scriptures ; and this is granted to me in the argument, which I am now considering. 2. Secondly, I remark, that the true explanation of these three passages is easily to be found, by considering, that in all the languages, with which we are acquainted, persons 21 »5 J 5J 154 «}f great power and dignify someliines speak of themselves in the plural number. It is usual for the princes and great men of the earth to express their desires and intentions by saying, "It is our pleasure," "Given at oiir palace " Let us go to such a place," " JVe command this or that The Scriptures present various examples of this universal custom. Thus, (1 Kings xii. 6.) when Rehoi)oam asks the opinion of the old men concerning the reply to be made to an important request of the Israetilish nation, he says to them, "ITowdoye advise, that I may answer this people?'* But, when he consults the yovng men, (ver. 9.) he assumes a higher tone, and says, " What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people?" See also the parallel place ; 2 Chron. x. 6 — 9. The letter of Arfaxerxes, king of Persia, in reply to the recommendation that he would put a stop to the rebuilding of .Jerusalem, commences in these terms ; (Ezra iv. 18.) "The letter, which _ye sent unto us, hath been plainly read before me." Nor is this language used only by kings. Our Saviour (John iii. 11, 12.) says to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily; I say unto you. We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not ottr witness : if / have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if / tell you heavenly things ?" Here Jesus Christ not only calls himself /, but likewise we. Is it to be in- ferred from the latter circumstance, that several persons were united in him ? The Apostle Paul, when he speaks of his own feelings and condition, uses the plural pronouns, JVe, Us, Our, almost as frequently as the singular pronouns, /, 3Ie, Mine. But no one, reading his epistles, imagines, that he intended to represent himself as a plurality of persons. 155 If eiceive no impropriety in the representation of a monarch, consulting with iiimself, or ad- dressing pioposals to himself. I have no objection there- fore to the translations, " Let us make man," " Let us go down," or " Let me go down." If I\Ir. Wardlaw thinks diriereiitly, let him be consistent, and fianslate lilerally, in the fiUvre tense, in all these instances ; but let him not mislead his ailmireis, and waste the liuie of his opponents, by such egregious trifling. In the three passages therefore, in which Jehovah speaks of himself in the plural number, he is considered, not with- out solid and irrefragable reasons, " as using the language of Majesty according to the practice of earthly potentates." It is agreeable \o (he established usages of speech, for a sin- gle person lo employ the plural pionouns. We, Vs, Our, 157 in order to denofe his dignity and authority; whereai? there is no rule, according to which several persons can speak of themselves by Ihe use of the singular pronouns, /, Me^ My. Let Ihe considerate and serious inquirer therefore make his choice ; whether he will yield to the authority of thousands and tens of thousands of passages, which teach that God is only one person, and understand the three exceplions to the general lan^^uage of the Scriptures, as phrases employed to denote the Majesty of the speaker; or whether he will, on the other hand, adhere to the literal meaning of these three passages, and consequently set at defiance those thousands and tens of thousands of other passages, which cannot by any rules of grammar or canons of criticism be reconciled to the orthodox doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. IV. In the fourth place, Mr. Wardlaw insists, that a plura- lity of persons is indicated by the expression, which occurs Gen. iii. 22. "And the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evilJ' " The expression, ^^ one of lis,'' evidently alludes to more persons, or intelligent beings, than one. But to prove, that they were persons in the Godhead, is impossible. The only attribute, which they are aflSrmed to possess, is the knowledge of good and evil. If therefore it be conceded, that there are any intelligent beings, inferiour to the Supreme Deity, who resemble man in the capacity of distinguishing between good and evil, to them we may reasonably suppose, that the allusion was made. That there are such beings is evident, among other passages, from the fifth verse of this chapter, which accords remarkably with that under review, and directly points to its true interpretation ; " In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, (or angels,) knowing good and evil.'' The assertion therefore, " the man is become as one of us," 158 signifies, not that the man was become like one of the per- sons in the Godhead, but that he was become like one of the persons in the heavenly hosty resembling them in the knowledge of good and evil. I conclude this Chapter with warning the reader, not to assent without examination to Mr. Wardlaw's assertion, (p. 15.) that he has quoted his passages, "as a specirnen, merely to shoiv what he meansJ''' I believe he could have produced scarcely any more passages to the same purpose. Indeed every attentive inquirer must remark, how all the authors, who explore this field of argument, are found to pick up almost precisely the same specimens. 159 CHAPTER III. EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR A TRINITY OP PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. The arguments, considered in the last Chapter, are in- tended to prove nothing more than a jjbirality of persons in the Godhead. Other arguments are brought to show, that the persons in the Godhead are three, or in other words, that they form a Trinity. If the doctrine of the Trinity be, as its advocates repre- sent, one of the most prominent articles of the Christian faith, and if the belief of it be absolutely necessary to sal- vation, we may expect to find it insisted on by the Sacred writers with remarkable earnestness and frequency, and stated by them in the most decisive and unequivocal lan- guage. Especially, if the subject be one, upon which our ideas are necessarily indistinct, we may hope that their manner of declaring it will be so explicit, as to leave little room for the erroneous conceptions, to which from its ex- treme obscurity we are peculiarly liable. In order that we may judge, whether the Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity is such as the exigencies of this case seem to demand, it will be advisable to collect together into one view all the passages, which are commonly supposed to contain it. Let the candid reader therefore peruse the following list, and seriously ask himself, whether the pass^^ ges, here brought together, would at once strike the mind of an unprejudiced inquirer with a conviction, that the doc- trine of three persons in the Godhead is laid down in the Holy Scriptures. 160 A LIST OF ALL THE PASSAGES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH ASSERT, IN TERMS MORE OR LESS DIRECT AND EXPBE*-S. THAT "IN THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD THERE ARE THREE DISTINCT SUBSISTEN- CES OR PERSONS, THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT." 1. Num. vi. 23 — 26. " Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saving, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unlo thee ; The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." 2. Isa. vi. 3, and Rev. iv. 8. "And one cried unto ano- ther, and said, ' Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts.' " 3. Isa. xxxiv. 16. " Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read ; no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate : for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them." 4. Isa. xlviii. 16. "And now the Lord God, and his spirit, hath sent me." 5. Mat. xxviii. 19. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." 6. 2 Cor. xlii. 14. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." 7. Rev. i. 4, 5. "Grace be unto you and peace, from him, who is, and who was, and who is to come ; and from the seven spirits, which are before his throne ; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first be- gotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth." 161 *' It is reasonable to expect," says Mr. Wardlaw at the beginning of his eighth Discourse, " that those doctrines, which form the leading articles of any system, should be plainly stated in the book, which professes to make that system known." In his Preface also, he lays down the same indisputable maxim, that, concerning the object of worship and other subjects of equal importance, the language of Revelation must be explicit, clear, precise, and determinate. Where then, I ask, is the doctrine of the Trinity stated in terras explicit, clear, precise, and deter- minate ? Where is the passage, which, if presented to any person, not previously trained up and instructed in the doctrine, would suggest to his mind the notion of three distinct intelligent agents, equal and infinite in every Divine perfection ? I cannot conceive how any m; n of modesty can maintain, that the passages, just cited, answer to this description. Mr. Wardlaw himself, whatever he may pro- fess in words, admits in fact, that the doctrine is only alluded to in these passages, or may be inferred from them. For, instead of leaving them to speak for themselves and make their own impression upon the minds of readers, hav- ing certainly in general a sufficient bias towards his inter- pretation of them, he has devoted several pages to the illustration of that single text, which he affirms to be clear and decisive above all the rest. (See p. 16 — 18. 266 — •269.) With respect to the first two first passages in the list, (the benediction pronounced by the Hebrew priests, and the solemn praise uttered by the Seraphim,) Mr. Wardlaw (p. 293.) only produces them as containing " a tacit refer- ence to the trinity of persons in the Godhead." But how was it possible, that this tacit reference could be perceived, before the doctrine was clearly declared? Can we imagine a more preposterous inversion of ideas and evidences, tuan 22 1 161 that, which is aftribiited to the Author of Revelation, by supposing the references to a doctrine tocor)ie first it) order, and the explicit stateuientsof i( afterwards ? However Trin- itarians may surmount this difficulty, they must remember, that an allusion to a doctrine is not a proof of i1. If the doctrine of the Trinity were previously established, we might perhaps not irrationally presume, that the three per- sons of (he Godhead were referred to in the threefold praise and benediction: but we cannot make such an application, until we know, that there are three persons in the Godhead. The passas^es in question may be easily explained upon another principle. In all languages, and especially in such simple languages as the Hebrew, it is usual to repeat a word or an idea, merely for the purpose of impressing it more strongly upon the mind. Agreeably to this general practice, it is a rule of Hebrew syntax, that the snperlalive deorree is denoted by the repetition of the adjective. The The same sentiment, which is expressed by the words, *' Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts," might be signi- fied by saying, " Thrice holy is the Lord of hosts ;" or that *' Jehovah of hosts is exceedingly pure and holy above all beings." Other examples of a threefold repetition, era- ployed to give intensity to the signification, are presented in the following passages; Jer. xxii. 29. " O earth, earthy earth, hear the word of the Lord." Ex. xxi. 27. " I will overturn, overturn, overturn it." Rev. viii. 13. " Wo, no, wo, to the inhabitants of the earth." The two next passages upon the list are produced by Mr. Wardlaw, not as mere allusions, but as '■'■ proofs^^ of the doctrine of the Trinity, (p. 15.) Nevertheless he adds no remaiks to show how they prove his doctrine, nor can any expressions in my humble judgment be more irrevelant. What Mr. VVardlaw's arguments from these passages wotdd be, I cannot conjecture, and therefore cannot answer tJiem.. I ;I shall only remark concerning the former of these passages, (Isa. xxxiv. 16.) that the pronoun my, which he has piinied in small capitals, and upon which tjjerefore 1 presume his argument depends, as it appears to me, has nothing corres- ponding to if in the original Hebrew ; and concerning the latter, (Isa. xlviii. 16.) that the expression, " God hath sent me," cannot, without an almost profane violation of com- mon sense, be considered as the speech of God himself, but proves, that in this verse, as well as in the beginning of the nex:, the Prophet Isaiah speaks in his own person. We come then to t!ie passage, upon which Mr. Ward- law lavs the greatest stress as a clear and decisive proof of the Trinitarian doctrine, (p. 16—18. -266—269.) Matt, xxviii. <9. " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap- tizing them in the name of the Fathei', and of the Sou, and of the Holy Spirit ;" or, liferaJly and properly, " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He argues, that this passage proves the Son and the Holy Spirit to be intelligent agents, equal with tiie Father, be- cause they are here associated with him, and because they are represented as equally with him the objects of supreme wo r fillip. To the following remarks, intended to show the true meaning of the passage, I crave the attention of the reader. Every one, who has accurately observed the phraseology of the Scriptures, knows, that " the name'' of a person is an expression often used to signify the person himself. As an example I refer to the beginning of the 20lh Psuln; " The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble ; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee." It is evident, that (he expression, " the Lord," in the first clause, corresponds to " the name of the God of Jacob" in the second clause, and that " the name of the God of Jacob" signifies the God of Jacob himself. The word Name, in such cases, ap- 164 pears to be used only as a title of respect, as we say in English " the king's majesh/,^' meaning the king himself. This shows, thai no particular stress ought to be laid upon the use of the word " wftwe" in the passage under consi- deration. The meaning of the verse is the same as if it bad been said, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz- ing them into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.*' We find accordingly, that the word " name^^ is sometimes employed, and sometimes omitted, in this connexion, with- out m tierially altering the sense. In the book of Acts, we read of persons being " baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus: (Acts. viii. 16. xix. 5.) but in the Epistles of Piu»l they are simply stated to be " baptized into Christ." (See Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii..2r.)* It is clear therefore, that to be " baptized into a person or thing," and to be " baptized into the name of that per- son or thing," are expressions of the same import. The only question relates to the signification of these two phrases. Does the expression, " to be baptized into a person or thing, or into the name of a person or thing," signify, that that person or thing is made an object of worship, or only that it is made a subject of faith ? The former interpreta- tion is advanced to Mr. Wardlaw, and rests upon his un- supported assertion : the latter is adopted by the Unita- rians, and is established by the following proofs. In 1 Cor. X. 1, 2. St. Paul uses these words; "More- over, brethren, I would not, that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were ail baptized into Moses in a cloud and in the sea." What is meant by Paul's assertion, * Those, who wish for further illustrations, may consult Schleusuer's Lexicon, v. BaTrr/fai and Ovo/j.tt. This immensely learned critick, though a Trinitarian, adopts the interpretation of Mat. xxviii. 19, which I have defended. 165 that the Israelites were all baptized into Moses ? Does it signify, that they avowed Moses to be the object of their worship, or that they contemplated him as a subject of their faith ? Undoubtedly the latter interpretation is preferable* The Apostle means, that, when (hey passed through the cloud and the sea, ihey made a profession of their belief in Moses. Again, the Apostle Paul in the same Epistle, the 1st chapter, the 12th and following verses, expresses his ap- prehensions lest any of them should say, that he had bap- tized persons into his own name. " Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for you ? or ivere ye baptised in the name of Panl .'' I thank God, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains, lest they should say, that I had baptised in mine own nume.'' The Apostle did not surely mean to indicate his aversion to their professing by baptism, that they regarded him as the object of their worship. When he asks, " Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" he does not mean to decline divine honours ; he intends to remind them only, that by their baptism they professed faith in Christy and not faith in Paul, and that they ought therefore to submit to the autho- rity of Christ alone, and not to the authority of Paul. I shall only refer to another passage in illustration of this subject. Rom. vi. 8. " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ?" This verse appears to me to decide the question pioposed, vis. Whether the phrase, " being baptized into a person or thing," signifies, that that person or thing is made by baptism an object of worship, or a subject of faith ? According to the former interpretation, the Apostle means, " Know ye not, that so many of us as professed by baptism, that Jesus Christ is the object of our worship, 166' professed by baptism, that his death is the object of our worship ?" If this absurd sense be inevilable acconiing to the one method, let us fry how the other inlerprelalion suits : " Know ye not, thai so many of us as professed by baptism, that Jesus Christ is the subject of our faith, pio- fessed by baptism, that his death is the subject of our faith?" This explanation is clear and rational. Il ought consequently to be preferred to the other, which is non- sensical. It appears therefore, that to be baptized into a person or thing, or into the name of a person or thing, was to avow faith m that person or thing, and not to make it the object of worship. We are thus enabled to determine the true sense of the appointed formula, which is, " Go, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizn.g Jhem as a (esliniony of their belief in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." The passage is explained in this manner, not only by all Unitarian exposilors, but by the learned and upright Dr. W hitby in his Paraphrase ; " Go ye therefore, anu leach all nations, baptizing Ihem in the nisme {or, into the belief) of the Father, and of ihe Son, and of the Holy Ghosl :" and the amiable Archbishop TiHolson, in his Sermon upon this text, (V. ii. fol. p. .512, 513.) though he consiuers the words Father, Son, and Holy Spiril, as denoliiig tlie three persons of the Trinilj, nevertheless represents the rite of baptism "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spiril," merely as a piofession of faith in the Christian religion, the principal doctrines of which relate to these three subjects. That the appointed form of baptism was intended to ex- press faith in these as the three chief points of Christianity, is further ap[)arenl from the various Confessions of faith, em[)loyed in the primitive Church, among which the best 167 known is that, commonly called " the Apostles' Creed." Tlie articles of belief, contained in these simple formulaiies, Tvei e always arranged under the three heads of what relates to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Lastly, the sense, in which our Lord's direction was understood by his earliest disciples, is still more clearly manifested by the original method of administering the rite of baptism. This is sufficiently explained by the following quoiation from the baptismal service of the Church of England, which here agrees upon the whole with the prac^ tice of the primitive ages. " Then shall the priest demand of each of the persons to be baptised, severally, these Questions following' Q. Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the Tain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desiies of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow, nor be led by them ? A. I renounce them all. Q. Dost thou believe in God the Father Almightj, Maker of Heaven and earth ? And in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son our Lord ? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost ; born of the Virgin Mary ; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried ; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day ; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty ; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead ? And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost ; the holy Catholick Church ; the Communion of Saints ; the Remis- sion of sins ; the Resurrection of the flesh ; and everlast- ing life after death? A. AH this I steadfastly believe. 168 Q. Wilt Ihou be baptized in this faith ? A. That is my tiesire. Q. Wilt thou then obediently keep God's holy will and commandriients, and walk in the same all the days of tbj life ? A. I will endeavour so to do, God being my helper."*^ Thus, by means of questions proposed by the Bishop, and answers returned by the Catechumen, the latter, before being immersed in water, avowed his faith in the doctrines of the Christian Religion, first, concerning the Father, secondly, concerning the Son, and thirdly, concerning the holy spirit, at the same time professing his resolution to live by the grace of God agreeably to these convictions. This is aii, that was intended or understood, by being baptized " into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit." If therefore Mr. Wardlaw would have taken the trouble to inquire into the application of this phraseology in other parts of Scripture, and into the sense attributed to our Lord's words by all the primitive Christians, he might have spared his ridicule (p. 278, 279.) of Dr. Lardner's most excellent paraphrase of this passage,! and his complaints against a form, as he says, "so straoge and enigmatical." Having now shown the true sense of our Saviour's words, I ask. What trace do they contain of the doctrine of three * See " The Administration of baptism to such as are of riper years." Also Cave's Primitive Christianity, ch. x. p. 2U0. and Westein's Note on Mat. xxviii. 19. f "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That is, • Go ye therefore into all the world, and teach, or disciple all nations, baptizing them into the profession of faith in, and an obligation to obey the doctrine tanght by Christ, with authority from God the Father, and confirmed by the Holy Ghost.' " Lardner's Works, Vol. xi. p. 147. 169 persons in one God ? We, Unitarians, believe in llie Father, who is (he only true God, and who gave a revelation of his wi!l to his creatures : we believe in (he Son, the messenger of (he Father's grace, the bearer of these glorious tidings : we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Divine power or influetice, by which Jesus Christ and (he Aposdes were enabled to work miracles, to confirm the truth of the doctrines which they taught. The sixth passage upon the list is the devout and bene- volent wish of Paul at the conclusion of his Second Epistle to the Corinthians. " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and (he communion of the holy spirit, be with you all." Upon this passage Mr. Wardlaw lays great stress : p. 17, 18, 120, 141, 290, 291, 292, 330. But what is the plain and obvious meaning of the Apos- tle's words ? " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all." With this benediction St. Paul concludes many of his episdes. What does it signify ? Evidently, " May you enjoy the favour of the Lord Jesus Christ, by being the objects of his protection and blessing." — " The love of God be with you all." This implies, " May you, by a pa(ient perseverance in well-doing, continue to be the obiects of the peculiar approbation and love of God." — " Tlie communion of the holy spirit be with you all." Is not the meaning of this phrase equally apparent ? " May you all partake of the holy spirit ;" (hat is, " May you all share the gifts and manifest the disposilions, which arise from the extraordinary influence of God upon the Members of the Christian Church." VV^hat vestige have we here of the doctrine of three persons in one God ? Paul only expresses in one sentence three devout wishes for his fellow Christians, one relating to the favour of Christ, the 23 170 other the love of God, and the thu'd to their participation in spiritual gifts and blessings. Mr. Wardlaw endeavours to press this most plain, beau- tiful, and interesting benediction into the service of the Trinitarian system by remarking, that " it includes in it a prayer." Doubtless, in the mind of the habitually pious man, almost every wish is accompanied with a silent peti- tion. But to whom is this petition addressed ? By ail, who entertain just views of Scripture truth, it is addressed to the one true God, our Heavenly Father, who is able to do for us above all that we can ask or think. We may therefore reasonably consider the words of the Apostle as implying not only a benevolent wish, but also a devout prayer to the Father of mercies ; that the disciples at Corinth might enjoy the favourable regards of the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the Church ; that they might continue to be approved and beloved by God ; and that they might possess, in common with the whole body of Christians, a portion of the holy spirit. Mr. Wardlaw insists, (p. 17.) that, because Jesus Christ, God, and the holy spirit, are mentioned in three wishes, or prayers, which are "precisely the same in form," therefore they are equally the objects of prayer. As I am expected to bring a passage of Scripture to refute every criticism of my opponent, however groundless and unreasonable, I refer to the conclusion of the First Epistle to the Corinthians ; " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you; 7)it/ love be with you all in Christ Jesus." Here we find coup- led together in the same manner, " the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," and "the love of Paid." If therefore the conclusion of the Second Epistle, in which Jesus Christ, God, and the holy spirit, are mentioned in conjunction, proves the Divinity of Jesus Christ and of the holy spirit, the conclusion of the First Epistle, in which Paul is in like 171 manner associated with Jesus Christ, proves the Divinity of Paul. Instead of giving any support, even in the way of remote alhision or inference, to the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage bears directly against it. Three distinct beings are mentioned in the benediction. One of them is called "God." Since therefore we know, that "there is none other God but one," it necessarily follows, that the two other beings are not God. If all be equally God, why is the title applied to one of them only? " Tiie communion of the holy spirit be with you all" implies, that " the holy spirit" does not in this instance signify God, or any person. What can possibly be intend- ed by the communion of GodJ* Is God divided? Can we partake of God, or of any person ? No ; but we may partake o( powers, energies, and influences, we may enjoy a commun- ion of spiritual gifts. As in Phil. iii. 10. " the communion of the sufferings of Christ" means a participation in his sufferings, so here, and in Phil. ii. 1. " the communion of the spirit" signifies a participation in spiritual gifts and influences. We may enjoy a communion of gifts with persons; but a participation of a person is an idea, which cannot enter the mind. So far as my knowledge of Greek, and a careful examination of all the passages, in which the word {Koiva>n> 172 " The seven spirits of God," says Mr. Wardlaw, (p. 290.) " is evideiifly an emblematical expression for the Holi/ Spirii.