it emerges —Aptaryut siege een ache ag a ee tls eatin trogen eee ae eae ee eat ee Pre DUKE UNIVERSITY DIVINITY SCHOOL LIBRARY in 2023 with funding fro x Duke University Libraries Nine y Di aay c: ® : i Veo, he an * a? | 4 Pr I 1) F fe, ’ ‘ | | i EA | ' By ! Ad 4 ' 5 iy e t ‘ Ae A a io a re ie PY Lr vem t. i Oi yi Us 3 mare Dy) Teh ia TA a % ey ( bara raya a Coy ae we} i” Na i iH va Ena eae! ¥ i ' 1 y i } is v i ) t i rt g vd | : AN APPEAL j THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC, IN DEFENCE OF THE «“PRECEPTS OF JESUS.” A FRIEND TO TRUTH, —$—_—__——.. PRINTED AT CALCUTTA: 1820, AN APPEAL, &e. &c. a eed IN perusing the twentieth number of “ The Friend of India,” I felt as much surprized as disap- pointedat some remarks made in that magazine by a gentleman under the signature of “ A Christian Missionary,” on a late publication intitled, “The Precepts of Jesus;” and also at some observations ofa similar nature on the same subject bythe Editor of that publication. Before however I attempt to en- quireinto the ground upon which their objections to the work inquestion are founded, Ihumbly beg to appeal to the public against the unchristianlike, as wellasuncivil mannerin which the Editor has adduc- — ed his objections to the compilation, byintroducing personality, and applying the term of heathen to the Compiler. I say unchristianlike manner, be- 2 cause the Editor, by making use of the term hea- then, has, I pre-ume, violated truth, charity, and li- berality, which are essential to Christianityin every sense of the word. Forthere are only two methods by which the character of the Compiler as a hea- _ then, or as a believer in one true and living God, can be satisfactorily inferred. 'The most reason- able of the two modes is to confine such enquiries to the evidence containedin the subject of review, no mention of the name of the Compiler being made in the publication itself. Another mode, which is obviously inapplicable in such discussions, is to guess at the real author, and toinfer his opini- ons froma knowledge of his education or other cir- cumstances. With respect to the first source of evi- dence, the following expressions of the Compiler’s sentiments are found in the Introduction. “ Ano- tion of the existence of a supreme superintending power, the author and preserver of the harmonious system, who has organized and who regulates such an infinity of celestial and terrestrial objects, and a due estimation of that Law which teaches that man should do to.others as he would wish to be done by, reconcile us to human nature,&c.” “This simple code of religionand morality (meaning the Precepts of Jesus), is so admirably calculated to elevate men’s ideas to high and liberal notions of one God, &e.” “so well fitted to regulate the conduct of the human race in the discharge of their various duties to God, tothemselves, and to society,” and “so con- \. 3 formable to the dictates of human reason and di- vine revelation, &c.” These expressions are calculat- ed, in my humble opinion, to convince every mind not biassed by prejudice, that the Compiler believed not only in one God, whose nature and essence is beyond human comprehension, but in the truths revealed in the Christian system. I should hope nei- ther the Reviewer nor the Editor can be justified in inferring the heathenism of the Compiler, from the facts of his extracting and publishing the moral doctrines of the New Testament, under the title of “ A Guide to peace and happiness’ —his styling the Precepts of Jesus, a code of religion and morality —his believing God to be the author and preserver of the universe—or his considering those sayings as adapted to regulate the conduct of the whole hu- man race in the discharge of all the duties requir- ed of them. Neither, I trust, can his separating the moral say-. ings of Christ from the mysterious dogmas andhisto- rical parts of the New Testament, under the impres- sion, that these are liable to the doubts and disputes of freethinkers and antichristians, with which this part of the world is unfortunately filled; nor his opinion that this simple code of morality would be more likely to attract the notice and respect of such men, and to guide their minds into the paths of peace and happiness, than if presented to them in conjunction with other matter against which 4 their education has taught them to revolt; justly subject him, in the opinion of the most orthodox Christians, to the epithet applied to himby the Edi- tor. If they do, Icannot see how the same con- demnation can be spared to numerous publications of extracts from the Old and the New Testaments, made and sent forth by several Christian authors, under various designations and for different pur- poses. With respect to the latter mode of seek- ing evidence, however unjustified the Editor may be in coming to such a conclusion, he is safe in ascribing the collection of these Precepts to Ram- mohun Roy; who, although he was born a Brah- mun, not only renounced idolatry at a very early period of his life, but published at that time a trea- tise in Arabic and Persian against that system ; and nosooner acquired a tolerable knowledge of Eng- lish, than he made his desertion of idol worship known tothe Christian world by his English publica- tion—a renunciation that, I am sorry to say, brought severe difficulties upon him, by exciting the displea- sure of his parents, and subjecting him to the dis- like of his near, as well as distant relations, and to the hatred of nearly all his countrymen for several years. I therefore presume that among his declar- ed enemies, who are aware of those facts,noone who has the least pretension to truth, wouldventureto ap- ply the designation of heathen to him; but I am sure, 5 that the respect he entertains for the very name of Christianity, which the Editor of the Friend of India seems to profess, will restrain him from retorting on that Editor, although there may be differences of opinion between them, that might be thought sufficient to justify the use towards the Editor of a term no less offensive.—The Editor perhaps may consider himself justified by numerous precedents amongst the several partizans of different Christi- an sects, in applying the name of Heathen to onewho takes the Precepts of Jesus as his principal guide in matters of religious and civil duties; as Roman Catholics bestow the appellation of heretics or in- fidels on all classes of Protestants, and Protestants do not spare the title of Idolators to Roman Catho- lies; Trinitarians deny the name of Christian to Unitarians, while the latter retort by stigmatising the worshippers of the Son of man as Pagans, who adore a created and dependent Being. Very dif- ferent conduct is inculcated in the precept of Je- sus to John,when complaining of one who performed cures in the name of Jesus, yet refused to follow the Apostles :—he gave a rebuke, saying, “ He that is not against us is on our part.” Mark, ch. ix. v. 40. The Compiler, having obviously in view at least one object in common with the Reviewer and Editor, that of procuring respect for the pre- cepts of Christ, might have reasonably expect- ed more charity from professed teachers of his doctrines. . 