^^ But many of the most emineni Trinilarian criticks have expressed a contrary opinion. The descrip- tion, "He who is, and who was, and who is to come," points to the one True God, the Father ; the seven spirits are said to be " before His throne," which denotes their inferiority to Him, and altogether excludes Mr. Wardiaw's interpretation. Besides, we might ask with far greater pro- priety than in any of those cases, in which Mr. Wardlaw lias raised the objection against Unitarian criticisms. If St. John meant to express a wish of favour from the Holy Spirit, why did he not say so ? " Why must we so often impute to the New Testament writers language so unnatural and affected ; — and especially in cases, where the simpler expressions would not only be equally correct in themselves, but free at the same time of any tendency to mislead." p. 286. Lastly, allowing it to be as "evident" as Mr. Ward- law asserts, that the Holy Spirit is meant by the seven spirits before the throne of God, a wish of favour from the Holy Spirit and from Jesus Christ would only denote, that they have the power of bestowing that favour, a power, as we learn from other partsof Scripture, conferred upon them by God the Father. Before closing the consideration of this branch of evi' dence, it is necessary for me to take notice of the manner, in which Mr. Wardlaw has introduced his remarks upon the passages of the New Testament, which he supposes to make mention of the three persons in the Godhead. Declining to enter largely into the proofs, which might be derived from the Jewish Scriptures, he determines (p. 15) to " go for- ward to those of the New Testament, proceeding, at the same time, with regard to thim also, on the sawe principle i ^electing only one or two of the most prominent passages ;" 173 and he afterwards savs, " / shall confine myself at present to a few remarks on trvo passages oiily."' {viz. Maf. xxviii. 19. 2 Cor. xiii. 14.) From this language persons, not pre- viously acquainted with the subject, would conclude, that these two passages are only stro7ig and clear examples of the proofs, which might be produced at great length and in great numbers. It is my duty to inform the reader, that these two are almost, if not altogether, the only passages, upon which Trinitarians have in general laid any stress as containing the doctrine of three Persons in one God.* * See dissertation at the end of the volume. 174 CHAPTER IV. ,1 OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DIVINE AND HUMAN NATURES. \] ,'l 'l In bis first discourse, Mr. Wardlaw discusses those pas- j sages, in which " all the three persons of the Godhead are introduced together," (p. 29.) and which he considers as *' proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity in general." (p. 18.) He proceeds, in the next place, to "prove distinclly the Divinily of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit ;" and he observes, that " the evidence in support of the general doctrine is not properly closed, till all Ihis mass of separate proof has been adduced and illustrated." 1 agree wifh him, that all the passages, which contain evidences of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, bear upon the subject. For, if Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit be two intelligent beings, each distinct from God the Father, and if each of theii be proved to be infinite in all perfec- tions, it will necessarily follow, that there exist three infinite and all-perfect minds, or, in other words, three Persons in the Godhead. It would however be impossible to reconcile this fact, supposing it proved, with a belief in one God only; nor ought we to be satisfied with any attempts to establish a doctrine so obscure and so important as that of the Trinity, merely by showing, that the Scriptures assert in separate places, the Divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as well as the Divinity of the Father. Before we begin to examine the evidence for the ortho- dox opinion concerning the nature of Christ, it is necessary to know what that opinion is. Nothing could indicate greater irreverence for a question of such vast importance, than to argue and dispute without even understanding what 175 we wish to prove. It is therefore a matter of no small sat- isfaction, that Mr. Wardlaw's statements are clear and intelligible. He lays down his doctrine in the following terms : (p. 31.) "that Jesus Christ is truly God; that in his person there subsisted, when he was on earth, and still subsists a union of the Divine and Human Natures." It appears also from (he general train of language and argument, pursued through his volume, that, while he believes the man Christ Jesus to have been finite, created, mortal, depen- dent, exposed to suffering, and limited in power and know- ledge, he also believes, that this same person, being God as well as man, was infinite, uncreated, immortal, independent, incapable of suffering, omnipotent, and omniscient. All Trinitarians believe, that Jesus Christ was but one person, although possessing two natures. Their doctrine is, that one of the three infinite minds in the Godhead was so united to a human soul, as to form one intelligent being, retaining the properties both of the God and of the Man. By the Nature of any thing we always mean its Qnali- ties. When therefore it is said, that Jesus Christ possesses both a Divine and a Human Nature, it must be meant, that he possesses both the qualities of God and the qualities of Man. But, if we consider what these qualities are, we perceive them to be totally incompatible with one another. The qualities of God are eternity, independence, immii- lahility, entire and jy^rpetnal exemption from pain and death, omniscience, and omnipotence. The qualities of Man are, derived existence, dependence, liability to change, to suffering, and to dissolution, comparative weakness and ignorance. To maintain therefore, that the same mind is endued both with a Divine and a Human na- ture, is to maintain, that the same mind is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and in- dependent, both changeable and unchangeable, both mortal and immortal, boili susceptible of paimnd incapable of if, 176 both able to do all things and not able, both acqitainied with all things and not acquainted with them, both igno- rant of certain subjects and possessed of the most intimate knowledge of them. If it be not certain, that such a . doctrine as this is false, there is no certainty upon any sub- ject. It is vain to call it a mystery ; it is an absurd'ty, it is din impossibility. According to 7)??/ ideas of propriety and duty, by assenting to it, I should culpably abuse those fa- culties of understanding, which have been given nje to be employed in distinguishing between right and wiong, truth and errour. According to the maxims, laid down as the guides of our inquiry, and acknowledged by Mr. Wardiaw as fundamental principles, (see P. I. ch. 4.) this doctrine could not be established even by the clearest declarations of the Scriptures. For the testimony of the Scriptures would not prove it to be true ; on the contrary, its occur- rence in the Scriptures would prove them to be false. Upon this subject Mr. Wardiaw expresses himself in distinct language, and appears to have clear, though incon- sistent, ideas. We will however suppose, that, when he calls the opinion of the Divine and Human Natures of Jesus Christ a mystery, he means, that we cannot make it " the subject of fixed thought, or of distinct conception." (p. 32.) The doctrine then becomes like sounding brass, or as a tinkling cymba! ; and we cannot conceive how anj' benefit can arise from listening to sound wilhout sense, and assent- ing to words wilhout ideas. Nevertheless, if we find in the Scriptures the unintelligible proj)osilion, that " in the person of Christ Jesus, a Divine is united with a Human nature," or if this assertion be uttered in these terms, and declared to express a truth, by an accredited Prophet, we shall give our implicit assent, presuming that it is under- stood by the Prophet who pronounces, the Apostle who writes, or the God who dictates it. < 177 Such wouild be the proper mode of freafiiig this doclrine, considered as miin!eil'r:;iblt;. But Mr. Wardlawhas not [irovi- deJ ibriteven this refuge. His statement of it is such as ^ «' • ^s«f.) and this arrangement would have been indisputably correct and grammatical. But, although the want of the definite article in this in- stance ought to be allowed some weight in favour of the Unitarian interpretation, I do not imagine it to be a derisive circumstance: for I am aware of the justice of the follow- ing observations of the learned Bishop Pearson ; " We must not think to decide this controversy by the articles, 0, «, TO, of which the sacred penmen were not curious, and the transcribers have been very careless." Pearson on the Creed, p. 150, note. Mr. Wardlaw further objects to the translation proposed by Unitarians, that it attributes to an inspired author " the very language of paganism." But let the reader turn back to the passages above quoted, in which the word " God" is acknowledged by all to be used in this inferiour sense ; and let him say whether the charge is not equally applicable to them. " Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, amonsr the gods ?" " For Jehovah, your God, is God of gods." *' Worship him, all ye gods." W hat language, we may ask in the spirit of Mj-. Wardlaw's objection, could be more " favourable, in the first impression which it necessarily makes upon the mind, to the notion of a supreme and of subor- dinate deities ?" — " Thou shalt not revile the gods." " God «f:inde(h in (he congregation of (he migiifj ; he jiidgetk ainon;^ (he gods." "I have saicl, Ye are gotla." How is it poisible, that authors, wri(ing under the guidance of (he spirit, could employ language, which so plainly counte- nances the hea(hen idea, (hat Kings and Magis(ra(e3 were an inferiour order of Divinities ? The proper answer (o this, and every such objecdon, is, (hat we are required (o make soma use of our unders(andings in in(erpre(ing (he Scrip- tLu-es, so as (o make them consistent wi(h themselves and with (he clear dictates of reason. Mi-. Wardlaw affirms, that the occurrences of (he word " GotV^ in (he inferiour sense, " as applied, for instance, to Angels and (o Magistrates, are very rare, and that (hey are uniformly in such circums(ances as at once to preclude the possibility of any pernicious mistake." These " very rare" occurrences however are far more numerous than (he instances of (he applica(ion of (he name to Jesus in any sense ; and I deny, (ha{ the securi(y from errour is greater in (he various passages, which I have quoted, (han in the disputed words of (he Evangelis( John. On the contrary, the misinterpretation of his language is par(icularly guarded against by the assertion, which goes before and follows after it, (hat " the Word was ivith God.^^ If Jesus Christ was with the Supreme Deity, and could not be the same being whom he was with, the context itself demonstrates the ne- cessity of interpreting the last clause to signify only, that he was the medium of Divine communicationis to mankind. The next instance of (he application of the name " God''* to our blessed Saviour, is in the address of Thomas. John XX. 28. " And Thomas answered and said unto him, ' Mj Lord and my god !' " (Produced by Mr. Wardlaw, p. 114 —126, 139.) 26 194 Leaving every reader at full liberty to judge for himself, and retaining the right of changing my opinion, if at any future time I shall see fit, I only remark upon this passage without stating all my reasons, that these words appear to me to have been addressed by Thomas to Christ, and may be justly considered both as an exclamation expressive of his wonder and delight, and also as a confession, that Jesus was his lord and his god. But it is needless to dispnte, that, when Thomas addressed Jesus as his lord, or master, and his god, he might mean only, that Jesus was /its inspired instructer in matters of religion. Agreeably therefore to the principles, which have been before strted, his words ought to be understood according to this simple and reasonable interpretation. I should have admired Mr. Wardlaw's observations upon this text as candid and f^r the most part just, if he had not unfortunately added to them the following note, which it is necessary for me to produce in order to do justice to the editors of the" Improved Version." " The note of the Improved Version on the words of Thouas to Christ, is very remarkable, on account of the reference which it contains to the authority of Besa, in favour of their being an exclamation. On this reference Mr. Nares observes as follows : — ' It is exceedingly true that Beza says it is an exclamation, and therefore he cor- rects the vulgate, and renders it in the vocative, " Domine mi, et Deus mi ;" but, observing that the context expressly says they were spoken *wTa), fo /ttyn, that is, to Christ, he savs, " Hc-ec igitur verba quae sequuntur non sunt tantum adnirantis Thomae, ut hunc locmn elndebant Nestoriaiiij sedipsum ilium Jesum ut verura Deum ac Dominum suum compeUantis. Ma!e, igitur, vulgata interpretatur hunc lo- cum recto casu, Dominns mens et Deus mens : nee alius est locus in his libris expressior, de Cluisto, ut vero De,o, invo- 195 cando." — This is what I find in Beza, concerning this ex- clan ifion. It was, he says, non tantum, not merely an exclamation, but an actual address of Thomas to Jesus, calling him both his Ijord and his God ; an indisputable pre- cedent for the invoking of Christ, m^ Deus verus, as the true God. I shall venture,' adds Mr. Nares, ' to lay it down as a rule, for all readers of this new Version, to examine the references.' Nares' Remarks on the Improved Version, page 197." Unwilling to believe without proof, that the editors of the Improved Version were guilty of the flagrant carelessness or fraud, which is here imputed to them, I consulted both them and Beza. I found with no small surprise, that the charge of misrepresenting Beza, if applicable to any one, falls upon the venerable Archbishop Newcome. The edi- tors of the Improved Version, who throughout their work make continual use of his translation and commentary, have only quoted the note in question from him and marked it with the greatest distinctness as a quotation. 1 therefore must beg leave to advise the reader a/wa^s to examine Mr. Wardlaw^s and Mr. Nares^ references. The next passage of the New Testament, in which the title God is asserted by Trinitarians to be given to Jesus, is Rom. ix. 5. " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God BLESSED FOR EVER." (Q,noted by Mr. Wardlaw, p. 29, 30, 40, 65—68, 133, 406, 407.) If there were any evidence, that this translation is cor- rect, here would be a rase in point ; the words of the A;iOS- tle would present a clear and valid argument for the Su- preme Divinity of Jesus Christ. For in this instance we find the name " God" employed in circumstances, which prove it to belong to the uncreated Jehovah. " The God WHO IS ovBR AiiL," (o uv fTTt ?r*nm ^m) is His appropriate 196 and peculiar designalion. But ' «^' ■rx.vrxiv ^ssc,) or phrascs almost exactly the same with it, such as os«!TctvT&.v9^socand o s^n s-^o-/ S-eoc) are expres- sions of perpetual occurrence in Greek writings upon reli- gious subjects, which are universally understood as desig- nations of the Supreme Deity, and are employed to distin- guish him from all the beings, to whom the name (^«c) God was applied in a subordinate sense ; 4lh, Because in all such ascriptions of praise the words ^^for ever,'' or the equivalent expressions, if introduced at all, are placed at the end of the sentence as in this example ; 5th, Because the position of these words at the end of the sentence naturally, though not necessarily, draws the participle («'^^«>'<'^«) *' Blessed," which they qualify, to the same quarter ; 6th, Because in P<. Ixviii. 19. (Kug/oc S^ssc wxo^DToc) the participle is placed in the latter part of the sentence by the Saptuagint translators, contrary to the assertion of Dr. Whitby in his Commentary ; rih, Because, although the participle comes first in every ^i other instance, a sufficient reason for its being so placed ji may in almost all these cases be assigned, viz. that the name of God is connected by the relative pionoun (<=«) with one or more clauses, the interposition of which wouk) remove the participle to too great a distance from its noun, if it were thrown back to fhe end of the sentence. These reasons appear to me to hav e so much weight, that, if 1 were not checked by a regard to the opinions of those learned men, who have embraced different views, I should consider this passage as scarcely even ambiguous. If il be ambiguous, the rule to be followed is to choose that translation, which is agreeable to the known sentiments of the writer. I therefore, who am assured, that an ascription of praise to the Supreme God was conformable to the opinions of Paul, but not, that he believed Jesus Christ to be the Su- preme God, am justified in adopting the Unitarian transla- tion. Further, where the opinions of the writer are unknown, the best method of ascertaining the sense of a dubious ex- pression is to enquire how it was understood by those per- sons, to whom he directly wrote. In the present case we have unusual advantages for the determinafion of this question. Clement, whom Paul mentions (Phil. iv. 3.) as one of his fellow-labourers, was afterwards the Bishop of Ih© Church at Rome, to which society this Epistle was address- ed. (See Rom. i. 7.) There is extant another Epistle, written by Clement in the name of the Christians at Rome lo the Church at Corinth. It contains various sentiments imd expressions, derived from Paul's Epistle to the Romans. (See Lardner's Credibility, Ch. II.) Among others is the Tollowing clear allusion to the very passage, which we are low examining, Rom. ix. 4, 5. After speaking of the faiih md piety of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the privileges, vhich in consequence of their virtues were bestowed upon heir posterity, are thus described. " From them came all he priests and Levifes, who minister at the altar of God ; rom him (Jacob) as concerning the flesh came the Lord 198 Jesus; from him came Kings, and Rulers, and Leaders, in the line of Judah."^'^ The expressions, here used by Cle- ment, when writing in the name of that Church, to which the Epistle of Paul is inscribed, afford a strong presump- tion, that both he and they conceived the sentence alluded to, to end with the words, " as concerning the flesh Christ came." For how can we believe, that they would have abruptly broken off the quotation, when by so doing they omitted the mention of that circumstance, which was be- yond comparison the most glorious privilege of the decend- ants of Jacob, vis. the manifestation of the Supreme God in mysterious union with the human nature of an Israelite ? The manner, in which this passage was understood by the primitive believers, may also be inferred with consider- able certainty from this fact, that many of the most eminent Christian writers of the four first centuries (see Wetstein ad loc.) deny in decided terms, that Jesus Christ was " THE God who is over all," {oin ^ravTw S^so?) maintain- ing, that this title belongs exclusively to God the Father^ and that to transfer it to Christ is unpardonable rashness and impiety. Such assertions they would not have advanced, if they had supposed the words " God who is over all" in this passage to refer to our Saviour. Lastlj", it may be remarked, that the Interpretation, which I defend, has been approved not only by the generality of Qiou- iz awTst/ Kwg/oc I))(T0i/c TO Kctra. o-agKA' s| stt/TOU l^ita-tKlic, xxt ag;i^oVT6c Mt vyovfAim-, MT* Tov loi/fe-" — Clementis Epist. ad Cor. c. XXXII. The expression, »st* tov loutfai-, " in the line of Jiidah,^^ in the last clause, assists to explain t5 x-nTtt 3-*gK4, " as concerning thejlesh,'" in the second clause; ami, so far as I can Judge, justifies the translation "by h natural descend wliich is given in the Improved Version. Mr. Ward- ' law however affirms, that to understand the expression in this sense is • ' taking " a most arbitrary freedom with the words themselves, which ^'* is utterly inadmissible, and deserving of the severest reprehension. Sam 199 avowed Unitarians, and by some very celebrated men of suspected orthodoxy, such as Grotius and Wetsfein, but also by three at least of the most learned divines belonging to the Trinitarian party, namely Erasmus, Bucer, and Le Clerc. The various evidences, v^'hich I have here brought to- gether to determine the true method of translating this verse, leave in my mind not the smallest doubt, that instead of " WHO IS OVER ALL GoD BLESSED FOR EVER," the trans- lation ought to be, " God who is over all be blessed FOR EVER." If this is the meaning of St. Paul, how bold, how rash, are Mr. Wardlaw's animadversions. He affirms, that the clause, so translated, is " deprived of all force and meaning whatever," and "converted into a useless and unna- tural pleonasm, which adds weakness instead of strength and propriety to the expression and the sentiment." The next example of the application of the title God to Jesus is Heb. I. 8. " But unto the Son he saith, ' Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.' " (Produced p. 40, 68 — n, 133, 181.) Grotius, Dr. Samuel Clarke, and Mr. Pierce, with many other eminent men, have remarked, that this passage may with equal propriety be translated, " God is thy throne for ever and ever." How does Mr. Wardlaw reply to their observation ? First, by his manner of printing their proposed transla- tion ; — " God is thy throne I /" — as if the most learned and respected theologians, who ever wrote, were to be confuted by sticking up a few notes of admiration. Secondly, by charging them with ignorance of Greek and " a glaring departure from the established practice of Greek syntax." The man, who with unhesitating dogmatism pre- fers such accusations as these even against Grotius and Samuel Clarke, is of course infinitely above my notice ; ^00 iflor shall I venture to contend with him any more about fhe use of the definite article in the predicate of a proposition. I oiaj however state, that one or two passages have come in my way quite incidentally, while I have been writing this Treatise, and request him to say, how the article got into the predicates of the following propositions; Rev. xix. 10. « "y-^ f^tt^Tu^lst, rov Ixa-oy iTTi to TrvHifxa. rn; Tgo;e; e'Jent m both cases alike. 1 maintain therefore wilh IM;. Belsham, that the cases are "s/?»*7rtr," though by so doing I incur that most unreasonable charge, which you have directed against him, of a want of candour. The second argument advanced to prove, that the person ht,e asserted to be " the true God" is Jesus Christ, is that the same person is also called ^^ ettrnal life.^^ The ex- pcession will be allowed by all to be figurative. It means, t.iat (he person, so called, was the giver, or the promiser of eternal life. It is maintained by Unitarians, as a great and 'eadiijg principle of their system, that all the blessings, coniiiunicated to mankind through Jesus Christ, originate in the wisdom and goodness q/'f/je one True God. Agree- ably to this general maxim, they assert, that the Father promises and gives eternal life through Jesus Christ. The Father therefore is properly *' the eternal life :" Jesus Christ is also "the eternal life," but in an inferiour sense. Hence St. Paul observes, " Eternal life is the gift of God THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord." Rut Mr. VVardlaw further objects. If the interpretation proposed by Unitarians be true, " what occasion was there for the ApostWs remark .^" Against such reasonings we ought careffdly to guard. If we study the Scriptures with true humility and piety, we shall never ask. What occasion is there for this or that ? or encourage ourselves (o suppose, that one observation may be misplaced, a second trivial, and a third unnecessary. We shall be thankful for every portion of God's word as it is, and endeavour to improve it wisely. Such questions might be raised by idle and im- pertinent readers against innumerable expressions in the Sacred Writings, owing in a great measure to the difference of style between them and modern compositions. In this particular instance however we have no opportunitv for 204 - exercising that humble and grateful spirit, which I am re- commending ; so obvious is the propriety and force of the Apostle's remark. He is not satisfied witli mentioning the Supreme Being once or twice under the ausfust tille of "/«/. ' 213 he spake, ' Lojd, who hath believed our report ? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed ?' Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, ' He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart ; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.' These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." The word "saw" sometimes signifies ^'foresaw.^* Thus Abraham is said (John viii. 56) to have " seen,*' that is, to have "foreseen** the day of Christ. (See also John xviii. 4. Acts XX. 22. where the same word is used in the origi- nal.) We also know from the information of this Evangelist, (see John ii. 11.) that the way, in which our Lord during his publick ministry " manifested forth his glory,** and in- duced "his disciples to believe on him,** was by the j^er- formance of miracles. I conceive therefore, that every person, reading these observations of the Evangelist John without any previous bias to a mysterious and far-fetched interpretation of them, would understand the following to be the meaning of the last remark. " Isaiah, when he ut- tered the two foregoing prophecies, contemplated the future glory of Christ displayed in the performance of miracles, and spake of the dulness and obstinacy of the Jews in re- fusing to attend to these testimonials of his Divine autho~ rity." How have the Trinitarians contrived to deduce an argu- I ment for the Divinity of Jesus from this plain declaration ? Upon looking to the chapter, from which the latter of the ; two prophecies is quoted, (Isa. vi.) they discover that at j the same time, when Isaiah was inspired with the foreknow- I ledge of the rejection of our Saviour's miracles, he in vision j "saw Jehovah of hosts,** and heard the seraphim crying, j " The whole earth is full of His glory." Although these 214 coincidences are certainly a little remarkable, Ihey afford not the shauow of a proof, that Jesus is Jehovah. Upon this patched-up argument however Mr. Wardiaw insists as if it was profane even to question its validity. See p. 76, 77, 134. 4. Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgaient and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this is his name whereby he shall be called. The Lord our righteousness." (Produced by Mr. Wardiaw, p. 77, 134.) This prophecy was uttered by Jeremiah, when his coun- trymen were captives in Babylon, or scattered among other heathen nations. It evidently relates to their return from the captivity, and to their peaceable re-establishment in their own land. In verse 3. it is predicted that God would gather together the remains of the Jewish nation out of all the countries, into which they had been dispersed, and that he would bring them again to their own territory, where they would be fruitful and increase : in verse 4. that He would raise up for them overseers, both civil and religious, under whose superintendence they would be secure from those terrours, alarms, and distresses, with which they had been so long harassed. In verse 5. it is added that the Lord would raise up a successor to David, who would reign prosperously and execute justice " in the earth," or rather, "in the land,^^ i. e. in Judea. " In his days," continues the Prophet, "Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ;" the meaning of which plainly is, that during the reign of this expected monarch the tribes of Judah and Benjamin would be safe from their present afflictions, and the kingdom of Israel, including the other ten tribes, would likewise be free from invasion and the devastations of war. 215 ** And this is his name, whereby he shall be called, Thk Lord our righteousness." The sense of the original may, I apprehend, be more correctly represented thus ; " And this is the name, whereby he shall be called, Jeho- v^AH IS OUR PROSPERITY." According to the doctrine above stated, the application of this name to the predicted king only signified, that during his reign Jehovah mould signally bless his people with prosperity. If any reader prefers applying these words to the MeS^ siah, the prophetical application to him of the name Jeho- vah IS OUR PROSPERITr, Or OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, lHUSt ^till be understood as signifying, that during his reign Je- hovah would bestow abundant blessings upon mankind. The same title is again employed in the 33d chapter, the whole strain of which shows, that the return of the Jews from captivity and their happy re-establishment in the land of Judea is the subject of the prophecy. The only mate- rial difference is, that in this instance (verse 16) the name .Tehovah is our PROSPERITY IS givcn prophetically to Jerusalem, which shows the extreme fragility of the argu- ment for the Deity of Christ founded upon the application of this title, whether it was really intended for bim or not. 5. Zech. xiii. 7. *' Awake, O sword, against my shep- herd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of hosts.'' (Produced, p. 72, 134.) The word ^^ fellow'" signifies a person associated and co-operating with Jehovah in the superintendence of his people and the accomplishment of his purposes. To pro- duce this passage as one in which "the name Jehovah is directly given to Jesus of Nazareth," proves nothing but the exigency of the case. 6. Zech. xi. 12, 13. « They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it 216 anto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them." (Produced p. 77".) M. Wardlaw gives no comment on these words : but I presume his argument would proceed upon the assumption, that the words, " a goodly price that I ivas prized at of them,^' are a part of the speech of Jehovah. That this assumption is erroneous appears from the beginning of the 12lh verse, which Mr. Wardlaw has omitted. "And / (that is, the Prophet) said unto them, ' If ye think good, give me my price, (that is, the price of the Prophet,) and, if not, forbear.' So they weighed for my price (that is, as the price of the Prophet) thirty pieces of silver; and Jehovah said unto me, * Cast it unto the potter ;' a goodly price that I (the Prophet) was prized at of them." 7. Rom. xiv. 10, 11. " We shall all stand before the judg- ment-seat of Christ : for it is written, "As 1 live, saith the Lord, ((hat is, saith Jehovah^ see Isa. xlv.) every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.'* (Quoted p. 77, 134.) |i These words exactly accord with the Unitarian doctrine, that " God shall judge the world in righteousness through that man whom he hath ordained."" At the general judg- ment every one of us shall be rewarded or condemned by Jehovah. But, as it is necessary that some visible and corporeal being should act as mediator between the Omni-- present Spirit and mankind, Christ will occupy " the judgment seat," and declare, as the vicegerent of God, tho innocence or the guilt, the reward or the punishment of those who appear before him. 8. 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. "Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctiiication, and redemption ; that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. /Produced p. 77, 78, 134.) J? 217 That the tille Lord is here equivalent to Jehovah, is evident fioin the passage of Isaiah alluded to by the Apostle. Isa. xlv. 25. The meaning evidently is, that men should glory in God, by whom Christ has been made unto them Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Re- demption. These are all the examples which Mr. Wardlaw has collected of the application to Christ either of the title Jehovah, or of other titles equivalent to it. He however in- I ti mates, that these titles are given to our Saviour in a variety 1 ef less decisive passages, (p. 77. 13).) observing that, I " If conviction be produced by these instances, such con- viction will nalurallj lead to the application of the name to Jesus, in many others, which may not at first view appear \ so obvious ;" to which remark 1 beg leave to append another, that, if these instances be utterly irreletant, the I many other proofs must be less than nothing and altogether I vanity. i9 218 CHAPTER VI. fiXABIINATION OF THE PASSAGES, IN WHICH THE PECCHAR ATTRIBUTES OP DEITY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. Mr. Wardlaw's Second head of " direct and imme- diate proofs" consists of those passages, in which he sup- poses the peculiar altributes of Deity to be ascribed to our Saviour. He " confines himself to the four followins; ;" ETERNAL EXISTENCE, ALMIGHTY POWER, OMNIPRESENCE, and OMNISCIENCE. I. Eternal existence. 1. John viii. 58. " Jesus said unto them, * Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.' " (Produced, p. 40, 79—84, 135.) Mr- Wardiaw remarks concerning this passage, " Our Lord expressly affirms, that he existed before Abraham." The truth of his observation will be admitted probably by all Unitarians, who believe in the pre-existence of Christ. The attribute now in question is his eternal existence. That the words of Jesus are any evidence of this attribute, Mr. Wardiaw himself represents as dubious. After sounding his "shrill clarion" through three pages over the Socinian expositors, he observes, " The idea, which has often been suggested, is far from being destitiile of probability, that there was in our Lord's words an allusion, perceived by the Jews, and rendered, perhaps, e7ni)hatical by his man- ner, to the words of God to Moses, ' I am that I am.' " p. 83. As our author here expresses himself with beconiing hesi- tation and modesty, 1 only wonder that he has introduced this passage among " //te direct and immediate proofs'^ of our liord's Divinity. I 1 \ 219 2. Heb. i. 10. "And, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning hasf laid the foundalions of the earth.' " In the last Chapter, it was proved, that these words are not addressed to Christ. The author of the Epistle (ver- 8 — 12.) introduces two quotations from the Psahns, as re- ferring to the authority of Jesus. The first describes the stability of his throne, and the equity of his government. The second represents the eternity and immutability of Jehovah, his God, as a pledge of the firm foundation of his kingdom. 3. Col. i. 17. "He is before all things." (Produced p. S4, 103, 138, 140.) In the 15th verse of this Chapter, Christ is called " the first-born of every creature," which is a direct testimony, that he was not an eternal, but a created, being. Nor is this assertion contradicted by the phrase, " he is before all things." For, even if we suppose it to mean, not " he is," but " he was before all things," and if we were to grant that " before all things" signifies pre-existence in time, and not pre-eminence in dignity, still it could only signify, that he existed before all things except himself and God. It proves therefore, at the very utmost, nothing more than our Lord's existence before the creation of the universe. 4. Rev. i. 8. "lam Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty." I have formerly observed, (P. I. ch. 3. § 1.) that the true reading of this passage, (the reading found in Gries- bach's text,) is as follows ; " I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Since St. John attributes these words to the Supreme Gody they cannot prove any thing respecting Jesiis Christ. 220 Expressions of similar import with the title " Alpha and Omega^^ are applied to God in several parts of the prophe- cies of Isaiah, relating to the deliverance of the Jews from captivitj through the inslrumentalitj of Cyrus and the Persians. See Isa. xli. 4. xliii. 10. xliv. 6. xlviii. 12. These passages, as Le Clerc observes, are all intended to describe that superintending providence of God, which com- prehends the past, the present, and the future. When the Almighty is said to be " the first and the last," the mean- ing of the expression is, that he is contemporary with the earliest and the latest events in that chain of causes and effects, by which he accomplishes his stupendous coun- sels. This remark is beautifully adapted to the series of occurrences referred to by the prophet Isaiah. It appears equally suitable at the commencement of a prophetical nar- ration of the successes and calamities, which were appoint- ed by the Almighty for the Christian church. 5. Rev. i. 17. "I am the first and the last.'* Rev. xxii. 13. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (p. 41, 86. 136.) The expressions contained in both these passages are the words of Christ. They ought to be interpreted in the sense, which we have just given to them when ascribed to the Supreme Being. They signify that Jesus Christ is contemporary with the earliest and the latest events in that dispensation, over which he has been ordained by the Almighty to preside, and that he is consequently qualified for all the honours, the exertions, and the duties of his august station. " They are not intended," as Mr. Belshani observes, " to express self-existence, but solely that the Christian dispensation was begiui, and will be completed hy Christ, who is the author and the finisher of our faith." Calm Inquiry, p. 269. 221 In both cases the application of the words " first and last" to our Lord, is so guarded as to exclude the idea of his Supieaie Divinity. In the Jirst chapter, after being de- scribed as " the first and the last," he is immediately stated to iiave died. This shows that he is not the Being, who alone hath immortality. Every person, upon reading care- fully (he tweedy-second chapter, will perceive, that the speaker in ver. 13. (" I am Alpha and Oiuega," Sec.) is the same, before whom John fell down to worship him, and who forbade him in these remarkable words ; ver. 9. " See thou do it not ; for I am a fellow-servant with thee, and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them who keep the sayings of this book ; worship God." 6. Micah v. 2. " But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (p. 86. 136.) In the original the same word is used to denote his " com- ing fortli*' in the former part of the verse, and his " going -forth^^ in the latter. It ought doubtless to be understood in both instances according to the same sense. In the form- er case it is commonly supposed to signify the birth of the Messiah ; " Out of thee shall he be born unto me, who is to be a ruler in Israel." The last clause must therefore be understood thus ; " JVhose birth has been of old, from ever- lasting ;" that is, " Whose birth has been determined, or appointed, from everlasting." Even though the expression *' goings fortW^ should be referred to an earlier period of our Lord's existence than his birth from the virgin Marv, it must signify generation in some way or other, and there- fore favours the Unitarian doctrine that he had a begimiino'^ rather than the orthodox opinion of his eternitj . 222 II. Almighty power. 1. " This Divine attribute," sajs Mr. Wardlaw, (p. 86.) " is plainly ascribed to Christ in a prophecy of Isaiah for- merly quoted, ' Uuto us a child is born, unto us a son is given ; and his name shall be called — the mighty God.' " But the doctrine now to be proved is, not that our Saviour was MIGHTY, (for this is granted,) but that he was All- migiity, that his will was irresistible, and his power unde- rived, independent, and unlimited. In addition to the observations formerly offered upon this passage, I may here remark, that the epithet mighty, uprni which the argument depends, is applied in more than a Jmndred passages of the Old Testament to mere human beings. (See Taylor's Concordance, v. Geber.) 2. Rev. i. 8. " I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, — THE Almighty." If any credit is due to the assertion of the Sacred writer, these were the words of " the Lord God," and not of Jesus Christ. As is generally agreed by the Christian Fathers of the four first centuries, the word ( navTox^AT^g) here trans- lated Almighty, is the peculiar designation of the Father. It is nowhere in all the Scriptures given to Christ. 3. Phil. iii. 21. "We look for the Saviour from heaven, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working, (the migh- ty energy,) whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (p. 87, 136.) " Such language," says Mr. Wardlaw, "cannot with propriety be used respecting any being, who is not possessed of omnipotence." The reader must make his choice between this unsupported assertion, and the declarations of Paul in other parts of his Epistles, that the same God, who raised Jesus from the dead, will also raise mankind through the instrumentality of Jesus, and that if is God who shall put all things under his feet." (2 Cor. iv, 14. 1 Cor. XV. 27.) 223 I have formerly observed, (P. II. ch. 7.) that the questiou respecting the power of Christ is, whether it belonged to him originally by his own Divine nature, or whether it was conferred upon him by a Superiour. By producing in order all the passages of the New Testament, which relate to the power of Christ, I proved the Unitarian doctrine, that it was given. Mr. Wardlaw has not even attempted to prove the contrary. III. Omnipresence. Mat. xviii. 20. " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." xxviii. 20. " And lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world." (Produced by Mr. Wardlaw, p. 40, 87—90, 137.) In treating of omnipresence as an attribute o( Christ, Mr. Wardlaw seems to have forgotten, that he has no distinct conception of it as an attribute of God.. (See above, P. I. ch. 4.) So far as can be inferred from his language, he be- lieves only in the virtual omnipresence of God, or in his power of producing effects in every part of space. In the same sense I presume he understands the doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ. If so, he is not far from Scripture truth. The words of Jesus, which have just been quoted, can- not properly be understood except as a promise, that wher- ever any of his disciples assembled lo offer up their prayers to God, or in whatever part of the earth they were employ- ed in the service of the gospel, Jesus would accomplish their requests, and supply them vv ith all requisite encour- agement and support. Thus understood, they are most suifable in each instance to the context. Mat. xviii. 19. "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they 224 shall ask, it shall he done for them of my Falher which is in heaven." Having thus assured his disciples of the ful- filment of their united petitions to Heaven, our Lord assi:^ns a reason why (heir requests would be granted ; " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, (here am I in the midst of them." The connexion therefore, in which these words are intreduced, shows, that he only in- tended to describe his power of conferring the blessings for which they prayed. But we know from the clear and copious Scripture testimonies, brought together in a former part of this Treatise, (P. II. ch. 7.) that Christ uniformly exercised his power in subjection to God, and that even in his present exaUed state he only acts as a suboidinate agent in accomplishing the decrees of (he Almighty Father. Ac- cordingly, in this very passage, he does not say, that he himself would by his own independent authority fulfil the prayers of his disciples : on the contrary, he afSrms, " It shall be done for them of my Falher who is in heaven.^^ The similar declaration of Jehovah (o Moses (Ex. xx. 24.) ought to be interpreted in the same manner, in this passage God tirst gives a command respecting the proper mode of of- fering prayer to him, and then subjoins sl promise that, wher- ever such prayer should be offered, he would accomplish it : " In all places where I record my name, / 7vill come tinto ikee and I will bless thee.'' I( is eviden( (ha( (his expres- sion describes only a virtual omnipresence. A spirit, ex- tended through all space, and present every momen( in every part of it, cannot with any propriety be said to come to a person. The p.'irase is figurative. It represents the Almighty Father of the universe under the venerable and endearing image of a friend, whose ears are ever open (o our petitions, and who flies with instant solicitude to the relief of those, who cry unto him for help. 225 The words, " Lo ! I am with you always even unto the end of the world," were addressed by Jesus to the eleven Ajjostles immediately before his ascension into heaven, when he sent them forth to preach the gospel among all nations. (See Mat. xxviii. 16 — 20.) The observation was intended as an assurance, that during their whole ministry Jesus would watch over them with a tender guardianship and affection, and that his care would extend to them in every place, preserving them from the dangers to which they would be exposed, and enabling them to exhibit the miracles by which the truth of their preaching would be ir- resistibly confirmed. This promise therefore, although very difTerent in the mode of expression, is the same in substance with that recorded by the Evangelist Mark in the parallel passage: (Mark xvi. 17, 18.) " And these signs shall fol- low them that believe : in my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover ;" after quoting which words the Evangelist remarks, (ver. 20.) that " they went forth and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.'* Thus was fulfilled the promise, recorded in different terms by both the Evangelists.^ The passages therefore, which, to bear upon the topick of Christ's Divinity, ought to prove his actual omnipresence, that is, the extension of his substance through every part of space, only prove, that he was virtually present with his disciples, to guard, comfort, and assist them in their apos- * [Where is the difficulty of supposing the degree of power, necessary to the literal fulfiliaent of these promises, to be communicated ? No- thing is proved lor the Trinitarian hypothesis, until it be proved, that Jesus possessed in an infinite degree the incommvnicable power ©f Jehovah. Editor.] 3© 226^ folick labours. This virtual presence being merely the ex- ercise o( power, the consideration of it belongs to that head of inquiry. John iii. 13. " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven." (Produced p. 90, 38.) Notwithstanding Mr Wardlaw's positive assertion (p. 146.) that .his text, as well as Rev. i. 8. and 1 John v. 20. is not " in the slightest degree touched by that high and vaunted authority," I can assure the reader, that the words " who is n heaven''^ are marked by Griesbach doi(bffiil. The same uncertainty must cleave to every argument found- ed upon them ; and this uncertainty is multiplied into itself by the doubts and varieties of interpretation, which are found among orthodox Commentators, even on the supposi- tion that the words are genuine. Some of the most eminent Trinitarian criticks, (R. Stephens, Vatable, and Raphel,) have supposed them to signify only, " No man is acquainted with the counsels of God so fully as I am."* IV. Omxiscience. 1. Rev. ii. 23. " I (Jesus) am he who searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Produced, p. 40, 90, 91, 137.) The latter clause so far explains the former as to prove, that it alludes to the office of Jesus Christ as the Judge of men. In order that he may be qualified '* to give unto every man according to his works," it is evidently necessary, that he should know the thoughts and dispositionsof their hearts. The question between those who assert and those who deny his Supreme Divinity is. Whether he possesses this know- ledge of himself, or whether it is imparted to him by a supe- * [The literal acceptation of the phrase may prove the pre-fxistence of Jesus, but cau prove iiothiug more. Editor.] 227 j-iour. The question Is determined bv those numerous and posilive declarations of Scripture formerly brought forward, (P. II. ch. 6, 7.) which prove that he was instructed by the Fa- ther, that he is ordained, authorized, and qualified by the Su- preme God to execute the office of universal judge. Of these passag;es there is one especially decisive; (Rom. ii. 16.) " God shall judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ.''^ To this evidence Mr. Wardlaw chiefly opposes bold as- sertion. — " The evidence on this particular may be brought within very short compass ; for it is irresistibly conclusive." " Is there any need of further witness ? If this be not a di- rect and unqualified claim of a peculiar Divine prerogative, there is no meaning in human language, and to ' search the Scriptures' for clear and satisfactory knowledge mxx%^ be a vain and fruitless task." — But he also insists upon the ex- pression ^'- 1 am he that searcheth" as more expressive than the simpler phrase " I search." His argument proceeds from inattention to the following circumstances. The want of the present tense in Hebrew verbs is supplied by the participle, following the pronoun, agreeing with it in number and person, and having sometimes the definite article pre- fixed. From the Hebrew this construction has been trans- ferred into the Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament. For example ; the expression, " / am he that came (it should be, cometh) out of the army," (e?« «/«' o «»«y e» T«f 7rit^t/*^o\>,(, 1 Sana. iv. 16.) means only, " / co?ne out of the army." In like manner " / am he that searcheth" (Eya iifAi S5«y»*») signifies nothing more than " I search." (Eyi» t^mu.'^ This form of expression is what criticks call a Hebraism^ and " no book in the whole New Testament has so many Hebraisms as the Apocalypse." (Marsh's Micha- eiis, ch. xxxiii. § 6.) It would in my opinion have been better if the authors of the common translation, like the edi- tors of the Improved Version, had accommodated the words 228 of Jesus to the idiom of the English language. This would have prevented Mr. Wardiaw's remark, that the terras as- cribed to our Loid, " evidently proceed upon the express assumption, that this is the exclusive prerogative of owe 6c- ing only." It may also be observed in reply to Mr. Wardiaw's argu- ments from this pas^^age, that, although Solomon at the dedi' cation of the temple (1 Kings viii. 39.) addressed Jehovah as alone acquainted with the hearts of men, this does not contradict the supposition, that in consequence of the all- wise procedures of the Deity subsequent to that period, Christ will at the day of general judgment be ejidued with all the knowledge of men's thoughts and dispositions, which is necessary to the discharge of his office. 2. John ii. 24, 25. " He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man ; for he knew what was in man." (p. 40,91, 137.) A profound and intimate knowledge of human nature was absolutely requisite to the character of Christ as a moral and religious instructer. In this knowledge he was transcend- ently eminent. According to his own account it was im- parted to him by the Father. (P. II. ch. 6.) Mr. Ward- law has not attempted to prove the contrary. The Unita- rian doctrine upon this subject stands hitherto unassailed. In addition to the decisive proofs formerly brought forward I now add, tJiat the woman of Samaria (John iv. 17 — 19) instead of Inferring from our Saviour's supernatural know- ledge of her condition and behaviour, that he was the om- niscient God, appears only to have concluded, that he was inspired with this knowledge by the Almighty: "Sir," said she," I perceive that thou art a prophet." 3. John xxi. 17. " Lord, thou knowest all things." (p. 91, 137.) 229 The force of this proof is entirely destroyed by the ap- plication of Ihe very same language to Christians in general by the author of this Gospel. 1 John ii. 20. " Ye have an unction from Ihe Holy One, and ye kiioiv all things.'* The knowledge here attributed to Chrislians is represented as arisiog from their miction, or inspiration, by the Almigh- ty. Why might not the knowledge of our vSaviour arise from the same cause ? In each case the knowledge of all things means only a very extensive and various knowledge. For the word ^^ All,'* as every attentive student of the Scriptures knows, is in numerous instances used to signify a very great number and variety. (See Schleusner, v. n«.) Mr. Wardlaw, towards the conclusion of his Discourse on the Tides and Attributes of Christ, introduces the tol- lowing observations ; " With regard to all those texts, which have been quoted, no attempt is made to prove, that upon the ordinary principles of construction they are unfairly OY unnaturally rendered." " In those, of which a different translation is proposed, it is not pretended that the new rendering is more consistent with the rules of syntax, or the ordinary usage of the original language, than the old ; but only that the words are capable of bearing it, — that it is jfossible for them to be so translated." — If the cause of orthodoxy requires to be supported by such assertions as these, no honest man will engage in its defence. I un- feignedly hope, that Mr. Wardlaw did not consider what he was saying : indeed 1 believe, that he could not. It is my deliberate opinion, (and all Unitarians, who think themselves capable of understanding the original, will probably agree with me,) that, in the very few instances, in which we de- part from the common translation, we think our versions at least equally fair, natural, and obvious with those of Trin- itarians. Our translations, we conceive, express the sense, 230 in which the words of the sacred authors would be imme- diately understood by those, who lived in their age, who used their language, and were familiar with their manners, faabifs, and sentiments. Since we find the doctrines of the strict Unity of God, the inferiority of Jesus Christ, and the derivation of his knowledge and power, clearly asserted in many hundred passages of Scripture ; and since we think the doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, as now held by the orthodox, both absurd in themselves and contrary to the general tenour and plain language of the Bi- ble, we should be justified in rendering four or five difficult passages in any allowable manner, which made them con- sistent with our primary and indisputable principles. The fact however is, that we are not reduced to this necessity. 