6 The Compiler of the Preceptsof Jesus, will, however, I doubt not, give preference to the guid- ance of those Precepts, which justify no retaliation even upon enemies, to the hasty suggestions of human passions, and the example of the Editor of the Friend of India. 2.—The Editor of the Friend of India and the respected Reviewer, both not onlydisapprove abso- lutely the plan adopted by the Compiler in sepa- rating the moral doctrines of the Books of the New Testament ascribed to the four Evangelists from the mysteries and historical matters therein contained, but even blame him as an injurer of the cause of truth ; and for such disapprobation they assign se- veral reasons :—first, The Reviewer says, the sup- sition of the moral sayings being sufficient for salvation, independent of the dogmas, is, (as he notes in page 27,) radically false; and that it is presumption of him (the Compiler) to think himself qualified to judge, independently of the Divine Teacher, what sort of instruction is advan- tageous for the happiness of mankind.—If indeed the Reviewer understands by the word moral, what relates to conduct only withreference to man, it cannot apply to those precepts of Jesus, that teach the duty of man to God ; which however the Reviewer will find included in the collection of the Precepts of Jesus by the Compiler: but a slight attention to the scope of the Introduction might 7 have convinced the Reviewer, that the sense in which the word moral is there used, whether rightly or otherwise, is quite general, and applies equally to our conduct in religious as in civil mat- ters. Without attaching this meaning to the term moral doctrines, the whole of the concluding sentence, (see page 4,) must appear absurd, where it is said, “ Thissimple code is well fitted to regu- late the conduct of the human race in the dis- charge of their various duties to God, tothemselves, and to society.” This assertion is corroborated and supported by a great number of passages in the trea- tise in question,which point out the appropriate mode of performing our duty to the Almighty Power.— Itis however too true tobe denied, that the Compiler of those moral precepts separated them from some of the dogmas and other matters, chiefly under the supposition, that they alone were a sufficient guide to secure peace and happiness to mankind at large—a position that is entirely founded on and supported by the express authorities of Jesus of Nazareth—a denial of which would imply a total disavowal of Christianity. Some of those authori- ties, as found amongst these precepts, here follow: Matthew, Chap. xxii. beginning with ver. 37. “ Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lordthy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment. 39. Andthesecond is like unto it, Thou shaltlove thy neighbour as thyself. 40. On 8 THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE Law AND THE Propuets.” Mark, Chap.xii. beginning withv. 29. “ And Jesusanswered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord. 30. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thystrength. This is the first commandment. 31. And the second is LIKE, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:—there is no other commandment great- er than these. 32. And he said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth ; for there is one God, and there is none other but he. 33. And to love him with all the heart,with all the understand- ing, and with all the soul,and with all the strength, and to love hisneighbour as himself, is more than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices. 34. And when Je- sus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. ” Matthew, Chap. vii.verse 12. “Therefore all things whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to men ; FOR THIS Is THE LAw AND THE Propuets. Chap. v—Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Luke, Chap. x. beginning with verse 25. “And behold, a certain Lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall Ido to inherit eternal life? 26. He said unto him, What is written in the Law ? How readest thou? ' 27. He answering said: Thou shalt 9 Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself. 28. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right. THis po and THOU SHALT LIVE.” The Saviour meant of course by the words Law and Prophets, all the commandments ordained by divine authority, and the Religion revealed to the Prophets and observed by them; as is evident from Jesus’s declaring those commandments to afford perfect means of acquiring eternal life, and di- recting men to follow them accordingly. Had any other doctrine been requisite to teach men the road to peace and happiness, Jesus could not have pronounced to the Lawyer, “ Thisdo and THov sHaLt LIVE.” It was the characteristic of the office of Christ to teach men, that forms and ceremonies were useless tokens of respect for God, compared with the essential proof of obedience and love towards him evinced by the practice of beneficence towards their fellow creatures. The Compiler, finding these commandments given as including all the re- vealed Law and the whole system ofreligionadopt- ed by the Prophets and re-established and fulfilled by Jesus himself, as the means to acquire Peace and Happiness, was desirous of giving more full publicity in this country to them, and to the sub- sidiary moral doctrines that are introduced by the Saviour in detail. Placing also implicit confidence in the truth of his sacred commandments, tothe observance of which we are directed by the same 10 teacher, (John, Chap. xiv. verse 16. “ If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Verse 24, “He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings,”) the Compiler never hesitated in declaring (page 1.), “ a belief in God and a due regard to that Law, ‘ Do unto others as you would wish to be doneby,’ render our existence agreeable to ourselves and profitable to the rest of mankind.” It may now be left to the public to judge, whether or not the charge of arrogance and presumption which the Reviewer has imputed to the Compiler, under the idea that he preferred his own judgment to that of the Saviour, be justly applicable to him. 3.