231 CHAPTER VII. EXAMINATION OF THB PASSAGES, IN WHICH THE PECULIAR WORKS OF DEITV ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. Mr. Wardlaw (p. 95) " affirms, in the 3d place, that WORKS are ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Scriptures, to which no being is competent but the Supreme God." I. First, the miraclbs of Jesus are produced as evi- dences of his Divinitj. Mr. Wardlaw allows, that the mi- racles themselves are no proof of this doctrine, since " sim- ilar wonders were wrought by the Prophets before and by the A-postles after him." But he contends, (p. 96 — 98, 139.) that the peculiar manner, in which our Lord per- formed some of his miracles, " cannot be vindicated from the charge of presiimptuons impiety^ except by supposing that he possessed in himself the power necessary to their accomplishment." Thus, it is related, (Mat. viii. 26.) that, when a storm had arisen on the lake of Tiberias, " He arose and rebuked the winds, and said unto the sea, ' Peace, be still !' and immediately there was a great calm." These words re- mind us of that Being, of whom it is said in the sublime language of the Psalmist, (Ps. Ixv. 7.) " He stilleth the noise of the seas and the noise of their waves, and the tumults of the people." But it would have been presump- tuous impiety in Jesus, if he were a created being, to em- ploy expressions, which could lead his fellow-creatures to imagine even for an instant, that he claimed equality with God. Therefore, he was the uncreated Jehovah, the Supreme Lord of universal nature. Again, we are informed (Mat. viii. 2, 3.) that " there c^me a leper to Jesus, doing him obeisance, and saying. 232 ' Sir, ii' thou wilf, thou canst make me clean.' " The Apostles, on occasions paitlj similar, (Acts iii. 12. xiv. 15.) disclaimed the possession of inherent and Divine pow- er; and Moses and Aaron were punished with exclusion from the land of promise, because they performed a miracle " wi(h inconsiderate passion, as if the power had resided in Ihem selves.'" In this instance however, although Jesus would have abhorred to saj or do any thing, which could possibly be interpreted as a false comparison of himself with the Almighty, he is simply stated to have replied, "I will ; be thou clean :" and immediately the leprosy was cleansed. Therefore, Jesus '^possessed in himself nnderived and independent power." The arguments, which 1 have here presented in a condensed form, appear to me the most ingenious and eloquent pieces of reasoning in Mr. Wardlaw's volume. But deplorable is the condition of that tottering system, whose advocates, instead of relying upon plain and positive declarations of Scripture, are obliged to prop it up by far- fetched inferences, and by imaginary hints and allusions ; and it is curious and entertaining to observe, how Reason, which is discarded and turned out of doors, whenever her evidence is unfavourable to the popular system, is called up again to the tribunal and treated with all possible re- spect, when it is conceived that she can serve the cause of orthodoxy even by suggesting the most faint and distant analogies. I might bid adieu to this jiy.in TO (xiyaxmeivti nxt nytov ovo/u.a. autov. Tlie use pf iTTutKhnfjiivi^y in the passive voice, instead of sjr/oaixot/^svti, wliich may ^e either the passive or the middle, determines the sense. ^6 \ye well-plcivsing to his name, through our high-priest and advocate Jesus Christ, through whom to Him be glory and majesty, might and honour both now and forever. Amen." We know therefore, that "/o be called by the name of Chrisf^ was a designation employed in the apostolick age (o denote the profession of the Christian religion. We do not know, until it be proved, that the primitive believers invoked Christ in prayer, or called upon his name. The former interpretation therefore is certainly agreeable to fact ; the latter may be conducive to errour. To be called by the name of a person is a phrase of very frequent occurrence in the Sacred Scriptures. It signifies to belong to that person. Deut. xxviii. 10. Moses, having promised to the children of Israel the blessing of God upon their obedience, adds, " And all people of the earth shall see, that thou art called by the name of Jehovah^ and they shall be afraid of thee." The descendants of Abraham are said to be called by the name of Jehovah in several other passages; (2 Chron. vii. 14. Isa. xliii. 7. Jer. xiv. 9. xv. 16. Dan. 'x. 19.) the expression signifies, that they be- longed tu Jehovah as his worshippers and the objects of his protection and favour. In like manner, the temple at Jerusalem, (1 Kings viii. 43. Jer. vii. 10, 11, 14, 30. xxxii. 34. xxxiv. 15.) the city of Jerusalem itself, (Dan. ix. 18, 19.) the ark of the covenant, (2 Sam. vi. 2.) and the converted heathens, (Amos ix. 12. Acts xv. 17.) are said " to be called by the name of Jehovah.^^ The expres- sion signifies only, that they were his. Thus also, to be called by the name of Christ was the same thing as to be- long to Christ, to be his disciples, to profess his religion. Hence in the Enislle of James we find the phrase employ- ed in a manner, which is free from all ambiguity ; ch. ii. 6, 7. " Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy 247 name, hy the which ye are called .^" Allhough,in these ex- amples, the form of expression in the Greek lis different, the sense appears to be the same as in the passages, which I am now endeavouring to illustrate. Being called by the name of Christ signified the same thing as professing the religion of Christ, and hence became a common designa- tion of the primitive believers. IV. Mr. Wardlaw next produces two passages from the Epistles of Paul, in which "Jesus is jfcknowledged in con- nexion with God the Father as ordering the events of pro- vidence." 1 Thess. iii. 11, 12, 13. "Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct ou' way unto you : and the Lord make you lo increase and abound in love one toward another and toward all men, even as we do toward you ; to the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his 'saints." (p. 40, 119, 140.) 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. "And now our Lord Jc us Christ himself, and God even our Father, who hath loVed us, and hatb given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work." (p. 40, 119, 120, 140.) In these passages, Jesus Christ is represented as cc* operating with the Father in aiding, directing, consoling, and edifying his disciples. Other scriptures attribute to him the same offices. But it is clearly stated in many parts of the New-Testament, that our Lord discharges these offices in subordination to the Father, and by means of power and knowledge communicated from him. In conformity wi^h these statements we ought to understand the passage* before us, which do not contain an '^ invocation''^ either of God or of Jesus, but a devout wish of aid and direction >^48 from them; and which guard against the supposition of their equalifj^ by giving to one of them only Ihat title, whicb belongs to the Supreme Deity alone, God the Father. Mr. Wardlaw is, as usual, very unfortunate in bis minu- ter criticisms. He observes, with respect to the former of the two passages, that ^^the Lord,^^ in the 12th verse, is evidently the Lord Jesus Christ. Griesbach however has marked this word doubtful. If it be omitted, the passage will read thus ; " Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you, and make you to increase and abound in love one toward another," &;c. The various examples of inattention to the correctness of the Greek ient, which I have observed, constrain me to think, that Mr. Wardlaw has made his bold assertions (p. 140.) concerning Griesbach's emendations without taking the trouble to examine whether they were true or false. With respect to the second of these passages, Mr. Wardlaw endeavours to confirm his argument by remarking, that Christ is "not only associated with God, but in the order of address put before him.'^ He makes the same observation upon another passage, (2 Cor. xiii. 14. p. 19.) where also Christ is mentioned in the order of the sentence before God. This argument at the utmost rests on very dubious ground. It is the idiom of the English language, when a verb has more than one nominative, to place that first, which is considered the highest in dignity and emi- nence. In Latin the rule is the reverse ; the most impor- tant object being mentioned last. AV^hether there be any established practice upon this subject in Greek, I must con- fess myself at present unable to say ; but 1 do not take Mr W^ardUiw'srule upon trust. Besides, I <;annot see how this observation is applicable to prove the Trinitarian doctrine. For, although it cannot be denied, ihat Christ is often put before God the Father in the ajf'eclions of his worshippers. 249 I never knew, that his superiority to the Father was a doc trine taught by systeniatlck theolog;ians. Perhaps the true cause, why the name of God follows that of Christ in this benediction, is, that a considerable train of words is con- nected with it by the relative pronoun. V. Mr. Wardlaw (p. 120.) further argues for the Divinity of Christ from ^^ the forms of benediction, with which the Epistles generally open or conclude, and which cannot be viewed in any other light than as brief prayers for the Divine blessing on the ciiurches and individuals to whom they are addressed." From this view of the apostolick benedictions I am not disposed to dissent. P/operly speaking, they imply only benevolent wishes for happiness, mutual love, and all tem- poral and spiritual blessings, to be bestowed by God and Jesus upon the persons addressed. But, as almost every wish of an habitually pious man includes a prayer, they may also be considered as aspirations of the mind To God, who is the object of prayer. It is to be observed however, (see above, P. II. ch. 4.) that, in every instance of such benedictions, a marked distinction is made between '■^ God the Father,'^ who is the only True God, and " the Lord Jesus Christ,''^ who, according to the doctrine stated in other parts of Scripture, exercises his functions, as the guardian and benefactor of the Christian church, in subjec- tion to God and by means of qualifications imparted from hira. VI. 2Cor. xii. 8, 9. ^^ ¥ ov XhhiKm^ I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, ' My grace is sufficient for thee ; for my strength is made perfect in weakness.' Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power ©f Christ may rest upon me." (p. 40, 119, 120, 140.) 33 250 Several of the most eminent Trinitarians both in ancient and modern times have supposed, that Paul intended by *' the Lord'' to signify God the Father. With due defer- ence to their judgment, the mention of Christ in the latter part of the passage seems to me to indicate, that he was die person, whom Paul "besought." If so, we have a clear in- stance of an earnest supplication for aid, addressed to Jesus. It is to be observed however, that, when addressed, he makes a reply in distinct terms, say-ngto Paul, " My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness." This renders it probable, that, when Paul bC' sought him, he was present with the Apostle either in vision or personally. Vri. Acts vii. 59, 60. " And they stoned Stephen, call-' ing upon (Jesus) and saying, ' Lord Jesus, receive mj spirit ;' and he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, * Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' " (p. 41, 1*20— 120, 143.) From the 55th verse we learn, that Jesus had shortly be- fore appeared to this holy martyr in vision, and hence it is probable, that a vivid impression remained upon his mind, which prompted these affecting ejaculations. In the only two instances therefore of the invocation of Jesus, which we find in the New Testament, we have considerable reason to believe, that the petitioners were in peculiar circumstan- ces, which authorized and excited their supplications. If this were certain, we might reply without hesitation, that the examples of Paul and Stephen do not justify prayer to Christ in those, to whom no such appearance is presented. The view of the nature of Christ, conceived by Stephen when he invoked him, may be inferred from the vision, ex- hibired for his support and consolation. See ver. 55. He called upon Jesus, not as God, but as standing at the right hand of God, that is, appointed and empowered by God to 251 direct the affairs of his church, and to guard the lives and preserve the souls of his servants. The exaraple therefore of this djing martyr, even if it authorize us to pray to Christ, affords no proof of his Supreme Divinity. With respect to the second ejaculalion, " Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,^' it was probably addressed to God, the Judge of all, to whom the expiring saint appears previ- ously and deliberately to have diverted his attention in the solemn act of kneeling down. I confess however, that I am not able, completelj^ to my own satisfaction, to reconcile these two instances of the in- vocation of Jesus with those numerous and clear direc- tions,* which represent the Father as the only proper object of religious adoration. But I humbly trust, that, if from this, and every other diflficulty, which occurs to me in the study of Divine revelation, I learn modesty and charity ; if I am careful to comply with those explicit and often-repealed injunctions, which command the worship of the Father in spirit and in truth ; if I regard with due reverence and ad- miration the character, the doctrines, and the precepts of Jesus Christ, and endeavour to testify my love to him by keeping his commandments ; though men may condemn me, he will approve: and, if any one should harshly reply, that I must dispel my doubts, and not pretend that upon such a subject the Bible contains any difficulties, I answer in the words of a venerable Prelate, to whom the publick is under great obligations both as a defender of truth, and much more as an example of candour and Christian moderation; "If different men, in carefully and conscientiously examining the Scriptures, should arrive at different conclusions, even on points of the last importance ; we trust that God, who alone * Such as. Jolin xv. 16. xvi. 23. Rom. i. 8, vii. 2.'). xv. 6. 1 Cor. xr. 57. Eph. iii. 14—21. v. 20. Phil, iii.3. Col. i. 3, 12. ii. 17. Heb. xiii. 15. 1 Peter i. 17. iv. 11. 252 knows what every man is capable of, will be merciful fo liim thai is in errour. We trust that he will pardon fiie Unitarian, if he be in an errour, because he has fallen into it from the dread of becoming an Idolater, of giving that glory to another which he conceives to be due to God alone. If the worship- per of Jesus Christ be in an errour, we trust that God will pardon his mistake, because he has fallen into it from a dread of disobeying what he conceives to be revealed concerning the nature of the Son, or commanded concerning tiie honour to be given him. Both are actuated by the same principle — THE FEAR OF GoD ; and, though that principle impels them into different roads, it is our hope and belief, that, if tliey add to their faith charity, they will meet in lieaven." — Bp. Watson's Theological Tracts, Preface, p. xvii, xviii. VIII. Heb. i. 6. " And let all the angels of God worship him." (p. 12'. It is well known, that the word translated " worship" denoted only that obeisance, which was ofTered to superiours as a mark of profound respect; and that the term " angel" is applied to any being, who was employed to communicate the will of God to mankind. The application of this pas- sage to Christ consequently proves nothing more than his superiority to all the messengers previously sent from God for the instruction of mankind, thus agreeing with the ob- ject of the writer throughout this part of his epistle. IX. The only other instance of the worship of Christ cited by Mr. W^ardlaw, is the sublime vision, described in the 5th chapter of the Revelation, in which all rational crea- tures are represented attributing common honours to God and to Jesus. Even in this most splendid description of the glory of Christ, his inferiority to Almighty Gotl is distinctly marked. It is not true, as Mr. Wardlaw asserts, (p. 125.) that he "is represented as occupying the same throne with the Eter- 253 iial.** On the contrary, while God sits upon the throne in token of his supremacy, (see ch. iv. 2, 8 — 11. v. 1, 7, 13.) ChrisI, ihe lamb, stands in the middle space between the throne and the elders, and afterwards goes up to take the book out of the hand of him that sits on the thione. See ver. 6, 7. The inferiority of Clirist to the " I^ord God Almighty, who liveth for ever and ever," being so clearly expressed in tiie vision, the language of the worshipping multitudes ought to be understood conformably to this distinction. They ascribe " blessing and honour and glory and power" both to God and to the Lamb; and to both tiiis tribute was unquestionably due. For, as we learn from many other paits of Scripture, CInist is justly raised to this glorious pre-eminence, as a reward for his virtuous humilia- tion and obedience unto death, and as the qualification by which he is enabled to discharge the offices of his exalted state. The praise of the angels and redeemed saints is therefore agreeable to the general doctrine of the New Tes- tament ; it is agreeable to Unitarianisni ; it is agreeable to the practice, and consonant to the most grateful feelings and fixed sentiments of Unitarians. They, in their churches upon earth, are sometimes heard to join the adoring throngs above in " saying with a loud voice, ' Worthy is the lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing:' " and there is even some reason to apprehend that, when Trinitarians employ the same language-, they use it, not so much out of regard to the supposed eternal Deity of Christ, as to the might and wisdom, to which he has been elevated by the Father. See Barrow's Sermons, v. 11. No. 31. p. 434, 445—448. But, whilst it is proper, that we should give utterance to these convictions and feelings respecting our highly exalted Redeemer, we are bound to confine to Him, that hath "high-' 254 ly exalted him," our supreme affection, our highest adora- tion, and our most profound submission. But it is argued, tiiat, since God and Christ in this in- stance receive the same tribute of praise, they must be equal in eternity, in power, and in glory. Indeed those, who maintain the Supreme Divinity of Christ, commonly represent it as a circumstance of great moment, whenever he is mentioned in conjunction with the Father, and in the same or similar terms with him. It will therefore be proper to consider more particularly, what inferences follow from the application of the same language in the same sentence to Almighty God and to some other being. The following passages may serve the purpose. Ex. xiv. 31. "And the people feared Jehovah, and believed Jehovah and his ser- vant 3Ioses.'' I Sam. xii. 18. " And all the people great- ly feared Jehovah and Samuel.'* I Chron. xxix. 20. "And all the congregation blessed Jehovah, God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Je- hovah and the King.'' 2 Chron. xxxi. 8. " And, when Hezekiah and the princes came and saw the heaps, they blessed Jehovah and his people Israel." Acts xv. 28. " It seemed good to the Holy Spirit (that is, to God) and to us." 1 Thess. ii. 10. " Ye are witnesses and God." In these passages, the one True God is " associated" with his creatures as the object of faith, fear, worship, and blessing, and is mentioned " in connexion" with them as giving counsel and bearing witness. In all such cases we apply the terms to God and to his creatures " in different modifications of meaning ;" and we ought to do so likewise, when the Almighty is in the same manner conjoined with his son Jesus Christ. Many other examples might be pro- duced. I shall confine myself to two. 1 Tim. v. 21. " I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things." Let uft suppose for a moment, that, instead of " the elect angels," 255 St. Paul had wviUen " the Holy Spirit.*' What a capital and convincing proof of the Trinity of persons in the God- head. " I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, that thou observe these things.** Here, it would have been insisted, the three persons of the ever blessed Trinity are appealed to in precisely the same terms, and called upon by a solemn adjuration to witness the injunction of the Apostle delivered to his convert. 1 Sam. XXV. 32, 33. " And David said to Abigail, ' Blessed be Jehovah, God of Israel, who sent thee this day to meet me ; and blessed be thy advice ; and blessed be thou.' ' Imagine the words " Son" and " Holy Spirit" in the two last clauses, instead of " thy advice" and " thou." — ^^ Bless- ed be Jehovah, God of Israel ; and blessed be the Son ; and blessed be the Holy Spirit. — I say seriously, that this passage, so written, would have been a stronger proof of the Trinity of persons in the Godhead than any of those, which are now brought forward. I have no doubt, that it would have been insisted on with equal tenacity. It would have been maintained in the most positive terms, that the ascription of blessing and praise, in exactly the same lan- guage and in the very same sentence, to these persons, is a proof as clear as language can supply of their equality. The Trinitarians would have reaped additional triumphs ; the Unitarians would have been obliged to bend under re- doubled charges of obstinacy and impiety. The sense of the Sacred Writers in attributing glory and praise to the one True God and to Jesus Christ his Son, Imay be illustrated by the manner, in which the Mahomedans {associate their Prophet with the Almighty. Of this I [shall take a recent example. A gentleman, who about 30 lyears ago was at Tripoli and wished to travel into the in- Iteriour of Africa, obtained from the Bashaw a letter of in- troduction to the King of Fezzan. It commences in th« following lofty language of praise and supplication. 256 "Praise be unto the Almighty Gorl, and unto our Lord bis Prophet Mahommed, wliose proleclion and mercy ue crave, and resign ourselves to his liolj will. To our son, Sydy Hained Ben Mohammed, the great and just ruler over his beloved people, may his days be long and happy. Amen. " Peace, and the protection and blessing of God be with you and preserve you from evil. *' We have to acquaint you our son, that our friend, the English King, halh sent one of his inleiprelers unio us, and desired we would procure him a safe conveyance to Fez- zan," &c. &c.* I introduce this extract, because the similarity of opinion between Mahommedans and Unitarians is sufBcient to illus- trate the subject before us. If we were to argue after the manner of those Trinitarians, who say that the New Testa- ment writers must have considered Jesus as equal to the Father, because they express the praises of them both in the very same terms and even in the same sentence, we should conclude, that the Mahommedans hold the same be- lief respecting their prophet, since they in the very same sentence offer not only praises, but even prayers, both to him and to Almighty God. We know however, that the Mahommedans are as strenuous as the Unitarians in main- taining, that God is but one person ; and they certainly en- tertain no higher conceptions of Mahonmied than Unitari- ans of Jesus. Their language proves, that a person may be conceived to be infinitely inferiour to God as his creature and his dependent, and yet, in consideration of the power and glory to which God has raised him, he may be praised and even petitioned in connexion with his Creator and the Creator of all. * See Mr. Beaiifoy's " Prooeedinss of tlie Association for promoting the discovery of the iiiteriour parts of Africa, Loudon, 1791." ii 257 CHAPTER IX. UXAMINATION OF THE REMAINING ARGUMENTS PRODUCED BY MB- WARDLAW TO PROVE THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. That I may do full justice to the evidence of the Trinita- rian doctrine, and omit none of its "prominent and palpable evidences," I shall in this Chapter consider all the remain- ing arguments for the Divinity of Christ, which are pro- duced by Mr. Wardlaw, but which do not come under the foregoing heads. John X. 30. " I and ray Father are one." (p. 40.) Many of the most eminent orthodox criticks both in an- cient and modern times have allowed, that this passage affords no proof of the proper deity of Christ. "The an- cients," says Calvin, " improperly applied this passage to prove, that Christ is of the same substance with the Father. For Christ does not argue concerning unity of substance, but speaks of the consent which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the Father's power."* Even supposing the doctrine of the Trinity to be pre- viously established, this passage does not seem to me to admit of being interpreted with reference to it. To express that doctrine, we should expect our Lord to have said ; " I and my Father and the Holy Spirit are one :" and the sentence, even thus completed. Mould not have been ap- plicable to the purpose, unless it had been further explain- ed, in ivhat sense the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are one. In numerous passages of the New Testament, two or more persons are said to be one, that is, as one, in order t» * Quoted in Belshain's Calm Inquiry, p. 234. 258 denote a perfect agreement of design and operation. Thus, 1 Cor. iii. 8. Paul and Apollos, ♦' he that planted and he that watered, were 07ie." The expression signified, that, although ihev undertook difFerent functions, they were as much united in the end and object of their labours, as if they had been but one person. In Gai. iii. 28. the Apostle says, " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.^' The reception of believers info the Christian church levelled all worldly distinctions, and produced such an entire consent and co-operation, such a union of views, interests, and dispositions, that Jews and Gentiles, freemen and slaves, males and females, came to be, as it were, but one person together with Jesus Christ. Since it was, or ought to have been, as impossible for them to oppose one another as for a man to contend against him- self, they are said to have had but one body, one set of members, one heart, and one soul, and to have been " mem- bers of the body of Christ, of his flesh and of his bones." — (Acts iv. 32. Rom. xii. 5. 1 Cor. xii. 13, 27. Eph. iv. 4. V. 30.) Upon the same idea proceeds the observation, that, when a man and woman are united in the marriage connexion, ihei/ are no longer two persons, but one. Mat. xix. 5, 6. Eph. V. 31.) that is, they have no longer any separate ob- jects or interests, but agree in their aims, wislies, and aftec- tions. These instances lead to the true interpretation of our Lord's remark, that he and the Father were one person. — The expression must be imderstood figuratively. It signi- fied, that .f esus had precisely the same designs and wishes with the Falhcr, and that they co-operated as if they had but a single mind. That this is the true interpretation of our Saviour's words, is placed beyond a doubt by those passages, in which he 259 repeats the assertion, that he and the Father were one, praying that all his disciples might be one in the same sense. Jolm xvii. 11. " Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou Jiast given me, that they may t}e one as we are." Ver. 20 — 23. " INeilher pray 1 for these alone, but for them also, who shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one, as thou, Fa- ther, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us ; that the world may believe, that thou hast sent me : and the glory, which thou gavest me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one, I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one." If this be the only allowable explanation of (he phrase, " I and my Father are one,"" what has been said sufficient- ly illustrates anolher passage, produced by Mr. Wardlaw, of a similar nature. John xiv. 9, 10. " I am in the Fa- ther, and the Father in me ; and he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." (p. 40.) The only remaining passage, which Mr. Wardlaw has produced, and almost the only remaining passage, which has commonly been produced by Trinitarians, as a proof of the Deity of Christ, is Phil. ii. 6. " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (p. 43, 52, 178, 219, 253, 422, 423.) After attending carefully to the ingenious argumentation, by which Hammond and a few others have attempted to justify this translation, I am satisfied, that it cannot possi- bly be deduced out of the original words of St. Paul. The literal translation of them is, " Who, being in the form of God, did not esteem it a prey to be as God." Since there is an evident necessity for some suppliment in the last clause, and the substantive verb (w*' ) "fo 6e" is seldom used in the New Testament to denote mere existence, we may properly insert the word honoured, and read " to be 260 honoured as God. '^ The meaning of the Aposlle may be ihus expressed ; ver. 5 — 8. " Imitate the condescension and benevolence of Jesus Christ, who, although he resem- bled God in the possession of extraordinary power and wisdom, did not grasp at Divine honours, but humbled him- self to the performance of servile offices, and, in obedience to the will of his Father, submitted unto death, even the painful and ignominious death of the cross." The translation, adopted by the modern Unitarians, is not only sanctioned by the authority of many of the ancient Fathers, but has received the approbation of Erasmus, Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Archbishop Tillotson, Bish- op Bull, Dr. Wall, Archbishop Newcome, and many other learned men among the ranks of Trinitarian criticks. Although I approve of Mr. Wardlaw's translation " to be on an equalitij with God," ard admire the remarks, by which he has vindicated it, yei I know of no objection in his v/ho!e volume more flimsy than that which he urges against the Unitarian interpretation of this passage. St. Paul, in order to give a lively representation of the benevo- lent condescension of Christ, draws a contrast between the conduct, which one of his transcendent power and dignity might have adopted, (ver. 6.) and the humble conduct, which Jesus did adopt, (ver. 7, 8.) Mr. Wardlaw takes one clause of the sentence, viz. the 6th verse, apart from the rest ; and, thus confip.ing the attention of his readers to the former part of the contrast, he asks, " Is it then to be the peculiar subject of admiration and astonishment, — is it held up to us as the example, which of all examples we are most sedulously to imitate, that a creature, a man, possess- ing by Divine communication a singular portion of mirac- ulous power and wisdom, did not pervert these high endow- ments to his own selfish ends ! — that he was not guilt}' of the most heaven-daring presumption and impiety !" &c. Thus 261 he runs on lo the bottom of the page ; (p. 254.) and I doubt not, that many of his thoughtless readers, who prefer this idle rant to the simplicity that is in Christ, will acclaim to his criticisms. But to perceive their extreme futility, it is only necessary to read the sentence throughout, so as to bring into notice the contrast, which it describes with beau- tiful and simple eloquence. It must be remembered also, that Mr. Wardlaw's charge of " unnatural and vapid tame- ness" fixes itself upon the inspired Apostle, and not upon those who give the exact translation and only adniissible exposition of his words. Besides producing passages, which he supposes to affirm the Divinity of Christ in direct terms, Mr. Wardlaw argues from certain general views, wliich, if Christ be considered as a mere creature, however highly exalted, "are bereft of all their force and propriety, and appear altogether unnat- ural and unaccountable." p. 45 — 55, 133. These consid- erations are, the views displayed in the New Testament of the love of God in the mission of Jesus Christ; the ac- counts of the condescension and love of Christ in executing his mediatorial office ; the warm transport and gratitude of the Sacred Writers in contemplating these subjects ; the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God ; and his high claims to the love and obedience of his followers. Mr. Wardlaw maintains, that, except upon the supposition of Christ's proper Deity, the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects *' violates every sentiment of propriety, and is the mere rhapsody of admiration, the unmeaning bom- bast of eulogy." Although such arguments as these, in the way in which Mr. Wardlaw has illustrated them, afford a fine field for eloquent declamation, and are well adapted to excite the wonder, applause, and sympathy of a listening crowd, they are altogether out of place in a work of Scriptural invesfi- 262 gation. The evidences, by which the principal doctrines of Christianity are supported, may certainly be perceived by the understanding without the excitements of fancy and feeling. So little occasion is there to rouse them into action, that the danger is, lest our passions should hurry away our judgments, lest those prejudices, which we have been ac- cuslomed to connect with the exercise of our devotional affections, and which are magnified in our conceptions far beyond their real importance, should render our minds cal- lous to the impression even of the most clear, decisive, and abundant evidence. It ought therefore to be our serious endeavour, instead of indulging, to check the sallies of passion and fancy, and to form a cool, accurate, and impar- tial judgment of the true state of each disputed opinion. Before discussing subjects of such vast extent and trans- cendent importance, we ought to calm our perturbed spirits in some such language as the following ; «' Imagination's airy wing repress ; •' Lock lip tby senses ; let no passion stir ; *' Wake all to reason ; let her reign alone ; " Then, in thy soul's deep silence, and the depth " Of Nature's silence, midnight, thus inquire." Mr. Wardlaw's impressive declamation, instead of con- ducing in the least degree to the discovery of truth, can only serve to fortify the mind in its attachment to its pre- conceived opinions, whether they be true or false ; and, if upon careful revision it should prove, that they are false, then how exceedingly indiscreet and indecorous are his assertions, that, except his interpretations of Scripture be admitted, Jesus Christ himself employed " the language of unexampled presumption, and outraged every feeling of fitness and propriety." Although it might be sufficient to enter my decided pro- test against this method of arguing, and to observe, that, if 263 the Deity of Christ be not taught in explicit terms, mere general considerations can be of no avail to prove il, yet I shall add a few other remarks in reply to this part of Mr. Wardlaw's publication. The very passages, which Mr. Wardlaw has produced as containing sentiments capable of being justified only on the supposition of our Lord's proper Deity, suggest other grounds for those representations which they exhibit. The love of God is stated to appear, not in sending one of the Persons of the Trinity to be united to a suffering mortal, but in " not sparing his own Son ;" (the most eminently favoured and distinguished of his creatures, Rom. viii. 32.) in " giving him for us, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life ;^* (John iii. 16.) in giving him for us, *' while we were yet sinners,^* (Rom. T. 8.) in loving us before we loved him, and in sending his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.^^ (1 John iv. 9, 10.) According to the Scriptural account, the love of God in the mission of Christ was manifested rather in the merciful and beneficent ends to be accomplished by sending him, than in the original dignity of the person sent. But Mr. Wardlaw asks. If the doctrine of Unitarians upon the person of Christ be true, why do the Scriptures speak of his mission in language so much more elevated than that which is applied to other Divine messengers? — Because the messages of Jesus were infinitely more im- portant, more consoling, and more encouraging, than those of any other prophet, and because he far surpassed all others in the holiness of his life, the greatness of his endowments, and the spotless purity, the majestick dignity, and the all-amiable excellency of his character. — "But why do we not find similar language applied to Peter or Paul, although they also proved their sincerity, and sealed their testimony, with their blood ?" — Because they were not only 264 much inferiour to Jesus in all the above-mentioned qualifi- cations, but acted as his servants and instruments, deriving from him those fuller and clearer representations of his doctrine, which they diffused through the world after his ascension. Besides, it is needless to inquire, why the New Testament does not resound the praises of the authors, by whom it was composed. Modesty and propriety forbade it. But, after they had both lived and died, as their bless- ed master did, for the good of mankind, then, to borrow the words of a learned author, " to the honour of these excel- lent poor men conspicuous monuments were erected every where ; anniversary memorials of their names and virtues were celebrated ; they were never mentioned or thought of without respect ; their commendations were interwoven with the praises of their great Lord and Maker, whom they honoured.'' (Barrow's Sermons, v. I. p. 55.) The simple solemn rites, by which the primitive Christians tes- tified their regard to the memory of those, who died in sup- port of their religion, cannot be better described than in the following words of the learned Dr. Cave : " In those sad and bloody times, when the Christian religion triumphed over persecution, and gained upon the world by nothing more than the constant and resolute sufferings of its pro- fessors, whom no threatenings or torments could baffle out of it ; the people generally had a vast reverence for those who suffered thus deeply in the cause of Christianity, and laid down their lives for the confirmation of it. They looked upon confessors and martyrs, as the great champions of their religion, who resisted unto blood, and died upon the spot to make good its ground, and to maintain its hon- our and reputation ; and therefore thought it very reasona- ble to do all possible honour to their memories, partly that others might be encouraged to the like patience and fortitude, and partly that virtue even in this world might not lose its 265 reward. Hence they were wont once a-year to meet at the graves of martyrs, there solemnly to recite their siifTerings and their triumphs, to praise their virtues, and to bless God for their pious examples, for their holy lives, and their liappy deaths, for their palms and crowns." (Cave's Prim- itive Christianity, p. 126.) None but the hard-hearted scorner, casting his eye upon this beautiful picture, would cavil against these offerings of gratitude, veneration, and piety, as " utterly extravagant and unaccountable :" and, if they were justly due to the merits and services of the martyrs to the Christian religion, a higher tribute was owing to its author, even though in his original nature he was but a mortal man.* Mr. Wardlaw has produced but one more argument for the Deity of Christ. He affirms, (p. 174, 420.) that the accounts of the miraculous conception of our Lord in the introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke's Gospels, "cannot be made to comport with the Unitarian creed." He has not however advanced any argument in support of this assertion ; nor was it possible for him to prove, that the generation in a supernatural manner of a being, which, when born, should not be the Supreme God, exceeds the efforts of Omnipotence. With this unsupported assertion he has connected several remarks, which it is necessary for me to notice in order to counteract their false tendency. I shall however only con- front his assertions with an exact statement of fadsy ab- staining from reflections. Sone time in the course of the last year (1813) the Reli- gious Tract Society of Glasgow published a small pampj.let, having the following title, " An Exposure of the Unwar- * [This reasoning is strengthened in the opinion of those Unitarians who hold the pre-existent dignity of Christ. — Editor.] 35 266 ranfable Liberties taken by the Unitarians with the Sacred Scriptures, in their Version of the New Testament; with some critical reoiarivs on their interpretation of parti- cular passages of Scripture; extracted (with the author's permission) from Dr. Magee's work on Atoneaient and Sacrifice." There was nothing either in the substance of these Extracts or their spirit, which deserved a reply. They are stamped with falsehood in their very Title, representing the " Im- proved Version of the New Testament" as the version of the Unitarians, although it is the production of individual Unitarians only, and, far from having received the general approbation of the Unitarian body, or being considered by them as a proper substitute in puWick tvorship or domes- tick reading for the common translation, has been almost as severely criticised by some of them as by its orthodox revilers. The subject, to which these Extracts principally relate, is the genuineness of the introductory chapters of3Iatthew and Luke's Gospels. In the Sermon preached at the open- ing of the L^nitarian Chapel in this city, which was published for the express purpose of preventing misrepresentation, by giving a plain account of the opinions held by Unitarians and the grounds of their dis&ent, and which has been gener- ally allowed to have answered its object by being clear and accurate upon these points, it was stated that the genuine- ness of these chapters is a subject, upon whicii Unitarians are divided in opinion. Yet Mr. Wardlaw in the Discourse, in which he quoies that Sermon for the purpose of object- ing to it, and the Religious Tract Society in their Extracts from Dr. Magee, represent the spurioiisness of these chanters as a general principle of the Unitarian creed. The "unwarrantable liberties," complained of, were how- ever at the utmost chargeable only upon a certain portion of 267 the Unitarians, vis. those, who denj the miraculous con- ception of Christ, or who were concerned in the pubUcation of tiie " Improved Version." As Mr. Belsham was the author principally attacked in this " Exposure," it was thought proper, that he should be requested to write a reply. With great kindness and promptitude he assented, and the Glasgow Unitarian Fund published " An address to the Inquirers after Christian truth, in reply to the Extracts from Dr. Magee's book on Atonement and Sacrifice," — a work, which appeared to me as much superiour to the other in temper as in style and argument. The editors of Ihe " Improved Version" have expressed strong doubts, whether the account of the conception, birth, and childhood of Christ (Mat. i. 17 — ii.) be a genuine por- tion of St. Matthew's Gospel. Among other arguments they bring forward this consideration, that the whole pas- sage was wanting in the copies used by the Ebioniles, or ancient Hebrew Christians. Dr. Magee replies, that the Ebionites also rejected the three last Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, and that, if the editors of the "Improved Version" attribute any weight to their evidenee concerning the passage in question, they "ought to receive their testi- mony throughout," and reject " all the New Testament except St. Matthew." Mr. Belsham answers, (Address, p. 8, 9.) that it may be perfectly proper to pay regard to the testimony of the Ebionites, when it concurs with other facts and probabilities, although their evidence ought to be decidedly rejected, when it is disproved by clear and cer- tain considerations of an opposite tendency ; just as we assent without hesitation to Livy's account of the battle of Cannce, which is confirmed by other historians, although we utterly disbelieve the assertion of the same author that an ox spoke, because this story is unsupported by any con-^ 268 curriiig evidence. Thus Mr. Belsham argues from a com- parison of the testimony of Livy with the testimony of the Ebionites. Mr. WarcUaw (Note K-) represents him as comparing Livy with St. Matthew. Although Mr. Bel- sham's tract contains no such words and no such sentiment, Mr. Wardlaw introduces the following passage, among others correctly cited, in the form of a quotation from that pam- phlet ; "The Evangelist Matlhew relates, that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross ; and I believe him. The same Evangelist Matlhew relates, that Jesus of Nazareth was bo.n of a virgin ; but I believe him not." This account of the argument is accompanied with charges against Mr. Belsham of " bitterness and violence," "the most evasive sophistry," "obvious and flagrant inconsistency," " slyly shifting his ground," " levity and impiety," "parade," and "unwar- rantable presumption." Upon such grounds and in such language has Mr. Wardlaw undertaken to censure a man, who is greatly his superiour in years, in talents, in learning, and in celebrity ; who, in his lucid and vigorous wrilings, though he appears admirably qualified to repress blustering bigotry and presuming ignorance, always respects sincerity of in- tention and a good moral character ; and who is in the highest degree estimable for the urbanity of his manners, the integrity of his principles, and the candour and beuevo- lefnce of his heart- 269 CHAPTER X. EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED TO PROVE THE DISTINCT PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. The doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit, in maintaining which orthodox Christians differ from Unitarians, is this ; that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, distinct from the Father. In order therefore to establish the Trinitarian doctrine, it was necessary for Mr. Wardlaw to produce proofs, not only that the Holy Spirit is a person, and that he is possessed of Divine attributes, bnt also that he is a different being from God the Father. Nearly ail the pas- sages however, which he has brought forward, go no further at the very utmost than to show, first, that personal, and secondly, that Divine properties are attributed in Scripture to the Holy Spirit. The other circumstance, which is the only matter in dispute, he has almost omitted to notice. In addition to those passages, which were alleged as testi- monies to the doctrine of the Trinity in general, he has only produced the following in proof of the distinct person- ality and Divinity of the Spirit. 1. 1 Cor. vi. 19. "What ! know ye not, that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, which ye have of God?" (p. 284, 285.) The Holy Spirit is here evidently represented as distinct from God. That it is also God himself, is argued by Mr. Wardlaw froin a com- parison of this passage with others, in which the same per- sons are said to be, not as here, "the temple of the Holy Spirit," but " the temple of God.'' 1 Cor. iii. 16. 2 Cor. Ti. 16. Although this argument has much more of the sem- blance of truth than the generality of those adduced by 276 Mr. Wardlaw, it is totally insufficient to establish a doc- j trine requisite to the salvation of mankind. That " the holy spirit" here signifies the dispositions and habits produced by the supernatural influence of God, appears evident, be- cause Christians are said to " have it from God."" Irt various passages, which I formerly cited, (P. II. ch. 8. § 2, 5.) these dispositions are represented as dwellivg or resi- ding in the minds of Christians. By carrying the meta- phor a little further, Christians are designated tbe temple oi that holy influence, the pure and sacred abode of those heavenly dispositions. By a different view of the subject, they are also conceived to be so nearly allied and assimila- ted to the Divine Beiug, that God himself, as it were, enters into their very substance, and resides in them as if they "were the temple of his peculiar presence. Hence St. Paul, in another part of his writings, (Eph. ii. 22.) says, that Christians " are builded together for a habitation of God throngh the Spirit ;^* which signities, that holy and bene- volent dispositions, continually cherished in (heir breasts, make them a fit residence for God himsolf. 2. 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10. " Eye hath not aeeii, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him; but God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit:^' (f"^ Toy mtuf^xroi outou.'j (p. 285.) The last clause implies, that " the spirit of God^* is something distinct from the Father. That it here signifies his inspiration, is equally manifest, because it is represent- ed as the means, by which He cotnmunicatcs knowledge to His creatures, and reveals to them the secrets of His will. In the next verse however, (ver. 11.) " the spirit of God" evidently means God himself, the Apostle here, as in other places, using the same j)hrase in two ditferent senses. In the 12lh verse, he again employs the term according to its 271 ordinary accepfation ; " Now have we received, not the spirit of the World, but the spirit which is of God,'* (jo mtvfAst TO (K Tcu eioy,) that is. We are guided by those dispo- sitions and influences, which are supernaturallj vouchsafed to us by God, and not by those, which are prevalent among the great mass of mankind. 8. Mr. VV^ardlaw further asserts, that the Divine power and sovereignty of the Spirit are declared in those passages, where Jesus speaks of himself as casting out demons by the Spirit of God, (Mat. xii. 28.) where he is said to have been " quickened by the Spirit,'' (I Peleriii. 18— -JO.) and where God is said to " quicken the mortal bodies of Christians by his spirit which dwelleth in them. (Rom. viii. 11.) These passages are thus far applicable to Mr. Wardlaw's purpose, that in them " the spirit" signifies something distinct from the Father ; but that it cannot mean the third of Ihe suppo- sed persons in the Godhead is evident, because it is spoken o( diS the instrument, by means of which certain effects were produced. In these passages it can only denote that energetick influence of God, through which Christ healed demoniacks, and was himself raised from the dead, through which also his disciples are raised from the death of sin to the life of virtue. The Trinitarian exposition of these pas- sages leads to the greatest incongruities. It represents the second Person of the Trinity performing miracles and re- stored to life, not by his own omnipotence, but (hrough the instrumentality of the third Person, to whom he is equal in power and glory, and whose co-operation he could not re- quire. 4. The only other passage, in which the Spirit is men- tioned as distinct from God, and which Mr. W^ardlaw con- ceives to be a proof, not only of his distitictjiess from the Father, but of his equality with him, is Heb. ix. 14. (p. 289.) " How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through 272 the dernul Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge jour conscience from dead works to serve the living Goti ?" The expression " through the eternal Spirif" ('^'* TrnvfAXTc; *4u,nou^ denotes that the spirit served as an instrument, by which Christ was enabled to offer himself without spot to God. Here therefore it signifies something not only distinct from God, but inferiour to him. Why then is it called ''eternal.''