—The respected Reviewer argues in page 26, that there are two important points, a knowledge of which is not to be acquired by following the moral precepts of Christ, but which are essential tothe attainment of true peace of mind; they being entirely founded (as he alleges) upon the dogmas and histories, viz. how to obtain Ist, the for- giveness of sins and the favor of God; and 2dly, strength to overcome human passions, and to keep the commandments of God. These precepts separ- ated from the mysterious dogmas and historical records, appear on the contrary to the Compiler to contain not only the essence of all that is ne- cessary to instruct mankind in their civil duties, but also the best and only means of obtaining the forgiveness of our sins, the favor of God, and - H strength to overcome our passions, and to keep his commandments. I therefore extract fromthe same compilation, a few passages of that greatest of all Prophets, who was sent to call sinners to repent- ance; a due attention to which will, I hope, sa- tisfy the respected Reviewer on those two points. Luke, chap. xiii. verse 3. “ Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.” Chap. xv. verse 7. “Tsay unto you, that likewise joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine persons who need no repentance. I say unto you, there is joy in the pre- sence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” Matthew, Chap. ix. “Iam not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Chap. xviii. “ For the son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Luke, Chap. vi. “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repent- ance.” Which sayings are confirmatory of what is taught in Ezekiel, Chap. xviii. verse 30. “ Re- pent and turn yourselves from all your transgres- sions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin.” See also the parable of the prodigal son, where the mercy of God is illustrated by. the example of a father pardoning the transgressions of his repent- ing son—Numerous passages of the Old and the New Testaments to the same effect, which might filla volume, distinctly promise us that the forgiveness of God and the favor of his divine \2 majesty may be obtained by sincere mepehieee as tequires of sinners by the Redeemer. me to the second point, that is: How to be ena~ bled to overcome our passions, and keep the com- mandments of God:—we are not left unprovid- ed for in that respect, as our gracious Saviour has promised every strength and power as neces- sary consequences of earnest prayer and hearty desire. Matthew, chap. vii. and Luke, Chap. vi. “ Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” “ If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him.” Luke, chap. xi. “ I say unto you, Ask and it shall be given you.” After a due attention to these and to numerous passages ofthe same effect, no one who believes in the di- vine message of Jesus of Nazareth, or even in the truth of his doctrine only, can be at all at a loss to find adequate means of attaining those two ends, justly considered to be most essential by the Reviewer. 4.—The Reviewer imputes to the Compiler, error in exalting the value of the moral doctrines above that of the historical facts and dogmas con- tained inthe New Testament. This imputation, I humbly maintain, can be of no weight or force 13 against the authority of Jesus himself, as quoted in the above texts ; which clearly shew, that there isno other means of attaining eternal life except the performance of our duties towards God in obeying his commandments. That the aim and object of all the commandments of God is to teach us our duty towards our fellow-creatures may be gathered from a hundred passages of Scripture, of which perhaps the following may suffice. Matthew, chap. xxv. verse 31. “ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shallthe King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee ? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and 14 came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say unto them also on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minis- ter unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” In this description of the day of judgment it is clearly announced, that the merci- ful father of the universe accepts as manifesta- tion of love towards himself, every act of charity and beneficence performed towards his creatures : (see text already quoted, Matthew, Chap. vii. verse 12.) And apparently to counteract by an- ticipation the erroneous idea that such conduct might be dispensed with, and reliance placed on a mere dogmatical knowledge of God or of the Id Saviour, the following declaration seems to have been uttered. Matthew, Chap. vii. verse 21. “ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord! Lord! shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but. he that doeth the will of my father who is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord! Lord! have we not prophesied in thy name; in thy name have cast out devils; and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.” Matthew, Chap. xii. “ Whosoever shall do the will of my father who is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother.” Luke, Chap. ix. “ My mo- ther and my brethren are those which hear the word of God and do it.” Chap. xi. “ Blessed is the womb (said a certain woman to Jesus) that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked: but he said, Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” John, Chap. xv. “Ifye keep my commandments, ye shall _ abide inmy love; even as I have kept my father's commandments, and abide in his love.” What then are THOSE SAYINGS, the obedience to which is so 16 absolutely commanded as indispensible and all-suf- ‘ficient to those who desire to inherit eternal life ? They are no other than the blessed and benign moral doctrines taught in the sermon on the mount, (containedin the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Matthew,) which include therefore every duty of man, and all that is necessary to salvation ; and they expressly exclude mere profession or belief, from those circumstances which God graciously admits as giving a title to eternal happiness. Nei- ther in this, nor in any other part of the New Tes- tament, can we find a commandment similarly enjoining a knowledge of any of the mysteries or historical relations contained in those books.’ It is besides plainly stated, that but a very small por- tion of the works of Jesus have been handed down to us by the Evangelists. John says at the con- elusion of his gospel,Chap. xxi. verse 25, “There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I sup- pose the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” -On the other hand we cannot doubt, that the whole spirit of his doctrmes has been faithfully and fully recorded. “The rea- son of this appears obvious:— miracles must have had a powerful effect on the minds of those who witnessed them, and who without some such evi- dence were disposed to question the authority of the teacher of those doctrines. John, Chap. xv. v. 23. “ The works that I do in my father’s name, 17 they bear witness of me.” v. 37. and 38. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works.” Had his doctrines of themselves made their due impression, the aid of miracles would not have been requisite, nor had recourse to. In this country the bare report of such miracles could have given no support to the weight of the doc- trines; for as the Compiler has stated in his Intro- duction, miracles infinitely more wonderful are related of their gods and saints, on authorities that the Hindoos must deem superior to those of the Apostles. Weare taught by revelation, as well as educa- tion, to ascribe to the Deity the perfection of those attributes which are esteemed excellent amongst mankind. Andaccording to those ideas it must surely appear more consistent with the justice of the Sovereign Ruler, that he should admit to mercy those of his subjects who, acknowledging his au- thority, have endeavoured to obey his laws; or shewn contrition, when they have fallen short of their duty and love; than that he should select for favor those whose claims rest on having acquired particular ideas of hisnature and of the originof his Son, and of what afflictions that Son may have suffered in be- half of his people. If the Reviewer and Editor will continue to resist both authority and com- mon sense, I must be content to take leave of them 18 with the following words, (Luke, Chap. xviii.) « And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” 5.—The Reviewer observes (in page 24,) with every mark of disapprobation, that the Compiler has intimated in the Introduction, that the dogma- tical and historical matters are rather calculated to do injury. The Compiler could not certainly overlook the daily occurrences and obvious facts which led him to remark (Introduction, page 4,) that “ historicaland some other passages are liable to the doubts and disputes of freethinkers and antichristians, especially miraculous relations, which are much less wonderful than the fabricated tales handed down to the natives of Asia:” and to prove what the Compiler stated, I humbly entreat any one to refer to the numerous volumes written by persons unattached to any of the established Churches against the miracles, the history, and some of the dogmas of Christianity. It has been the different interpretations of the dogmas, that have given rise to such keen disputes amongst the followers of Jesus. They have not only de- stroyed harmony and union between one sect of Christians and another, and continue to do so; but in past times have even caused continual wars and frequent bloodshed to rage amongst them, more dreadfully than between Christians and in- 19 fidels. A slight reference to the histories of Christian countries, will, Itrust, afford to my read- ers entire conviction upon this head. Besides, the Compiler, residing in the same spot where European missionary Gentlemen and others for a period of upwards of twenty years have been, with a view to promote Christianity, distributingin vain amongst the natives numberless copies of the’ complete Bible, written in different languages, could not be altogether ignorant of the causes of their disappointment. He however never doubt- ed their zeal for the promulgation of Christi- anity, nor the accuracy of their statement with re- gard to immense sums of money being annually expended in preparing vast numbers of copies of the Scriptures; but he has seen with regret, that they have completely counteracted their own be- nevolent efforts, by introducing all the dogmas and mysteries taught in Christian Churches to people by no means prepared to receive them; and that they have been so incautious and incon- siderate in their attempts to enlighten the natives of India, as to address their instructions to them in the same way, as if they were reasoning with persons brought up in a Christian country, with those dogmatical notions imbibed from their in- fancy. ‘The consequence has been, that the na- tives in general, instead of benefiting by the pe-- rusal of the Bible, copies of which’ they always receive gratuitously, exchange them very often 20 for blank paper; and generally use several of the dogmatical terms in their native language as a mark of slight in an irreverent manner; the mention of which is repugnant to my feelings. Sabat, an eminently learned but grossly unprin- cipled Arab, whom our divines supposed that they had converted to Christianity, and whom they of course instructed in all the dogmas and doctrines, wrote afew years ago a treatise in Arabic against those very dogmas, and printed himself and published several hundred copies of this work ; and another Moosulman, of thename of Ena’et Ahmud, a man of respectable family, who is still alive, speedily returned to Mohummudanism from Christianity, pleading that he hadnotbeen able to reconcile to his understanding certain dogmas which wereimparted tohim. It has been owing to their beginning with the introduction of mysterious dogmas, and of relations that at first sight appear incredible, that notwithstanding every exertion on the part of our divines, I am not aware that we can find a single respectable Moosulman or Hindoo, who were not in want of the common comforts of life, once glorified with the truth of Christianity, constantly adhering to it. Of the few hundred natives who have been nominally converted to Christianity, and who have been generally of the most ignorant class, there is ground to suspect that the greater number have been allured to change their faith by other attractions than by a 21 eonviction of the truth and reasonableness of those dogmas; as we find nearly all of them are employed or fed by their spiritual teachers, and in case of neglect are apt to, manifest a rebellious spirit ;—a circumstance which is weil known to the Compiler from several local facts, as well as from the following occurrence. About three years “ago, the Compiler, on his visit toan English Gen- tleman, who is still residing in the vicinity of Calcutta, saw a great number of Christian Con- verts with a petition, which they intended to pre- sent to the highest Ecclesiastical authority, stat- ing that their teachers, through false promises of advancement, had induced them to give up their ancient religion. The Compiler felt indignant at their presumption, and suggested to the gentle- man as a friend, the propriety of not countenanc- ing aset of men, who, from their own declaration, seemed so unprincipled. ‘The Missionaries them- selves areas well aware as the Compiler, that those very dogmas are the points which the people always select as the most proper for attack, both in their oral and written controversies with Christian teachers; all of which, if required, the Compiler is prepared to prove by the most unquestionable testimony. Under these circumstances the Compiler publish- ed such sayings of Christ, as he thought intelligible to all, conveying conviction with them, and best 22 calculated to lead mankind to universal love and harmony; not dwelling upon those matters, an observance of which is not absolutely ordained, and the interpretations of which, instead of introducing peace and happiness, have generally given rise to disputes and controversies. 