^' This, 1 confess, is a difficulty; for, as the passage now stands, it can no more be reconciled to the Uni- tarian doctrine, than to the opinion of the orthodox. I am inclined with the Editors of the Improved Version to sus- pect, that ctimtcv, Eternal, is not the genuine reading. For, in the tirst place, since Griesbach has been so exceedingly cautious in his emendations as to make no change in the re- ceived text except when the evidence was three or four- fold in his favour, it may be proper after due inquiry and upon established principles to make further alterations than he has ventured upon, although, so far as he has gone, he must be implicitly followed in his corrections : secondly, it appears from Griesbach's note, that there is very copious evidence for the rejection of this word as well as for retain- ing it ; thirdly, the adjective was perhaps originally written in the contracted iovm, di-^, which would facilitate the change o{(t.ym into "-ioinou. \ bring forward these remarks principallv with the view of vindicating the editors of the Improved Version from Mr. Wardlaw's angry reprehensions. For, even if the conjmon reading were indisputably correct, the passage would afford no proof of the Divinity o( ihe Holy Spirit, wiio, if he be the Supreme God, could not have been employed as the inslrmnenl, by whose aid Christ was en- abled to undergo the pains of death. M . ^-^ ar 'law (p. 28 5—286) agrees with Unitarians, that " the h >'- Icy, in fhe three tirst volumes of the Camlx-idge Repository, particu- larly the conclnsion, Vol. III. p. 250 — 2139. Edit.] i 281 Tlie council of Nice, to which allusion is made in the preceding remarks, was lield A. D. 325. It was an assem- blage of Bishops, convened from all quarters by the en:pe« rour Constantine, with a view to terminate the disputes which agitated the Church. Here was passed, by a majority of votes, the celebrated Niccne Crced^ whicJi has since been considered as one of the principal standards of orthodoxy. The tenour of this creed however proves, that even then the doctrine of the Trinity did not amount to what it is at pre= sent. Hitherto no one appears to have imagined that the three persons of the Trinity were co-equal. In this creed the Son is only affirmed to be " of the smne substance with the Father." He was believed to be subordinate to the Father in all his operations, and to derive from him all his power and glory. Hence he is called " God of God," (S-ioc (K &«<3i/,) whereas the Father was called " God of Him- self," QtuToB-tos,) by which was understood, that the exist- ^ ence and nature of the Son were derived from the Father, but that the Father was uncreated, self-existent, and inde- pendent. We also remark, that this creed makes no men- tion of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and contains no hint whatsoever of the doctrines of Original Sin and Vicarious Atonement, but employs, respecting the ends of Christ's ad- vent and death, the sublime and beautiful language of the Scriptures. As the well-meaning attempt of Constantine to restore peace by calling this council proved unsuccessful, another was summoned to meet at Constantinople, A. D. 381. It was here for the first time solemnly decreed, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are equal in power and glory. In 431 another council was held at Ephesus, in which it was voted, that the two natures of Christ make but oni person, and in 451 another was held at Chalcedon to deter- mine, that, notwithstanding their personal union, the Divifle 37 282 and human nafuies of Christ continue distinct. Thus the doctrine was gradually brought to the state, in which it has been since received by the reputed orthodox. It was now established by Law, and supported by the united strength of the learned, the wealthy, and the powerful. Hence the great mass of Christian professors were speedily gained over, and in a short time the extensive schisrri of the Mahoinme- dans alone remained from among those who believed in tlie Divine authority of Jesus, to advocate the despised and re- jected doctrine of the Unify of God. The immediate con- sequence was, that together with the polytheism of the heathens, Christendom seemed to be embracing their wretch- edness and degradation. The whole horizon was airain en- veloped in the dismal mists of ignorance, and the son of RIGHTEOUSNESS was apparently blotted out from the fir- mament of heaven. " Darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people." Although therefore I concede to Mr. Wardlaw that his doctrine has been supported by all the governments of Christendom since the end of the fifth century, I maintain that this circumstance tells little indeed in its favour. During the four first ages, we have the most abundant evidence, that Unitarianism was the only acknowledged form of Christianity. To Unitarians then we are indebted for the preservatioH of the Gospel, when its very existence was threatened by the fiercest persecution. They were Unitarians, who not only adorned Christianity by the excellence of their lives, but defended it by their deaths. Without their efforts and sacrifices the Scriptures would have been destrojed, the Gospel lost. In short, to them, under God, we owe almost all the religion and virtue, which now exists in the Morld. I liumbly conceive, that these facts should produce in I 283 Christians of every sect some respect for Unitarianism, but that they should weigh with peculiar force upon the Unita- rians of modern times, by inciting them to emulate all the great and amiable virtues of these first members of their sect, to guard against a second corruption of their princi- ples, and to maintain with zeal, sincerity, and mutual aflec- tion, that great cause, in which so many thousands of their primitive brethren expired. 284 CHAPTER XII. Other doctrines of mr. wardlaw's discourses, correspondence' between niji and the author. conclcsion. I HAVE now staled the evidence for tiie strict Unity of God, in opposition to the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, and for the inferiority of Jesus Christ in opposition to the opinion of his Divine and human natures, deriving my arguments from the appearances of the sur- rountling world, from the decUirations of the Holy Scrip- tures, and from the history of the Primitive Church. Every reader will be able, by the cool and dispassionate examina- tion of what I have written, to decide for himself these momentous questions. The impression made upon my own mind by considering the various evidences which 1 have brought together is, that if it be not certain that the com- jnonly received doctrine of the Trinity is false, there is an end of all religion and no certainty upon any subject. If these main questions be decided, there is no occasion to enter upon the discussion of the remaining topicks, which Mr, Wardlaw agitates in his volume. It will be allowed, that Unitarians are entitled to the much honoured name of Christians, so that the controversial part of the last Piscourse needs no distinct reply. With respect to the nth and 12th Discourses, " C,.' the lujluences of the Boly ^piril,''' it is enough to observe, that tliey proceed throughT put upon a misrepresentation of Unitarianisin ; for Unitari- ana have in general, though not universally, confessed their need of such Inlluences, and have been accustomed to pray fof the participation of them, conceiving however that thcj i 285 are conferred hy the one true God, the Father, and not by a distinct Divine agent, and that they assist and carry forward, instead of preventing or anticipating, our own endeavours to do the will of God. — The Calvinistick view of Atonement, according to Mr. Wardlaw's own confession, falls with the doctrine of our Saviour's Supreme Divinity. So far as the doctrine of satisfaction by the death of Christ opposes the Scriptural representations of the free grace and mercy of God towards penitents, every reader will find the best antidote in the humble and serious examina- tion of the Sacred Volume. I conceive that there is not the least necessity for my entering upon this subject. Our various duties towards God, our fellow- creatures, and our- selves, and the terms of our acceptance with the Almighty, are so plainly, so forcibly, and so repeatedly stated in the Scriptures, that all persons of honest minds may there find the easiest answer to the question, " What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" When I began to compose this Vindication, I formed after much thought the resolution of requesting Mr. Ward- law to review the manuscript before it went to the press ; and, when I seemed to be drawing towards a conclusion, I communicated my wishes to him in the following letter. " To THE Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, Glasgow." " Glasgow, Oct. nth, 1814. MY DEAR SIR, " I am sensible that I have great need of your indulgence for neglecting so long to acknowledge the receipt of your late Publication. My delay has been occasioned by a variety of avocations, which prevented me froiu tiun- ing myself to this subject until about six weeks ago. Hav- 286 ing now perused your Discourses with great diligence, I have the pleasure of thanking you most sincerely for your obliging attention in sending me a copy. I shall not in this letter give any opinion of the work, because you will find my thoughts freely expressed, both as to its merits and its defects, in the Reply which will shortly appear. But I ha\ e a request to make of you, the importance of which, 1 trust, merits your consideration. Being exceedingl}" desirous that our controversy should go no further, I wish you, if it would not interfere too much with your many useful occupations, to take the trouble of looking over my manuscript before it goes to the press, with the three following views. " In the first place, if I have any where mistaken or misrepresented your meaning, I shall be particularly indebt- ed to you, if you will point out to me my errour ; " Secondly, if you perceive any of my own statements or reasonings to be fallacious, and can con\ince me with convenient brevity of their impropriety, this also will be a great favour, and I shall be ready in each instance to make a publick acknowledgment of my obligation to you; "Thirdly, if you should think that I have detected in your work any inaccuracy, mis-statement, inconsistency, or false reasoning, and wish to retract what you have said, I shall gladly allow you an opportunity of doing it in my pages in any way, the most agreeable to yourself, which I shall think consistent with what is incumbent upon me in defending my side of the question. " Although I have been under the painful necessity of replying to a considerable number of what appear to me to be palpable mis-statements of facts and bitter misrepresen- tations of Unitarianism, yet believing that these have arisen from no worse causes than carelessness, ignorance, and over-heated zeal, and that the friendly expressions in your 287 volume are fo be considered as the true index of jour hearty I am, dear Sir, and wish to remain, *' Yours with sincere respect and esteem, "James Yates." " P. S. I shall probably prefix this letter to my Reply, that, if any disagreeable consequences do ensue from this controversy, the publick may see that 1 am not responsible for them. j. y." At the time when this letter was delivered, Mr. Ward- law was from home. Having delayed my publication so long, I thought it necessary to begin the printing of it, but repeated, that I would gladly submit to him the whole of the manuscript except a few of the first pagco. After his return I received the following answer. *' To THE Rev. James Yates, Glasgow." " My Dear Sir, " On my return from Ireland ten days ago, I found awaiting me your letter of the l7th October; my re- ply to which has been delayed by a variety of necessary engagements since coming home. I am obliged by your po- lite acknowledgments of the copy of my Work I had the pleasure of sending vou at the time of its publication. But with the proposal which it is the chief object of your letter to make and to recommend, I cannot comply for the follow- mg reasons " 1. Even had the proposal been in its own nature rea- sonable and fair, such compliance would have been preclud- ed by the circumstance, that your M.S. having now gone to press, [ could not have the whole of it subjected to my in- spection. " 2. The hasty perusal of a M.S. either already at press, or longing to be there^ would be quite incompatible with 288 (hat mature and deliberate examination, which, on a subject of such importance, I should consider requisite, to do jus- tice, either to myself, or, which is of unspeakably greater consequence, to the cause which I have undertaken to plead. — But " 3. The proposal, in itself, is on various accounts altogeth- er inadmissible. First of all, my reasonings, as you hint, must be stated ' with convenient brevity ;^ i. e. with brevity con- venient for you, but which might not be, on all occasions, quite convenient for myself. Indeed, I should feel at a loss to know, for my direction in writing, what degree of lati- tude this phrase is intended to allow me. — 2dly, While you would ' gladly allow me an opportunity' of making my con- cessions and retractions ' in your pages' * in any way the most agreeable to myself,' it m.ust still of course be in such a way * as you 7vill think consistent with what is incumbent on you in defending your side of the question.^ Now, do you seriously think it would be quite consistent with ' what is incumbent on me, in defending my side of the question,' to commit the manner of my reply to the option of my oppo- nent, giving him a veto on my own choice ? — 3dly, Am I to understand that you would allow whatever I might think proper to write, to be inserted in your pages withoiit note or comment ? — without any attempt on your part to invali- date its force ? — Were you to do this, you would, I think, be unfaithful to yourself: — and yet were you to do other- wise, you would be unfaithful to me ; for to offer any re- marks in the way of answer, which had not previously been submitted to my revision, would be palpable deceit and treachery, such as might still necessitate, on my part, that prolongation of the controversy which you so strongly de- precate. " Who would consent to be respondent, in such circum- stances, and on such conditions, as these ? I am very sure i 28S you would not yourself, nor do I find it easj'^ to bring my- self to the persuasion, that you ever could seriously indulge any expectation of ray compliance. " In the Postscript to yoin letter, you intiinate that ' you will probal.ly prefix your letter to your intended Reply, that if any disagreeable consequences do ensue from this con- troversy, the publick may see that you are not responsible for them.' " To what description of disagreeable consequences you here refer, I am at a loss to understand. And I am still more at a loss to imagine how the publication of your letter is to exonerate you from responsibility as to such conse- quences, should they ensue. — You and I, my dear Sir, are both of us responsible — and responsible to a much higher Tribunal than that of the Publick, for every thing we preach and every thing we publish, on this and on all other sub- jects ; — and it well becomes us, both to preach and to pub- lish, under the solemn impression of such responsibility. — Whether it will be needful for me, in justice to the cause of truth, to answer your Reply, I cannot tell, till I shall have seen and examined it. But the controversy must go on in the usual course. A co-partnery work, such as you propose, would be, I presume, quite unique ; and in my judgment, as unsatisfactory as unprecedented. It is my earnest prayer to God, that He may direct both my under- standing and my spirit in maintaining his cause : — and I trust you will excuse me for just hinting, that the detection of a few inaccurate statements or inconclusive reasonings, in my volume, (if such there be,) may leave entirely unatFeCted the great mass and main body of the argument. With the skill of an expert sharp-sliooter, you may descry, and jou may disable or kill, a detached straggler here and there abotit the walls, while the Fortress remains in impregnable possession of the Garrison. 38 296 " I trust I shall ever be preserved from that self-sufficient follj, which will contend against conviction, rather than Lumble itself to the acknowledgment of an errour. The charges, however, of < ignorance,'' and * carelessness,^ and ' bitler misrepresentation,^ it belongs to jou, on the present occasion, to substantiate. As to ' overheated zeal,'' it is ray idaily complaint to the master whom I serve that its tempe- rature is so low. " The 'friendly expressions^ in my Volume were used, you may be well assured, bona fide. I cannot be more your friend, than by wishing you brought to a change of mind, and to the acknowledgment of the truth as it is in Jesus. And, with the same sincerity which diclaled the expressions you allude to, I subscribe myself, ^' Mr Dear Sir, " Respectfully yours, " Ralph Wardlaw." f North Montrose-Street, ) November 7th, 1814." 5 " P. S. I take it for granted, that if you do prefix your letter lo your Replj^, agreeably to the intention intimated in your Postscript, you will feel the proptiety of inserting this answep along with it. R. W." When I sent my letter to Mr. Wardlaw, I had no idea that he would question my sincerity, and fully hoped that he would place in mc such confidence as would enable us to pursue this friendly project of mutual improvement and correction : for without mutual confidence the scheme was pvldently impracticable. I am conscious of no frivolous or dishonourable motive in making the request. If Mr. Ward- law had submitted the same proposal to me respecting his Piscourses, I should have complied with the greatest plea- sjire, and I think I could have been of some service to hii^: 291 1 have no doubt that he might also have been serviceable t^ me ; for, although I have used my best endeavours to be accurate In my statements, I cannot suppose that ihej are free from those errours, which must be looked for in every human production. But my principal wish was, that Mr. Wardlaw should be apprised of some of the instances of carelessness^ indiscretion, and misrepresentation, which abound in his Volum.e, and which I have been under the necessity of noticing to such a degree as must wholly de- stroy its credit in the apprehension of all impartial judges. I imagined, that in most of the cases, which I have brought forward, he would perceive his errour almost as soon as it was laid before him, and a simple acknowledgment of inad- vertency would have sufficed to put our readers in posses- sion of those facts, by which the questions between us must be decided. Some of the expressions in my letter are cer- tainly harsh. I used them, that he might sec the full ex- tent of my accusations against him, and because I always think it proper to speak of another in severer language to himself than to any one else. Whether my charges have been substantiated, the reader must judge. I again repeat, that from my heart, I acquit Mr. Wardlaw of any wilful and deliberate mis-statements, and attribute his faulty re- presentations to ignorance of the subject, carelessness about particulars, and over-heated seal, a quality inestimable ia! the application of sound principles to practice, but wholly out of place, when applied to the investigation of important truths. Whatever inaccuracies or improprieties shall be pointed out to me in this Volume, I hope I shall attentively consider and take the first opportunity to correct them, and be especially gratified by expunging any expressions, which appear disrespectful to Mr. Wardlaw. In writing these Hnes I joyfully erase from the tablet of my memory every feeling of hostility, and wish to behave henceforfh toward* 292 my opponent — my friend, as his moral and intellectual ex- cellenoies prompt my esteem. " Hie Ctestus avtemque re- pono." Before concluding this work, I wish to add a few obser- vations upon the measures, which may he adopted in conse- quence of the inlroduclion of Unitarianism, and its prohable increase, in this part of the kingdom. Considering the clear, abundant, and unanswerable eviJence to the truth of the Unitarian doctrines, the tolerant and lilieral spirit, the diffusion of information upon general subjects, the habits of inquiry and the turn for speculation, as well as the usual gaod sense, which pievai! among the middling and lower orders of society throughout Scotland, it appears to me that the extensive propagation of Unitarian sentiments may reasonably be expected. The only material cause, which is likely to obstruct their progress, seems to be this ; that, as many of those who embrace Unitarian principles will be men more disposed to enquire after truth than to apply it steadily to practice when found, and as the discussion of controverted questions in theology has a natural tendency to weaken the devotional feelings, the converts to Unitari- anism may become careless and indifferent about their religious duties, and adopt habits of useless roving specula- tion to the neglect of their hearts and lives. Instead of concealing this formidable evil, it is infinitely wiser to bring it fully into view, so that we may be on our guard against it. If Unitarians, in the midst of that joy which often overpowers them upon the first breaking in of the light, be careful not to split upon this rock; if they be as anxious to improve their hearts as to inform their understandings ; if they not only strive after the attainment of correct ideaSy but attend yet more to the cultivation of the devotional, the moral, and the syntpathetick/ce/iHg'S ; if they diligently study the Sacred Volume, not so much to tind whether it contains 293 the tloctiines of Ihis or that seel, as to lay up stores of con? solation for tlie hour of distress, and maxims for the dally regulaiioii of their conduct ; in short, if they bear in mind, that " the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart," and that the value of the Gospel itself consists only in its tendency to make men wise unto salvation ; then Uni- tariaiiism will assuredly triumph over the united opposition of prejaidice, interest, and passion ; it is gone forth con- quering, and to conquer. But, if the progress of Unilarianism in Scotland is in the present state of things to be expected, what ought to be done to prevent those divisions in churches, those dissen- sions in families, that cold reserve, that closeness and insin- cerity, which in too many cases will be likely to accompany a change of religious sentiment. The learned Bishop Burgess has lately published a book, in which he advises that the Government should pass a law, condemning all avowed and ■obstinate Unitarians to three years' imprisonment. But the proposal comes at least a century too late. Many others will endeavour by ignorant misrepresentation and angry remon- strances to terrify their orthodox brethren from reading Unitarian books, or examining Unitarian arguments. But all in vain : opinions work their way in secret ; the refined and subtle essence of truth eludes the tyranny of man ; no •human voice can say, Halt ! to the march of intellect. In- stead of these very objectionable methods of obviating the evils, which are to be feared from the progress of Uni- tarianism, I give my humble, but decided opinion in favour tjf a measure, which is at the same time recommended by many other considerations of still greater weight ; a measure, simple, easy, righteous, and conciliatory ; a measure, which, after calm and attentive deliberation, all wise, and most good men will cordially approve. It is, that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland should ns 294 longer enforce subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, at least that they should permit exceptions to be made to so much of it as relates to the Trinity, and thus allow conscientious Unitarians to become ministers in the Establishment upon the same footing with Trinitarian can- didates. If that much respected body shall not see fit to pass an act to this effect, I am not without hopes, that the example will be set them by some of the sects of Presby- terian Dissenters, those taking the lead, who are the most distinguished by their attachment to the Scriptures in pre- ference to creeds of human invention ; and it will in all probability be found, that they, who shall first, together with the Independents, the Baptists, and the Unitarians, avow and pursue the principle of making the Bible the only standard of their faith and practice, will be upon the whole the most distinguished by vigour and clearness of under- standing, refinement and elevation of sentiment, sobriety of manners, commercial integrity and industry, and general respectability, good order, and happiness. i I have now executed my task. I recommend this humble Treatise to the blessing of the Almighty. Bidding adieu to controversy, it is my wish to indulge the flow of moral and religious feeling, and to employ the faculties, which God has given me, to the best of my ability, in useful labours among the living, and instructive studies with the venerable dead. i APPENDIX. APPENDIX. PAGE 147. It may be doubted, whether the Author has not stated errone- ously the sentiments of Dr. Paley, as respects the doctrine of the Trinity. A few lines have been omitted at the conclusion of the paragra[)h, as containing a censure upon Dr. Paley, not authorized by an expression, which was probably not intended to be understood very seriously. DISSERTATION, PAGE 173. •N THE KIND AND DEGRRE OF EVIDENCE NKCESSART TO ESTABLISH THE DOCTRINK OF THE TRINITY, AND BY WHICH WE MIGHT EXPECT THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY WOULD BE SUFPORTED IN THE SCRIPTDRES. It will easily be acknowledged, that in all inquiries which depend on moral evidence, the correctness of our conclusions will be very much affected by the standard of proof by which we try them. If this standard is either too high or too low, if we require either too much or too little evidence, we may disbelieve where we ought to be convinced, or be convinced where we ought to disbelieve. The skeptick, who demands a kind and degree of proof inconsistent with our moral nature, our state of probation, and the analogy of the divine government, is led to throw away the inestimable aids, and motives, and consolations, and hopes of Christianity. The believer in Transubstantiation, on the other hand, who is satisfied with evidence insufficient both in its measure and its nature, is led to embrace a faith, %vhich makes the gospel itself incredible, by making it responsi- ble for a doctrine contradictory to nature, to reason, and to other parts of the scriptures themselves. It is evidently very 39 n iinportant, therefore, that we should guard against the danger of requiring too much, or of being contented with too little proof of our religious opinions. For tliis reason it seems to be proper, that one, who has never critically examined the proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity, should enquire, by what sort of evidence we may justly expect such a doctrine would be accompanied, Mr. Yates has touched on this subject : but its importance may be thought to justify a more ample considera- tion. A doctrine may, a priori, ov previously to a minute imiuiry into its proofs, have a presumption either in its favour, or against it. A proposition which is at once perceived to be consonant to reason and the general tenour of the scriptures, will have a previous presumption in its favour, and may be believed to be a true doctrine of Christianity, with little hesitation. On the con- trary, a proposition, which is apparently both irrational and unscriptural, will have a previous presumption against it, and requires a more scrupulous examination, and a fuller and more unequivocal evidence, before it can be embraced. There is a previous probability, for example, that the doctrine of a provi- dence will be found in the New Testament, and a previous im- probability, that the doctrine of transubstantiation w ill be found there. In applying this general principle, Ave may safely say, that there is a strong presumption that the scriptures will not be found to contain any doctrine apparently inconsistent with the unity of God. There is no truth of greater clearness or higher autho- rity, than that there is but one God. Both philosophy and reve- lation unite in confirming it. The systematical unity and har- mony of design* conspicuous throughout the universe, extending to the moral as well as the physical world,! lead us to the con- clusion that the cause of all is One. All the arguments, which demonstrate the existence of God, lead us to the same conclu- sion. They all result in this, that the non-existence of an infi- nite, original, eternal mind, implies an absurdity, a contradiction, * See Part II, Chap. 1. t Stewart's Philosophy of the Miud, Vol. II. p. 324—7. Boston ed. m an impossibility. But this reasoning can hoki of only one sucU mind. For, since one such mind is adequate to every eiTect, it' it couUI be maintained that more than one could exist, it might be said of ca<:A of them, separately, that its nonexistence is pos- sible ; and necessary existence, therefore, could be proved of neitriei' of them. That therefore, which is the essence of every argument for the being of a God, would lose all its force, and Atheism would be established on the ruins of all religion. But, indeed, the existence of one infinite mind excludes, by the very definition of infinity, the possibility that there should be more than one. If we attempt to form the supposition of a second in- finite Being, we at once see, that it must in every particular be entirely coincident with the first; that is to say, as to all our ideas, it will necessarily be one and the same.* To tliis great truth, that there is but one God, both the Jew- ish and Christian revelations lend all the weight of their divine authority. Nothiug can be moi^ full and express than their testimonj' to this point. It was the great object of Judaism to preserve this truth amidst the jfoiytheism of the ancient world. So sacred was it esteemed by the Jews, that it was a custom of theirs even till modern times, to repeat every morning and eve- ning the passage of Deuteronomy. Hear, O Israel, Jehovah OUR God, Jehovah is one. It is needless, however, to multi- ply proofs of this point, since it is one of those primary princi- ples, quod semper, quod ubiquc, quod ah omnibus creditum. All christians, of every name, with whatever inconsis'ency it may sometimes be done, are compelled by the force of scripture tes- timony to acknowledge, that there is one God, and that there is * " For if we suppose more than one, it is plain, since the attributes of infinite power, knowledge and goodness include all possible perfection, that they must be entirely alike to each other witliout the least possible variation. They will there- fore entirely coalesce in our idea, i.e. be one to us. Since they fill all time and space, an-" are all independent, omnipotent, omni.scient, and infinitely benevolent, their ideas cannot be separated, but will have a numerical as well as a generical identity. When we suppose other beings geuerically the same, and yet numerically different, we do, at the same time, suppose, that they exist in different portions of time and space ; which circumstances cannofhave place in respect of the supposed plurality of infinite beings. We conclude therefore that there is but one infinite being, or GoH. " Hartley on Man, Vol. II, p. 30, 4th edition. none other, but He. We are authorized by this universal con- cession to take this doctrine as an axiom in all our reasonings on this subject, and to say that wliatever else may be false, this must be true. As therefore the unity of God stands on the highest possible evidence, we are sure, that all other truths of religion will be really consistent with it, and of course there is a high probability that they Avill all be apparently consistent with it. We ought to view every proposition, Avhich seems to contradict it, with doubt and suspicion ; for Ave are certain, that such a proposition must either be false, or else that we do not understand it. We are justified therefore in saying, that there is, a priori, a strong pre- sumption against any proposition which apparently interferes with the doctrine of the Unity of God. We do not say that this presumption is so strong that no evidence can remove it. But we must all admit, that till the compatibility of such a doc- trine with this primary truth is rendered manifest, every thing must be presumed against it, and nothing in its favour. Now there is scarcely any one who will deny that the doctrine of the Trinity is apparently inconsistent with the unity of God. There is a strong apparent discordance, we must all own, between the two propositions, that God is One, and that God is Three. It is not till after many subtile and metajjhysical distinctions are made, that any one will pretend that the harmony and consistency between them become visible. This is true of all the technical statements of this doctrine, which have ever been given. They have undergone many changes since the doctrine of the Trinity Avas finally completed towards the close of the fourth century ; but the same essential difficulty still adheres to them all. It must always be affirmed, under some form or otlier, by every believer in a Trinity in unity, that Three, in some sense or other, are One, and One is Three. It is true, that Avhile uny term of the proposi- tion is declared io be mysterious, ineffable, and indefina- ble, it is impossible to demonstrate that it affirms a contradic- tion. We only say of it that it is apparently inconsistent Avith the doctrine of the unity of God in the natural and plain meaning of words. We say only, that if it mean any thing like what such words noiild mean in any other proposition, it means something between which, and the assertion that three Gods are one God, it is difficult to discern a difference. The apparc7it inconsistency of the doctrine of the Trinity with the unity of God becomes much stronger, Avhen we examine the practical statements that are given of it. In speaking of its theory, its advocates secure themselves from attack, by declining to say what they mean, and calling that a mystery, which might otherwise seem to be a contradiction. " Unless we have some notion of the thing itself," Mr. Wardlaw^ exultingly asks, " on what principle can we possibly make out its contrariety to reason." But the case is different in the practical statements of the doctrine of the Trinity. When the proposition is entire, and the contra- diction would appear manifest if words were allowed to bear any distinct meaning, its friends protest, that they use the word " Per- son" only " for want of a better w ord," and declare, that we have no definite conception in what sense it is to be understood. But when they speak of the " Persons" separately, their difficulties seem all to vanish. Mr. Wardlaw after all his grave descant on mystery and things above reason, in stating the proposition of the Trinity, when he comes to discourse on the personality of the Holy Spirit, suddenly finds a flood of light open on him. His ideas become as distinct as those of other men, and it is evident he means by " Person" what every one else means. Thus it is with all the believers of the Trinity. When they speak of the persons who compose it separately, there is little difficulty in understand- ing their meaning. They ascribe severally to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, all that goes to make up our ideas of three perfectly distinct Gods. Each has a different name ; diffe- rent agencies or offices ; distinct and independent power ; and above all, each is a distinct object of supreme worship and adora- tion. Of the Father, it may be said that He is the infinite, eter- nal, self-existent God ; of the Son it may be said, that He is the infinite, eternal, self-existent God : of the Holy Ghost it may be said, that He is the infinite, eternal, self-existent God. It is ex- pressly declared, that these are not merely different 7iamcs or different modes of operation of the same perso*i. The pronoun* VI I, Thou, He, may be used as freely of each of these different " subsistences," as they may be of three different men. Now all we say of this doctrine, ^vhich applies the name and attributes of God to three distinct and independent agents, is, that to a com- mon mind there is in it an apparent inconsislencj^ a seeming in- compatibility with the doctrine that there is One God and none other but He. The most zealous Trinitarian must admit, that if the same proposition were found in the Hindu Mythology, we should take it, till better informed, for something very much re- sembling a contnuliction. The use we make of these facts and reasonings is, not to say that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the scriptures, but simply that we should not expect it to be found there. There is a very high probabilitj'-, a strong previous presumption, that it will not be found there. A student of the Bible is bound to take it for granted, that it is not there, till it is proved that it undoubtedly is ; he must conclude it to be false, till it is fully and clearly de- monstrated to be true. Every thing must be presumed against its evidence, and nothing in its favour. It will prove nothing for such a doctrine, that passages can be produced, which may possibly mean something like it, unless it can be unequivocally shown, that the}' cannot possibly mean any thing else. We must all sit down to the study of the scriptures as Unitarians, and nothing but their clear and decisive testimony ought to make us Trinitarians. We have suggested, that in proportion as the previous presump- tion against any doctrine is strong, the evidence by which this presumption is to be set aside may be justly expected to be cor- respondently abundant and clear. This expectation is height- ened, in proportion as the sources, from which the evidence is drawn, are fewer and narrower. In a case like that of the Tri- nity, where the doctrine is acknowledged to be of the highest importance, and where the scri|>ture testimony is the only me- dium of proof, we may certainly look for the utmost plainness and directness in every proposition relating to the subject. 'JMie presumption against the doctrine of the Trinity, and the conse- <5|uent necessity of an increase of ])roof to remove it, become vu aironger, when it is considered, that this doctrine, if proved at* all, mast be proved from t}ic New Testament alone; as we shall » now attempt to shew. I am aware, that there is a small number of passages in the Old Testament, in which it is thought some allusions are found to a plurality in the divine nature. If these passages alone, how- ever, were all the support of the doctrine of the Trinity, 1 ima- gine none would think them of great weight. No one will say, that a reader of the Old Testament merely, would find there any revelation of three distinct objects of supreme religious worship. He would find nothing from which he could infer, that Jesus Christ is the supreme, self-existent God, the Father of Jesus Christ also the supreme, self-existent God, and a Holy Spirit proceeding from them both, also the supreme, self-existent God. We may think, that after this doctrine has been clearly discover- ed in the New Testament, we may find allusions to it in the Old. But no one, I am confident, will affirm, that a reader of the Old Testament merely^ at the present day, would find there any men- tion of Father, Son, and Holy Giiost, in the connexion in which they are now used. It is generally acknowledged, that this was in fact the state of mind of the great body of the Jewish nation, at the time of the appearing of our Lord. It has indeed been very laboriously at- tempted to be shown, that vestiges of something like a doctrine of the Trinity are to be found in the faith of the ancient Jewish Church. But it is conceded by Basnage, and even by Allix and Jamieson, that if this idea had ever been entertained, it was lost among the mass of the Jews whom our Lord addressed. Whe- ther right or wrong, they were beyond all question wholly unsus- picious of any modification of the divine unity. Still, however^ our argument admits of taking a less broad position ; and to avoid all possibility of cavil, we shall simply say, that at the time of the introduction of the gospel, it was Avholly unknown to any human being, that worship is to be addressed to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Let it now be considered, with what kind and what degree of evidence we are to expect this doctrine would be unfolded in tke via New Teslaineut. A doctrine of great magnitude was to be dis- closed, against which there would justly arise, at first view, in the mind of every believer in the unity of God, a very strong pre- sumption. It was not a truth of natural religion which was sim- ply to be republislied and confirmed, ; but a truth was to be re- vealed in aj/parent contradiction to natural religion. The Jews, too, we must remember, had been accustomed to the greatest so- lemnity in every thingwhich related to the great and only ob- ject of worship. It was from the *' awful top," and amidst the terrours of Sinai, that God declared to them, " I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." A most important modification of this commandment was now to be made. Two entirefy new objects* of worship were to be revealed, and the first commandment was now to be so far changed, as to run more correctly thus : We are the Lord thy Gods. Thou shalt have no other Gods before us. Let those, who deem so highly of the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, who make it the basis of the gospel, who believe there is no Christianity without it, who think that all the best hopes of man depend on its truth, — let these persons say, with what clearness and what solemnity we might expect such a doctrine to be revealed ? f * No Trinitarian can object to this statement of their doctrine as teaching three distinct and supreme objects of worship. They certainly do represent our Lord to be as much an object of prayer and adoration, as God his Father. Indeed, if the tiiree constituents of the Trinity are three distinct objects of thought, they are also three distinct objects of worship. If they are not distinct objects of thought, how ab- surd is it to pretend to speak of what we cannot even think ? f " Rannot h"lp considering it as a monstrous insult to the Divine author of reve- lation," bays Mr. Wardhw himself, as truly as eloquently, " to admit the supposi- tion for a moment, that on such subjects as these it should be necessary to wiide through the multifarious opinions of antiquity, in order to understand his meaning. I say on such subjerts as these ; for if on these points there is sucli a want of explicit- ness — points that regard the objects of worship, the state and prospects of man, and foundation of his hopes for eternity, — on what subject shall we look for precision ? If it were indeed the case, that on such topicks as these the Bible is indeterminate, re- quiring for the explanation of its language the commentary of ancient opinion, the in- fidel would be furnished with an argument against its divine origin, more powerful than any he has ever been able to produce." Preface, iX, [Nothing can be better said than this.] Might we not expect, that our Lord himself would at least once have stated the doctrine of the Trinity in express language, and have insisted on the importance and necessity of believing it. Would he not, at least once, have declared formally and explicitly, that the (irst commandment was no longer to be understood in its plain and literal meaning; the meaning in which all his hearers had been accustomed to understand it. The word God occurs nearly thirteen hundred times in the New Testament, and might we not suppose, that, in some one of these passages, we should be expressly told, that the term is m«(antto include, not simply one, but three persons or subsistences, to each of which that title is apjdicable ? If, in every instance where this word is used alone, it im;)iies a plurality in the diviae nature, should we be unable to find one solitary example of the aj>plication of plural pronouns in the whole N^ew Testament .' Would neither our Lord, nor any one of his Apostles, have left a single sentence, in which the whole doctrine of the Trinity can be fully and accurately ex- pressed ? Should we expect to fiad no care to make accurate and evident distinctions between the doctrine of a Trinity and the dangerous Polytheistical notion of the heathens ? The doc- trine of the unity of God is more than once introduced in the New Testament, and laid down most clearly and solemnly. Our Lord himself repeats these most imi)rcssive words to the Scribes. The first of all the commandments is : " Hear, O Is- rael, the Lord our God is one Lord. ' Now, could we have sup- posed, that, as our Saviour knew this would be construed by all his hearers as teaching, that there is only one object of supreme worship, he would have omitted such an occasion as this of decla- ring, that in truth there are three ? Could we have supposed, that since the main argument for the Trinity, from the Old Testament, rests on the plural form of Aleim, which Mr. Wardlaw translates Gods, the Evangelist should have chosen to destroy this argu- ment by using the singular noun ©sof, which all know it is im possible should be translated otherwise than simply God ? If it should be said, that there might be reasons why our Lord did not publickly teach this doctrine, should we not expect some 40 account of his private conimunicatious of it to his disciples ? Wouhl they hav^e preserved no record of their tirst knowledge of a truth so wonderful, and so essential a part of the Christian sys- tem ? If we can suppose that our Saviour himself forbore to teach publickiy that, which was in fact the great principle on which his whole Gospel turned, why this reserve in his disciples ? The gospels were not written till several years after his death, and many of the epistles still later, and should we have expected, that they would not have given a hint of the time or the circumstan- ces, when this stupendous truth was unfolded to them ? Ob&erve in the Acts, how minutely and fully the manner is declared, in which the doctrine of the extension of Christianity to the Gen- tiles was unfolded. And could we have thought, that the first re- velation of the so much more difficult and so much more incredi- ble doctrine of the Trinity, would not have occupied a single line of the sacred history ? We are told so unimportant a thing as when the disciples were first called Christians. Would the time, when the worship of one object of adoration was exchanged for the worship of three, have been thought unworthy the passing notice of the recorders of our faith ? If for any reason it was improper for the Apostles themselves, in all their di'Terent epis- tles, to give a single example of ascri[)tion to Father, Son, and Holy Gliost, would it have been too much to ex[)ect, that we ' ahouldbe informed, w/im such worship was first made lawful and necessary for other Christians ? But if all these expectations were groundless — if it were ne- cessary, that such a doctrine, though it must be learned from Scripture alone, should yet never once be fully and plainly de- clared in the Scriptures — if we could suppose, that it would only be dropped incidentally, and be left to us to collect and put together, from a few fragments of discourse thinly scattered through the sacred volume — if we could suppose, that not only whole chapters, but whole books, should exist without the smallest allusion to fl.at which is the key-stone of the whole gospel — if all this were no more than was to be expected; still could we believe that the New Testament should contain any thing con- fradidory to this doclrine ? Could we have supposed, that there sh( uld be two hundred and fouty passages iu the New Testament, from which our Saviour's siihordination to the Fa- ther may be deduced ; and not less than four hundred and FORTY passages in which the Father is so mentioned, as to lead to tlie conclusion that he is exclusively tlie supreme God. We may easily account, on the Unitarian hypothesis, for many very strong and elevated epithets ascribed to our Saviour, a Being so dignified in himself, so perfect in his character, so great in his office, and now so highly exalted by his God. But what account can be given of passages, which contain the most express and form=«l contradiction of the equality of Jesus with God ? Or, if this for anj inconceivable reason was necessary, at least should we not expect, that the manner in which the contradiction was to be reconciled would be explained or hinted at ? If we were reasoning on any other subject, we should say, that one such passage as this? *' My Father is greater than I," introduced with nothing to ex- plain or limit it, would set aside a thousand mere inferences of owrs in favour of a doctrine, which contradicts this truth. They who can believe, that, although it was the express design of St. John in his gospel to supply the deficiencies of the other Evangelists with regard to the Trinity,* he woiHd yet set down without a word of caution or comment such passages as these, " I came from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me /' " My doctrine is net mine, but bis that sent me;" " The Father, which sent me, gave me a commandment, what I should say, and w^hat 1 should speak ;' *' The Father, that dwellcth in me, he doeth the works ;" " For THE Father is greater than I ;" " And this is life eter- nal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast senf^ — they, I say, who can be- lieve, that these and other similar passages would be set down * This idea is maintaioed by Trinitarians, notwithstanding the evan- gelist expressly tells us : " These things are written that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Cfirist, the son of the living God, and that ]ye- Jieving ye might have life through his name," by a Trinitarian, in the act of proving his doctrine, with no word connected with them to restrain their natural import, ought at least to be more sparing of their charges on others of want of reverence for the Scriptures. These expectations with regard to the kind and degree of evidence, which we might have expected to find in the New Testament, for the doctrine of the Trinity, are not only intrinsi- cally reasonable, but conform to the analogy of the scriptures themselves. The doctrine of immortal life is in some respects under similar circumstances with that of the Trinity. Neither of them is expressly taught in the Old Testament ; though it is thought that there are allusions to both. Bioses, however, as he never taught the Hebrews, that there are more objects of worship than one, so he never employed a future life as the sanction of any of his laws. So far there is an agreement in the circum- stances of the two doctrines. In all other respects, that of the Trinity is by far the stronger case, and would seem to require a much fuller and clearer revelation. The doctrine of immortality is one, which, if not demonstrable from the light of nature alone, certainly has many most powerful arguments in its favour. Bishop Butler has finely shown, that there is nothing in the fact or circumstances of death, which furnishes any presumption against its truth. We know it also as a historical fact, that it was the belief of the great body of the Jewish nation at the time of our Saviour's advent. The Pharisees who embraced it were the ruling party. All these are circumstances which would seem to diminish the necessity of a very full, formal, and frequent re- cognition of the doctrine in the New Testament. But how stands the fact ? This doctrine, which is really a fun- damental, is treated as such throughout the New Testament. It shines every wherein heaven's own light. It fell constantly from the lii)s of our Lord. It is asserted and reiterated by every one of his Apostles. It is interwoven into the whole texture of Chris- tianity. If then such i)lenary proof is afforded to a doctrine, which reason, instinct, the tradition of the earliest antiquity, and every good feeling of the human heart, all disjjose us to embrace, xiii what evidence may we not justly expect for such a doctrine as the Trinity ? The previous presumption is all against this opin- ion, as much as it is in favour of the doctrine of immortality. Up to this very day, its advocates have been unable fully and fairly to state it in any language, in which terras have a known and definite meaning, without involving an assertion of three Gods, or else an express and manifest contradiction. We have a right to expect, therefore, that this difficulty will be removed in the Scripture, and that all we are to believe on this subject will there be expressed in plain and intelligible language. It is from this source alone, we are to remember, that we are to gather all our ideas on this subject. This high and awful mystery lies wholly within the province of revelation. How strong and clear, then, will be the light, which will be shed on it in the sacred volume, if it be indeed a truth, and especially a fundamental truth of Christianity ! How much stronger and clearer, than that which is thrown on the doctrine of immortal life ! I have thus attempted to state some preliminary considera- tions, which ought to be kept in view by every one who is about to examine the New Testament on the subject of the Trinity. It is believed to be utterly impossible, that a man of a sound mind, who carries with him to the Scriptures just views of the evidence which this doctrine demands, or may be expected to possess, can receive it as a part of the gospel, especially as a truth essential to salvation. XIV ON THE WEAKNESS AND AESl'RDTTY OF THE PRETENDED DISTINCTION OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. — SEE EMLYN'S WORKS VOL. I. P. 9? —105. Tkinitarians have but one shift left for the evading the plain arguments which Scripture atfords against their system, and that is a distinction which serves them in all cases ; for they say, Jesus Christ, when he speaks of his inferiority to the Fatlier, speaks these things of himself as man only, while he had an- other nature as God, which he reserved, and excepted out of the case : So that when he says, / cannot do thus of myself, or I am not to be called tlie cft;Vf good, or I do not know this, &c. accord- ing to tliem, the meaning is, *' I have not these perfections in my human nature ; but yet I know and can do all unassisted, aud am the chief good in my divine naUire, which also is more proper- ly myself." The vanity of which subterfuge I intend now to lay open, by shewing how absurdly this distinction of the tno 7ia- i?ir(P,? is pretended, to take off the force of such expressions from Christ's own mouth, which in their natural and undisguised ap- pearance do proclaim his inferiority^ to God, even the Father. And I shall dwell the more upon this, because it is the most pop- ular and common evasion, and comes in at every turn, when all other relief fails. It would be no unreasonable demand to ask, what intimation of any such distinction of two natures thej' can [lointus to, in any of these discourses of Christ ? Why should men devise or ima- gine for him such a strange and seemingly deceitful way of speaking, from no ground or necessity, other than that of up- holding their own precarious opinion 1 But I have several re- marks to make upon this common answer. 