'The Compiler has had no local influence nor power to promote any one’s interest, nor has he situations to give away, nor yet hashe friends and colleagues to recom- mend others to their patronage. Humble as he is, he has therefore adopted those measures which he thought most judicious to spread the truth in an acceptable manner; but I am sorry to observe, that he has unfortunately and unexpectedly met with opposition from those whom he considered the last persons likely to oppose him on thissubject. From what has already been advanced, the Review- er may perceive the reason why the passages ex- tracted by the Compiler from the Gospel of St. John should be comparatively few. It is from this source, that the most difficult to be comprehended of the dogmas ofthe Christian religion have been principally drawn; andon the foundation of passages of that writer, the interpretation of which is still a matter of keen discussion amongst the most learned and most pious Scholars in Christendom, is erected the mysterious doctrine of three Gods in one Godhead, the origin of Mohummudanism, and the stumbling-block to the conversion of the more enlightened amongst the Hindoos. 23 To impress more strongly on the minds of those for whom this compilation was intended, the doc- trines taught by Jesus, the Compiler thought the vari- ed repetition ofthem by different but concurring re- porters highly advantageous, as showing clearly that those doctrines were neither misrepresented nor misconceived by any of those Evangelists. 6.—Noris the conduct of the Compiler in select- ing certain passages of the Scriptures. for cer- tain purposes singular; for we see very often ex- tracts from the Bible, published by the learned men of every sect of Christians, with a view to the Maintenance of particular doctrines. Christian Churches have selected passages from the Bible, which they conceive particularly excellent, and well adapted for the constant perusal and study of the people of their respective Churches; and be- sides, it is the continual practice of every Christian teacher to chuse from the whole Scriptures such texts as he deems most important, for the purpos- es of illustrating them, and impressing them on the minds of his hearers. - Norwill those teachers, if questioned as to their object in such selection, hesitate to assign as their motive the very reason adopted by the Compiler as his—the superior importance of the parts so selected. Whether or not he has erred in his judgment on that point must be determined by those who will candidly peruse and consider the arguments already advanc- 24 ed on the subject, always bearing in mind the les- son practically taught by the Saviour himself, of adapting his instructions to the susceptibility and capacity of his hearers. John xvi. 12. “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” Hindostan isa country, of which nearly 3-5ths of the inhabitants are Hindoos, and 2-5ths Moo- sulmans. Although the professors of neither of these religions are possessed of such accomplish- ments as are enjoyed by Europeans in general, yet the latter portion are well known to be firmly devoted to abelief in one God, which has been instill- ed into their minds from their infancy. The for- mer (I mean the Hindoos) are with a few excep- tions immersed in gross idolatry, andin belief of the most extravagant description respecting futurity, antiquity, and the miracles of their deitiesand saints, as handed down tc them and recorded in their an- cient books. Weighing these circumstances, and anxious, from his long experience of religious con- troversy with natives, to avoid further disputation with them, the Compiler selected those precepts of Jesus, the obedience to which he believed most peculiarly required of a Christian, and suchas could by no means tend, in doctrine, to excite the religi- ous horror of Mohummedans or the scoffs of Hin- doos. What benefit or peace of mind can we be- stow upon a Moosulman, who is an ‘entire stranger 25: to the Christian world, by communicating to him without preparatory instruction all the peculiar dogmas of Christianity; such as those contained in verse Ist, chap. Ist, of St. John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with - God, and the Word was God.” Would they not find themselves at a loss to reconcile this dogma to their unprepared understandings, viz. A is B, and A is also with B? Although the interpretations given us of such texts by truly learned and candid divines be ever so satisfactory, yet to those that are strangers. to these explanations, they cannot be intelligible; nor can it be expected from the order of things that each can happily find at hand an a- ble interpreter, to whom he can have recourse for an explanation, whenever he may be involved in difficulties or doubts. But as a great number of Missionary Gentlemen may perhaps view the mat- ter in adifferent light, and join. the Editor of the Friend of India, in accusing the Compiler as an injurer of the cause of truth, I doubt not that with. a view to avoid every possibility of such imputation, and to prevent others from attributing their ill suc- cess to his interference with their duties, he would gladly abstain from publishing again on the same subject, if he could see in past experience any thing to justify hopes of their success. From what I have already stated, I hope no one will infer that I feel ill-disposed towards the Mis- sionary establishments in this country. This is 26 far frombeing the ease. I pray for their augmen- tation, and that their members may remain in the happy enjoyment of life in a climate so generally inimical to European ‘constitutions ; for in propor- tion to the increase: of their number, sobriety, moderation, temperance, and good behaviour, have been diffused among their neighbours as the neces- sary consequences of their company, conversation, and good example. : The Reviewer charges the Compiler with in- consistency, (page 27), because he has ‘termed the precepts collected by him, a code of Religion and Morality, while, as the Reviewer supposes, they form only a code of morality and not of religion. It is already explained in paragragh 2d, that the Com- piler has introduced those precepts of Jesus under the denomination of the moral sayings of the New Testament, taking the word moral in its wide sense, as including our conduct to God, to each other, and to ourselves ; and to avoid the least pos- sibility of misunderstanding the term, he has care- fully particularized the sense in which he aecepted that word by the latter sentence (page 4), “ This — simple code of Religion and Morality, (meaning by the former, those precepts which treat of our duty to God, and by the latter, such as relate to our du- ties to mankind and to ourselves), is so admirably calculated to elevate men’s ideas to high and liberal notions of one God, &c.”. “ andis also so well fitted 27 to regulate the conduct of the human rac¢é in the discharge of their various duties to God, to them- selyes, and. to society, .&e.” In: conformity to the design thus expressed, he has collected ‘all the say- ings that have a tendency to those ends. The Compiler however observes with regret, that nei- ther this language nor this fact, has afforded to the Reviewer satisfactory evidence of his intention, nor sufficed to save him from the unexpected imputa- tion of inconsisteney. » The.Reviewer again (page 29) chargesthe Com- _piler with inconsistency, in having introduced ’ some doctrinal passages into his compilation. In reply to which J again entreat. the attention of the respected Reviewer tothatpassage in the Introduc- . tion, in which the Compiler states the motives that have led him to exclude certain parts of the Gos- _pels from his publication. He there states, that itis on account of these passages being such as _were the ordinary foundation of the arguments of the opponents of Christianity, or the sources of the _ interminable controversies that have led to heart- - burnings and even bloodshed amongst Christians, that they werenot includedin hisselection; and they were omitted the more readily, as he considered them not essential to religion. _But such dogmasor doctrinal and other passages as are not exposed to those objections,andare not unfamiliarto the minds _ of those for whose benefit the compilation was in- 28 tended, are generally included in conformity with the avowed plan of the work—particularly such as seem calculated to direct our love and obedience to the beneficent author of ‘the universe, and to him whom he graciously sent to deliver those Precepts - of Religion and Morality, whose tendency is to promote universal peace and harmony. 8.—In objecting to the assertion made by the Compiler in the Introduction as to a belief im the existence of God prevailing generally, the respect- ed Reviewer advances three arguments :—1st, that millions. of people believe in a plurality of Gods. 2dly, that the majority of those enlight- ened persons who deny the truth of the Jew- ish and Christian Revelation are atheists. 3rdly, that the very system of the Vedant, which de- - nies to God his moral attributes, is a refined and disguised atheism. I certainly admit that a great number of men, and even men of profound learning and extensive abilities, are, owing to their early education, literally sunk in polytheism, an ab- surd and irrational system of religion. But the ad- mission of a plurality of Gods does notamount to the denial of Godhead. A man for instance cannot be accused of having no notion of mankind, because he ‘ isproved to believe in the existence of a plurality of individuals. The Reviewer ought therefore to have confined himself to the remark, the truth of which will be readily admitted, that there are 29 millions of people ignorant of the unity of God; the only doctrine consistent with reason and reve- laton. The astonishing eagerness of the learned amongst those, whose practice and language are polytheistical, to prefer their claim to be considered as Monotheists, is a strong evidence of the consis- tency of the system of Monotheism with rea- son. Debased and despicable as is the belief of the Hindoos in three hundred and thirty millions of Gods, they pretend to reconcile this persuasion with the doctrine of the unity of God; alleging thatthe three hundred and thirty millions of Gods, whom they enumerate, are subordinate agents, as- suming various offices in preserving the harmony of the universe under one Godhead, as innumerable raysissue fromone sun. I am ata loss to trace theoriginof his second argument, imputing atheism to the majority of those who deny. the divinity of the Jewish and Christian Revelation. For not- withstanding my acquaintance with several Eu- ropeans and Asiatics who doubt the possibility of Revelation, I have never met with one, to the best of my recollection, maintaining atheism, however widely they might differ fromthe Reviewer and the Compiler in a great many points of belief re- lating to the Deity. The Reviewer perhaps may have met with some unhappy freethinkers, who have professed doubts respecting the existence of @ supreme superintending power—a circumstance which has probably induced him. to form this opi- — 30 nion; but suchrare instances can have no force to set aside the credit of what the Compiler af- firms, that a’ belief in God prevails. generally. Neither ean I conscientiously coincide with the respected Reviewer in his imputing atheism to. the Vedant. system, under the. supposition of ‘its denying moral attributes to‘ God; nor can I help lamenting that religious prejudice should influence the Reviewer so much, as to make him apply the term of atheist. towards a sect or to individuals who look up to the God of nature through his wonderful works alone; for the Vedant,in common with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, from the impossibility of forming more exalted conceptions, constantly ascribes to God the perfection of those moral attributes which are considered among the human species excellent and sublime. To prove this I quote one passage from each of the four Oopunishuds of the Vedant, which have already been translated into English. Moonduk, ‘chap. 1, section 1. “ By him who knows all things collectively and distinctly, whose knowledge and will are the only means of his actions, Bruhma, name, and form, and all that vegetates, are produced.” Kuthu, chap. 5, “ God is eternal, among all the pe- rishable universe ; and is the source of sensation among all animate existences; and he alone assigns to so many objects their respective purposes.” Ke- nopunishud. “In a battle between the celestial gods ol and the demons; God enabled the former to defeat the latter”” And Ishopunishud, “ He overspreads all creatures) is merely spirit without’ the form either of a minute body or of an extended one, which is liable to impression or organization. He is pure, perfect, omniscient, the Ruler of the in- tellect, omnipresent, and the self-existent. He has from eternity been assigning toall creatures their respective purposes.” For further evidence, if re- quired, I beg to refer the Reviewer to the rest of the original Vedant works that may be found in the College Library and in the Missionary stores of books. It is however very true, that the Vedant de- clares very oftenits total ignorance ofthe real nature andattributes of God. Kenopunishud, v.3, “ Hence novision can approach him,no language can describe him, no intellectual power can compass of determine him, we know nothing how the supreme Being should be explained, &c.” Italso represents Godsometimes in a manner familiar to the understanding of the vulgar. Moonduk, chap. 7, section 1. “Heaven is his head, and the sun and the moon are his eyes; space is his ears, &c.” But such declarations are not peculiar to the Vedant doctrines, as these are found frequently in the sacred Scriptures.—Job xxxvi. 26. “ Behold God is great, and we know him not; touching the Almighty we cannot find him out, his greatness is unsearchable.” The Scrip- tures also represent God in the same familiar and figurative manner as is found in the Vedant. 32 God is affirmed to have made man in his own image, after his own likeness. The angels always behold God's face in heaven. In the old Testament, as well as in thenew, God isrepresentedas repenting of his works, as being moved with anger, vexation, grief, joy, love, and hate ; as moving from place to place; having arms, with hands and fingers ; a head, with face, mouth, tongue, eyes, nose, ears, a heart, bowels, back, thighs, legs ; as seeing, being seen, speaking and hearing, slumbering, waking, &c. No one capable of sound reasoning can for a moment imagine, that these or any other descriptions of God are intended to convey literal notions of the unsearchable, incomprehensible Being. May God render Religion destructive of differ- ences and dislike between man and man, and conducive to the peace and union of mankind. Amen. fone é SECOND APPEAL | THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC, “«PRECEPTS OF JESUS.” | —>>—__ BY RAMMOHUN ROY. a cere ae intr ate ag a “ty 4h . Ses Or id Mt oe % eee) ia ata Ok w - es ae ' b sti, SiSee : «) . pitksesy ie fen ii. ' Lae i4t ; A ae ADVERTISEMENT. Sane Tue contents of the following Treatise are included under these two propositions :—Ist, That the Precepts of Jesus, which teach that love to God is manifested in beneficence towards our fellow-creatures, are a sufficient Guide to Peace and Happiness; and 2ndly, That that — omnipresent God, who is the only proper object of religious veneration, is one and undivided in person. | Though these doctrines, as I conceive them to be alike founded on reason and revelation, appear to me to be almost as obvious truths as any abstract axiom, yet they are opposed in fact by avery large body of writers and teachers. I must therefore leave them to be decided upon. by those, who will be pleases to bestow their : f , a ed . - S15 SHiteoth wet i lo atieteos ant mar 36 | cy oi whos bebalont durit do Lisl ty atqage1T odt jadT . . art ai baw of svol t obit) MtarsAiive on yrteota= wots? wo bids tea ) iqqsH’ bas soseD ofilo wr jorg vino od) ri odve DOW soaamatom iii hots fat iinioaay evoryiler to | oetag © mors ¥) ad saat dyvolT ‘ rortals’ P 18 moass » hebavet odile ad ot- en aeriisit 2 ri rf od of one oF a9qqs beet cri f; 918 79 oie toativds ytis iincnk ban aioli id sgiel roy a.gd clas: or ed of , nol ototorddt Reman ter odw “Vnaort yd -. Iovedil bad Gibatas Jy mt Baase PS fa niMagamt rik a 2° Doe fi eet ; fis cla a aye wh NOTICE. The Reader is requested to correct the following errors, made in the copy for press by the Transcriber. = Pita) 1 (2; Sor v. 16. read v. 15. 10. 15. ix. [gs Matt. ix. 13. 19. 12, vi. 9. vi. 2. 755 15. 2 John 1 John ak 4. alvin’. xiv. 46. 6. ch. vi. ch, v. Aa. 8, y. 66. v.17. 50. 27. v. 9. v. 29. 52. 22, vi, 12. ~ Luke vi. 48. 5 28. XXViii. XXVii. | 53. 8. xix, 28. Xxviil. 19, 60. 5. x: ‘ ix. _ 66. is Fs 17. wit 102. 6. ae vii. 56. we 6.; xxxii. 30. Ex, xxxii 30. ee AUST a mbna, at } ‘, efor ah iW ghnan | Definition of the unity | — Da CHAP. I. i Aureration of Style in the Review, ts ce Page 1 Two points which the Editor wishes to establish, to wit, the excellency of the Dugmas and the insufficiency of the Pre-- cepts, ai ‘ Q a ae ibid. The Compiler miiigiopled sel the first, ce! “2 2 Rejects the second, ha es 9%. 3 Passages shewing the sufficiency of the Precepts—God one, and the object of supreme love, ae Ag ae 4 The authority of Paul quoted, inapplicable, .. . ibid. Justifying a selection as the substitute for the whole, .. 6 The Precepts of Jesus practicable, es Vere we 7 The contradiction between the indispensibleness of the Doc- trines and the sufficiency of the Precepts, ie We 9 Repentance the only means of forgiveness, 6 ue 10 CHAP. II. Positions of the Reviewer, on sie [visit * 12 Jesus receives all power from God, oe ee ae 13 Power given to Jesus as the Son of God, a ool On 1G: The unity between God and Jesus, and Sa a disciples, Ae TE at God dwelleth in Jesus and he in Jesus considered distinct fro He that hath seen the Son ( vi ) - Jesus's disavowal of his own Deity, i fe ibid. The Jews charged Jesus only with calling himself the Son. of God, cae - 4 a 25 The term ‘ God” F Basu spied to existences inferior to God, a oe Bs 25 The term ‘‘ for ever” often deiphial to ee beings, 3. 87 Jobn i. 1, explained, ai ye 46 ats 28 Hindoos believe in one Godhead, consisting of numerous persons under it, ats 5 is Hic) 29 Jesus performs wonderful works, which do not amount to equality with those of God, oe Sp ibid. CHAP. III. The first position of the Editor, on the ubiquity of Jesus, 32 John iii. 13 explained, ts ca ve ibid. viii. 58, o. 42 ibid. John xi. &, 38; Matt. xxvi. 2 ; Jobin xili. 6; xvi. 32; Matt, ii. 18; John vi. 62, bie » J He 33 John xvi. 7, 5, 28; xiii. $6, 1, oe et, mee agor Matthew xviii. 20, explained, te He ou bie 35 Luke xvi. 29, = ‘ ha a oe oinoo 986 The second position of the Editor, on the incomprehensibility of the nature of Jesus, A. st a ibid. Matt. xi. 27, explained, oh oe Ae ibid. John xiv. 16, 17, oe “x Pe. — 37 Mark xiii. 32, explained, ie au abe 38 Matt. xi. 23, explained, oe ud y 0 abid, The third position of the Editor, on _— forgiving sins in an independent manner, et e ve 39 _ Mark ii. 5, 9, explained, Vi a3 ibid. ze Acts v. 31, ee a 5°, ake xxiii, 34 ; xi. ie Matt. ‘. gai 40 bs ibid. oe 4% SRR OMe: 3 41 a ee ( vii ) Deut. xviii. 15, and 16; Acts iii. 32; vii. 37; Matt. xx. 23; xii. 28; xxvi. 39, considered, fs 44 Matt. xxvi.42; Luke xxii. 32; John xii. as Matis x. 40; John v. 23, separately explained, a Ey 45 Matt. v. 48, 4 : fs 46 The fifth position of the Editor, respecting the, poe of the world by Jesus, & ci. of he ibid, Matt. iii. 9; Luke i. 37, as my Je .. ibid. From this the Editor infers his omniscience, ae 2 47 Mark xii}. 32; John v. 26, 27, 30, considered, a3 ibid, The sixth position of the Editor, respecting the worship accepted by Jesus, aCe Snine FAS . 48 Daniel ii. 46; Matt. xviii. 26, considered, oy iy ibid. John iv. 24; Matt. iv. 10; xix. 66; John ix. 31, 33, 33, 49 Mark v. 7; Luke xvii. 15, 16 ; Matt. xiv. 33 ; xv. 25 ; Mark viii. 9 ; Luke xxiv. 19, 33 “i ot 330 bi50 John vi. 69 ; xx. 31; Matt. viii. 2, eB. 4. 8 51 The worship paid to Jesus inferior to divine LNs 48—51 Jesus himself worshipped the Father; Matt. vi. 9; xxvi. 53 ; John xvi. 26; Luke xxii. 41, 42; Mark xiv. 35, 36; vi. 12; Luke x. 21; John xi. 41; Matt. xxviii. 46 ; John iv. 22, oe : 4 ‘ 5 51 The seventh position of the Editor, respecting ee form of Baptism, Matt, xix.23; Exod. xiv. 31, 3 re 53 Mohummud joins hisown name with that of God in his form of belief, uF a6 ae as 54 Matt. xxviii. 18, considered, i r at Say, 1bidk Synonimous expressions employed by Molnnaaud and Jesus, a ES Bie 55 Mussulmans notwithstanding remain strict monotheists, .. 56 ~ CHAP. IV) G/) eater sf Texts adduced in support of the atonement explained, wire Luke iv. 43 ; ; li. 47—49 ; John xvii. 8, iby We Dynes te The sufferings of Jesus and of other Proy ble except as prophesied, —.. aN 7 c ¥ * = ae soe 1 # -~ — \-een P : % » ee rs »y * e a Vili ) John x. 3; Mark xii. 1—9, considered, be oe 60 John xv. 2°, 22, ae = 61 Wheiher Jesus suffered as God or as Man for mankind, .. ibid. The firs: inconsistent with the nature of God, os ibid. The last inconsis:ent wi h justice, sic a4 62 Jesus averse to ‘he death of the cross, Jee .- ibid, Matthew xxvi. 37, 39, 42, and 43, considered, Jem Se Bid, Mark xiv. 36 ; Luke xxii. 42,44; John xii. 27; John xi, 17, 18; Matthew xxvi. 53, 54, considered, o 63 The application of the term Saviour to Jesus a supposed proof of the atonemen:, 5 oe A 64 Obadiah 21 ; Nehemiah ix. 27, conadnele of ibid. 2 Kings xiii. 5, ah pat #2 B: 65 Jesus is a Saviour from inculcating the word of God, .. ibid. John xv. 3; v. 24; vi. 63, considered, ifs oe ibid.. God declares Christ a Prophet equal to Moses, Us ibid. Matthew v. 7 ; xxiii. 2, and 3, od aa 66 Jesus was a perfect teacher of the divine will, oe ibid. Matthew v. 21, and 22, “i A Ue ibid. —v. 27 and 28 31, and 32, 38, ae 39, 43, 44, 45, considered oe : bi 36 67 The term ‘‘ Lamb of God” exec Se ae 68 Nature of Christ, ai is i A 69 God shews mercy for righteousness’ sake, a af ibid, Genesis xxx. 27; Jeremiah xxvii. 18; Genesis xviii. 16; Exodus xxiii. 20, 21 nd st 79 The Author offers no opinion on this douwaiagl al ibid. CHAP, V. Disputes ascribed to the different interpretations of the Dogmas, . : melee 2 Illiberality in supposing chat the panne Christians shed each other's blood from worldly motives, ok 72 sheim’s eur y i mage 419, 420, ia a 73 C ix ) Iil'beral remarks may be equally applied to the Apostles and The Holy Spirit explained to be the guiding influence of God, John xiv.6; xvi. 13, oe “ie “iE 85 - Anger, mercy, truth, &c. personified as well as the Holy Spirit, 2 Kings xxiv. 20; Psalms xc. 7; xxi. 7; vi. 45 Luke xii. 12; Actsi. 8; John xiv. 26; Psalm lvii. 3; Ixxxv, 10; ¢.5 ; xxxili. 22; xxxvi. 5; eviii. 4; vii. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 18, as aa os 86 ‘The bad consequences of supposing the Spirit to be per- son of Gad, Matt. i.11,20; Lukei.35, .. .. 87 This. amg ae inconsistent with the _ use of > term in Matt. iii. 11; Luke iii. 16; Acts x. Matt. xii. 28, 31 ak iv. L; mic 22, oe Sieh meet Martyrs, et ¥G > 73 The cause of the final success of Sines (afterwards called the Orthodox) over Arians, * a 74 Violent contentions between Roman Catholicsand Protestants, ibid. Matthew, chap. x. 34, explained by its context, af 45 Difference between the peculiar Doctrines of the Gospel and the'tenet of the existence of God, ¥2 a 77 The miracles quoted by the Reviewer to shew their import- " ance considered, fs = 78 Matthew xi. 2, 3, and 4; John x. 37 and 38; xiv. 11 ; Mat- thew xii. 39; John xx. 29, considered, an 79 The arguments adduced by the Reviewer in support of Chris- tian miracles are equally applicable to Hindoo miracles, 81 ’ And also to the miraculous narrations of Mussulmans, $2 Superior excellence of the Precepts of Jesus, =a ibid. CHAP. VI. Only -one circumstance adduced in support of the Deity of the Spirit as a distinct person, : it 83 The association of the name of the Spirit with that of the Father and Son inadequate to prove this doctrine, .. 84 Prophets associated with God, 2d Chron. xx. 20; Jerem. xxx. 9; Luke iii. 16, a8 = a ibid. a * <3 es 6s * *, C x) The Jews accuse Jesus of employing diabolical influence, .. $0) Matt. xii. 24, 37, with context ; and Mark iii. 29,30, explain- ed, ee 91 The Spirit of God was towed before the coming of Jesus, Luke i. 15, 41, 67; ii. 25, 26; Mark xii. 36; Matt. xxii. 43; Luke iv. 1, . oe 98 Acts v. 3, 4 ; John xv. 26, pa ete oan -. 95 The plural number of nouns and pronouns in Hebrew, &c. is often used for a singular agent or object. Gen, i. 26; Deut. iv. 4; Exod. xxi. 4, 6; Isaiah vi. 8, ed 96 The same rule observed in Arabic; of which an example from the Qoran, iia ‘i 98 The thrice repeated term ‘‘ holy’ in iesiaip vi. 3, noticed, 99 The verse which has been introduced as John vy. 7, noticed, ibid. The Trinity not taught by the Apostles, . -- 100 This proved by Acts iv. 22, 32, 36; ill. 22, 23; iv. 12, 26, 97 v.31, 73 Vill. 37, 385. x. 38, 42 5 SSBF Sea Oe Extracts from Mosheim, vol. i. p. 100, 411, 412, 414, shewing that so late as the year 314 the Deity of the Son was not considered a fundamental article of faith, as 103 Reason why Trinitarians prevailed at the Council of Nice, 106 Another extract from Mosheim, p. 25. ‘Acts axviii. 6, and xiv. 11, quoted, d. -. 106, 107 Other extracts from Mosheim, shewing that polytheism was familiar-to the Christian converts of the firstages, (p. 25, 46,) 54 : Ja s sie lO7 The prevalence of the Trinity attributable only to the pre- judices of education, ae as at 108 The alleged two-fold: consciousness of Jesus Christ consider- ed, . : «- Se A; ibid. Moses might ee be fa to have a two-fold consciousness, 109 Mode of reconciling apparent contradictions in Scripture, 110 Difficulties arising from neglecting this mode, .. ibid, * argument drawn from the analogy of the soul, will, and Perception to the Trinity, considered, Zz is qd ” mm. C xt ) The argument drawn from the analogy of the sun, light, and heat to the Trinity, considered Re. i192 On the argument which represents Father, Son, es Holy Spirit as qualities of one Deity, he 118 The union between Father and Son, compared to bie be- tween the human soul and body, “ ibid. Argument drawn from the alleged resemblance between the term “‘ Son of Man” and “Son of God,” .. 114 On the argument which represents God as a compound sub- stance, ar ae ibid. John xvii. 3; 1 Cats XV. 24; viii. 6 