1. That which in \\\e first place I have to object against it is, That our blessed Lord .lesus Christ, if himself was the Supreme God in any nature of his own, could not have said such things, in any consistencj^ with truth and sincerity, which he always maintained strictly : he could not say, that himself could not do, or did not know ihe thing, which all this while himself could ^0 and did know very well, if he was the supreme God : for this XV were to make him say Avhat is most false, and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner : for though we should suppose, that he consisted of two infinitely distunt natures, and so had two capacities of knowledge, &c. yet since, himself includes them both, it follows, that the denying a thing of himself in absolute terms, without any limitation in the words or other obvious circumstances, does plainly imply a denial of its belonging to any part of his person or any nature in it. For, though we may affirm a thing of a person which belongs only to a part of him — as I may properly say a man is wounded or hurt, though it be only in one member, suppose an arm — yet I cannot justly deny a thing of him which belongs only to one part, because it belongs not to another ; as I cannot say a man is not wounded, because though one arm be shot or wounded, yet the other is whole. For instance, I have two organs of sight, two eyes. Now sup- pose I converse with a man with one eye shut and the other open; if being asked whether I saw him, I should dare to say I saw him not, without any limitation — meaning to myself, that I saw him not with the eye which was shut, though still I saw him well enough with the eye which was open — I fear I should bear the reproach of a liar and deceiver, notwithstanding such a mental reservation as some would attribute to the Holy Jesus. For knowledge is the eye of the person ; Jesus Christ is supposed to have two of these knowing capacities, the one weak, the otlicr strong and piercing that discerns all things. Now as such an one, the disciples repair to him, and ask him, when the end of the world and time of his coming shall be ? He answers them, by giving them some general account of the matter, but says that the [)art\ci\hr day and hour he knew not, nor did any know but the Father — meaning (say my opposers) that he knew it not with his human knowledge, tho he knew it well enough with his divine at the very time that he said, the Son knoivs it not, absolutely and indefinitely. And yet if Jesus Christ had a divine knowledge and nature, no doubt his disciples (who, if any body, must be supposed to be- lieve it) directed the question to that, rather thaa to the imper- XVI feet human capacily , and yet in answer to it he says, he^nm- not the dcnj, which would not be counted sincerity or truth in men ; much less was Jesus Christ in danger of it ; in his mouth no guile was ; let us not impute it to him. That you may see this is fair reasoning, hear how some of the other side own it, when out of the heat of this controversy. See Dr. Stilling jiecCs sermon on Mat. x. 16. speaking of the equivo- cations of Popish Priests, whose common answer, when exam- ined about what they have known by confession, is, that they know it not ; which they think to vindicate from the charge of ly- ing by saying, that in confession, the Priest knows matters as God, not as man, and therefore he denies to knowtliem, meaning it as man. But says the Doctor, this is absurd ; because to say he does not know, is as much as to say he dotJi not any way know. Now if ' this be a good answer against the Papists, as no doubt it is ; thea sure it is so in the present case. Therefore when Christ says he knows not the day of judgment, it is as much as to say he does not a7iy way know it, and consequently, it is a vain shift to say, it was as man only : we must beware lest we bring the Hcly Je- sus under such a reproach for equivocation, as the Romish Priests lie under ; and make the Jestnts themselves think they have a good title to that name, by imitating herein his example, which in this very instance they alledge with so great advantage, ac- cording to this interpretation. 2. Asa farther evidence, that Jesus Christ intended no such distinction of two natures, as is pretended; it is to be ol^served, that he puts not the ///.s/JHC/?*on, or opposition between the Son of man, and the Eternal word (as some speak) but between the Son and his Father : Not the Son knows, but only the Father ; by which it is plain, he had no thought of including any |)ersou or nature of his own among the excepted : for whatever was not the Father, he says was ignorant of that day. Now it is certain that in no na/t^rc was the Son the Father; and consequently where none but the Father knows, none, who is not the Father, can be intruded: ::nd since our Lord was making an exception in the case, he wouUl not have forgotten to except the Eternal Word XVU too, if there had been such a iliviue prin'c. »le in himself, equal io the Father and distinct from him ; for it is a known rule., that an exception from a general assertion, confirms it as to other ia" stances not excepted. Will they say, that by the Father is meant all three persons here, vis. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? What ! can the Fa- ther, as opposed to the Son, be put for the Father and the Son ? What woful work will this make with Scripture, to suppose that things opposed to each other do include each other, under the very characters by which they are opposed ? As w ell may they say that in the baptismal form, by the Father is meant, Father, Son, and Spirit, though he be distinguished from the other two. And I should despair of ever understanding the Scriptures above all books that ever were written, at this rate of interpretation. No doubt therefore, but the Father, as opposed to the Son, excludes all that is the Son ; and then there could be no Son of God that knew of that day which only the Father knew of, and consequent- ly no Son that is God equal to the Father. 3. Moreover, That interpretation must needs be unjust, which, if admitted, will make all, even the most plain speech, uncertain, and utterly insignificant ; as this interpretation of Christ's words would do. For I ask the patrons of this opinion, in what words Jesus Christ could m brief hscve denied himself to be God most high, if he had a mind to do it, more plain and full than these, in which he says, he knew not all thimgs as the Fatlicr did, nor coidd do all things, &c. 1 And I would fain have them shew me what words of that nature he could have used, which the same mayo{ interpretation, as they here use, will not evade v,x\(\ make insignificant. For had he said, or sworn in plain words thus, vis. I tell you I am not the Supreme God, and none but my father has that glory; they would upon the same reason still have said, this was to be understood of him as man only. So that no words pro- fessing himself wo< to be God, could be a proof of it, if this way of interpretation be allowed. I may therefore safely say thus much, that the blessed Jesus has declared himself not to be the supreme God, or equal to the Father, as plainly as words could 41 XVIll speak, or in brief express ; and that this declaration made by him already is not to be evaded in any other way, (han what will mnke it im,)ossib]e his mind shouhl be understood by any words he could have designedly us d in the matter. Let any one try if this do not hold true : and sure it must be an absurd way of in- terpretation, which leaves a man no opportunity or power of speaking his meaning jcZam?y, so as to be understood. 4. Again, this way of interpretation, which the advocates of the opinion I oppose are so much necessitated to for upholding their cause, does plainly overthrow it again, and may be turni d against themselves : for if it be just and true to den}' of Christ absolutely what belongs to him in one nature, because there is an- other nature in which it !>elongs not to him ; then, since to be the chief God belongs to him (according to our adversaries) only in one nature, and not in respect of the other, or human nature, it follows, that it may jistly be s;.id, Jesus Christ is nofGofiRiT and witli power." Buch is tlic -scriptural account of till' /■'ui/icr, the Son, -and the //o/j/ Spirit. But iu iali this account, the Father is the one God, Jesus is /lis Son, and the i/o/,v Spirit is that >villi which God anoinUd and endued the Son in wlioin he was well pleased. xxvu the doctrine of three distinct persons in one God has been be- lieved by all the true Church of Christ fmm the days of the apos- tles to the present time ? But after all, it may be asked, how far have Trinitarians themselves been united in their belief .' And what has been the amount of their faith ? Can it be said that they have been agreed as to the meaning of this article of their faith ? Certainly not: for it is well known that from generation to gen- eration, divines have, in this respect, been much divided in opinion. Has not their agreement consisted merely in admitting ^ form of words, as an article of faith, which the best divines have ex[)lained in many different senses ? If merely agreeing la a form of words implies union of sentiment, we may affirm that all professed Christians have been united in opinion respecting the character of Christ. For all have admitted the proposition that he is " the Christ the Son of the living God." Yet we have seen a great variety of opinions respecting this article of faith ; and about the same variety among Trinitarians themselves, re- specting the import of their favourite article — " There are three, distinct persons in one God." Let any one fix on either of the explanations which have been given, and then inquire, whether there be any evidence that a majority, even of Trinitariajns, have believed the proposition in that particular sense. Let us farther inquire, whether there be not reason to suppose, that nine tenths of those who have admitted the article, have done this, affixing to the words no definite meaning, or one which implies three distinct Beings ? And wheth- er it be not a fact, that ninety-nine out of a hundred have admit- ted the form of words on the authority of others, without any careful examination respecting their import ? I do not, indeed, admit this combination of words as a correct expression of any Bible truth. But excepting this single cir- cumstiuce I am, perhaps, as much of a Trinitarian as one half the persons who have adopted the article. I believe in the three at- tributes of God, power, wisdom, and love. And this is all that some Trinitarian divines have meant by the three persons in one God. ' XXVIII 1 believe that God acts in three distinct offices, as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. This is what others have meant by three persons. I, also, believe in God, as one proper person or intelligent Being; and in his wisdom and energy ; and that these may be sometimes personified. This, it is supposed, was the trinity of Origen, of Calvin, and of Baxter, and their numerous, genuine followers. Why, then, am I not as really a Trinitarian, as the several classes whose sentiments have now been represented ? These several classes, it is believed, comprise much the greater part of all the Trinitarian divines who have lived since the year A. D. 381, when the doctrine in question received its "finish- ing touch." Why then may I not have scnyie share in the renown attached to Trinitarian orthodoxy ? It may here be proper to inquire, what vir!ue or praise-worthi- ness can there be, in believing a proposition to be true, Avhile its meaning is M«/mo?i'7i .^ If I have evidence that the affirmation was made by God, or one inspired by him, my believing it lo be true, while its meaning is unknown, may be evidence of my confidence in the wisdom and veracity of Jehovah. But I may not thus call any man, Father. When men state what they be- lieve, in a form of words, not found in the scrijjtures, we have a right to ask what they mean. And if they have any definite meaning they can make it known. If they say they know not the meaning of their own terms, we may safely say, they know not what they affirm. If they cannot tell their own meaningy how can they reasonably expect others to adopt their proposition as an article of faith ? But if the writer of a proposition has a definite meaning lohis words, aud that meaning be the truth, yet if another adopt it with aditferent meaning, he in fact embraces errour instead of truth. It is the ojtinion of some ministers, that it is best to give no explanation of the doctrine of three persons in one God. They say it is a mystery, and no explanation can be reasonably ex- pected. Hence they feel under no obligations to tell what /ifi/ wican by the three distinct persons. Why, then, would it XXIX not have been infinitely better to have left the subject just as it stood iu the fdcred oracles ? Does it become men to express, as articles of faith, their own opinions of ti.e import of any passages in the Bible, in language which they themselves cannot explain ? If there be passages of scripture which are to us myslerious, would it not be far more w ise and safe to let them stand as tUey are, and wait for farther light, than to pretend to express their import in propositions unintelligible to ourselves and to others / Moreover, if the passages in the Bible, which are supposed to favour the doctrine in question, be really mysterious beyond ex- planation, how does any mortal know that their meaning is ex- pressed in the unintelligible proposition ? To know that this ex- presses the meaning of any passages of scripture, we must first know the meaning of those passages, and then the meaning of the proposition, so as to be able to compare them together. Yet men venture to express, what they say is the meaning of scrip- ture, in language which they cannot explain. Not only so, they make (heir own unintelligible form of words an essential article of Christian faith ; and that too, while they know not the mean- ing of their own terms. To me it appears, that there is no passage of scripture, Avhich has respect to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, which is half so ditScult to explain, or half so likely to be misunderstood as the proposition now under examination. Yet this unintelli- gible combination of words must be considered as so sacred, as to be made a criterion of Christian fellowship. But notwithstand- ing all the importance which men have attached to this article, and all the confidence with which it has been maintained, it is a. serious fact, that those who reject it, are no more opposed in sen- timent to those who embrace it, than those who admit it are op- posed to each other. And is it not, also, a fact, that the greater part of those who have adopted the article, are as ignorant of its real import as a blind man is of the colours of a rainbow ? Con- fiding in the " tradition of tlie Elders," without examination^ they have ado[)ted the proposition, either with no meaning, or as $reat a variety of discordant meanings, as were supposed in the XXX company of unlearned men who heard it affirmed that there are three minutes in one league. Is it not much to be lamented, that men of eminence in learn- ing and piety, with sentiments really discordant, should contend for a human proposition, which is professedly inexplicable, as though the whole fa!)rick of Christianity were depending on this as its foundation ? If it be an errour for people to believe a plu- rality of self-cxistcnt Beings, who can reasonably doubt that this proposition is of bad tendency, if left unexplained ? For who is able to distinguish between three persons and three beings ? And might we not just as safely tell common people, that there are three beings in one God, as three persons in one God? They know not any difference between a person and au intelligent being. — And where is the divine who will hazard his character so far as to attempt to explain the diCTerence ? There may be sc7nc who will venture io say there is a difference; but I have not known of any one who has attempted to state in what the diflerence consists. If, then, it be a fact, that the terms, three distinct per- sons, do naturally convey the idea of three distinct beings, and no one explains the ditference, it is evident that the proposition has a direct tendency to lead people into the belief, that there are three distinct intelligent beings some how united in one God. Does it not, then, seriously behove the advocates for the propo- sition, either to agree in some intelligible explanation, or to give up the article as useless and of evil tendency ? The conduct of one sect, in assuming the title of rational C7imf?'a7i5, has justly been accused by Trinitarian writers. But whether some of them have not been equally reprehensible may be worthy of consideration. How much have tJiey laboured to m.ike the world believe, that true piety has been found only among 'I'rniitarians ? And which is the most indicative of iiride, for a sect to arrog:ite to themselves a peculiar share of rationality, or all the piety in the Christian world ? For the pur[)ose of self-commendation, or to cast an odium on others, or to deter [)eople from a thorough examination of their seutinients, or for some olhtr purpose uot very obvious, some XXXI have taken considerable pains to impress the iilea that all, or nearly all, who depart from Trinitarianism, proceed from bail to worse, until they make shipwreck of the faith once delivered to the saints. And, of course, when any one openly dissents from their creed, they would have the publick expect that he will totally ajiostatize from the Christian faith. Such representa- tions procure applause to those who can thus commend themselves ; they excite a jealous, censorious, and clamorous spirit towards such as feel bound to dissent from the popular mystery ; and they, also, deter multitudes from any impartial examination of the doctrine in question, or any thing proposed as more scriptural. It is my wish not to render evil for evil, or reviling for revil- ing ; tjut may I not ask whether a resort to such methods, for the support of the Trinitarian cause, is not beneath the dignity of the clergy of that denomination? Does it not evince want of solid argument, and inattention to the true state of facts? Before such representations are any more urged, it is wished that Trinitarian writers would attend a little to the following reasonable inquiries. In what sense did the bishops of Constantinople understand the terms. Three distinct persons in one God ? Dr. Mosheim in- forms us that it was a council in that place which " gave the fin- ishing touch'^ to this doctrine in the year A. D. 381. As it had not received "its finishing touch" till that time, it seems to be a matter of high importance to know what those bishops meant by vhe terms they used; for the doctrine was then in its primi- tive purity. Had these bishops any definite meaning to their words ? or did they mean every thing which has since that time been held by Trinitarians on the ground of this article ? If they had but one meaning to their proposition, what was that one meaning ? Did they mean that God is three distinct agents ? Some would, probably, be pleased to have this granted. Let this, for the pre- sent, be admitte«l as the true Trinitarian doctrine. What then has become of Calvin, of Baxter, and the many thousands who have supposed that the Son and SpiWf are the wisdom and energy of Deity personified ? And what has been the fate of all the other xxxu classes of Trinitarians who have supposed the three persons to bf. three modes, or three altributcs, or three offices personified ? And those also who have so far dissented as to use the terms without any meaning? Are all these classes to be considered us apostates, having drawn hack unto perdition ? Again, was the original doctrine of three persons in one God no more than Origens allegorical Trinily, imjiroved by the use of the word person ? There are pretty strong reasons for supposing this to be the fact. If so, Calvin, Baxter, and those who have agreed with them, have been the true Trinitarians. And those who have given a different meaning to the proposition have been dissenters. What, then, will become of those whp hold the three distinct agents in one God ? Are they apostates and in the road to perdition ? Will not the doom, which some have passed on all who dissent from the strict Trinitarian doctrine, involve them- selves among the apostates 1 Moreover, it is well known, that Doctor Watts departed from the doctrine of three persons in one God in the latter part of his life. And do Trinitarians wish to have it believed that Watts is among the damned ? and that all his disciples have gone, or are going, to the same place of torment ? Once more. It is desired, that those who have been disposed to deal so largely in censure would consider, what a number of apos- tates might be reckoned up, who never departed from the Trinita- rian doctrine, but have, by their practice, made shipwreck not only of Christian faith but Christian ivories. If an invidious mind should make a full collection of such names, and attribute their apostasy to their having tmbraced Trinitarian sentiments, might not the catalogue bear a com[).irison with any which has been mitde out by Trinitarian writers. And would it not be treating them, as they have been difi[)Osed lo treat those who have - dissented from their opinion l But would it not, at the same time be rendering evil for evil, and reviling for reviling ? On such ground, it would be very easy to raise a hue and cry against every denomination of long standing. But is it not as ahominuhle as it is easy ? There have been, and are now, many XXXIU "very many amiable characters among the Trinitarians ; nor do I feel any less respect for them on account of the many bad characters of that denomination. But neither bad nor good characters are exclusively of any one sect of Christians. But although A'ome Trinitarians are not altogether so candid toward such as reject their favourite proposition, they are remark- ably li!)eral towards each other, in respect to the latitude allow- ed for explanation. With any one, of the seven or eight distinct opinions as to the imijort of the term, a man may stand on very- fair ground. And a man maj' be a very good am\ Jinn Trinitarian^ if he only admit the favourite article, without any opinion of its real import. The great thing requisite, is, to admit the propo- sition as true, in some sense or other, either kuo\Yn or un- known. There is indeed some occasion for this extensive candour in respect to the various explanations ; for it must be evident to every person of discernment, that the proposition cannot be un- derstood according to the natural import of the terms. Its mean- ing, therefore, must be a matter o( conjecture. And every explan- ation which has yet been given, in a greater or less degree, con- tradicts the most obvious import of one or other of the terms of the proposition. Most of the explanations perfectly exclude the idea of three distinct persons, and represent God as strictly one person as he is supposed to be by any Unitarian. But is it not extraordinary that there should be such zeal for a form of words, while it is viewed as a matter of such indifference Avhat meaning, or whether anv meaning, be attached to them ? What are words but vehicles for the conveyance of truth ? Shall then the form of words be held so sacred, and the meaning of them i)e of no importance ? To this it may be replied, that the subject is mysterious, and we cannot expect words to be clearly explained which are used to express a mystery. But if the subject be mysterious, then, for conscience sake, let it stand in the words o{ inspiration^ and not in the words of human wisdom or human folly. If the texts o€ scripture, which are supposed to support the proposition, be mys- 43 XXXIV terious beyond explanation, is it any thing sliort of extreme pre- sumption to pretend to explain them, or to form a proposition in other words as expressive of their import? And especially to do this, by a combination of terms which no human being can un- ravel or explain ? If these passages of scripture be really of mysterious and in- explicable import, and the proposition founded on them be so likewise, how can any man know the meanins; of either., or whether they are accordant, or discordant, with eacii otiier ? Can these things be known otherwise than by special inspiration / And if the import of the proj)Osition be unknown, can it be less than absurd to attempt to support it by the unknown meaning of any passages of scripture ? In such an etfort do not men attempt to support they know not what, and by they know not ivhai ? Some will probably think that giving up the |»ropo6ition, is giving up a fundamental article of the Christian faith. But if its meanins; be unknown, how can any one know that it contains any gospel doctrine ? For surely this form of words is not found in the Bible. And if the meaning be not known it cannot be made to appear that giving up tlie article is giving up any divine truth. It may, also, be said, that giving up this proposition will be giving up a doctrine which has, for many ages, been a source of comfort to the friends of Christ. But which class of the Trinita- rians have been the partakers of this supposed comfort ? Or have all the various classes been alike comforted ? If the com- fort has been the 6a?Me/o«W, has it not resulted from the sound rather than the ineamngo\' words? Or shall we say, that the va- rious and contradictory meanings have been alike conducive to comfort? But what shall be said of that class who liave admitted the article without affixing any meaning to the terms ? Have they, also, had a share in the comfort ? If so, on what ground has it resulted ? It may, perhaps, be supposed by some, that the comfort has in a great measure resulted from the humility, im|)lied in admitting, nsirue, a proposition which \b so pr-rftctly mysterious am\ unin- tellipble. But if this be the ground of the comfort, must not XXXV some deduction be made from the supposed afnount, on account of the pride of those several classes who have attempted to explain the mysieri) or io XeWihe meaning of the term? And must not the greater portion of the comfort be set to the account of those, who have been so very humble as to receive the/or?« of words, as sound, ysMhoxxi pretending to know their meaning, or even making any serious enquiry repecting their import? On the whole, is it not worthy of the most serious inquiry, whether the supposed comfort has not resulted chiefly from the popularity of the mystery, and the opinion, that true piety and the true church have been found only among Trinitarians ? But, in calculating the real betuft of Trinitarianisra to the Christian \vorld, it may be proper to have some respect to the evils of which it has been productive. It has unquestionably been an occasion of great perplexity and cmharrassment to such Trini- tarians as have been much in the habit of thinking and inquiry. \{may have been the occasion of much disshmdation with many who have had too great regard to their own popularit}^ It has, in time past, beeji the occasion of considerable animosity among ditferent classes of its advocates. It has been the occasion of much bitterness and alienation between those who have embraced the article, and those by whom it has been rejected. This bit- terness and censoriousness has been the occasion of great grief to pious souls of every denomination. Add to these evils, the enormous flood of sinful revilings, poured forth by the contend- ing parties, and the xmcomfortable and unchristian feelings which they have indulged one towards another. Now, from the sum total of the supposed good, deduct the sum total of the real evils and mischiefs ; then let candour estimate the amount o{ real benefit to the Christian world; and will it not pronounce on the contested proposition, as Jehovah did on the itse^ kss Monarch of Babylon ; — TEKEL, — thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting ? FINI8. 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recalL frnc^62Jii/i IN SuP2 6l962 T> LD Mi 28 o^ '\l fti* MAYl 2 1970 8 9 ^^70-4PWO^ aApr'63P^^ lA. EC D LD APR ? B63 NOV 2 4 10 6 5 Q^ IN STACKS WQVroi965 LD 21A-50m-3.'62 (C7097sl0)476B •T\^ ^^ (': 7? si:a General Library University of California Berkeley VC 46847^ '.XS^S' - y-i i»; ^f-- U: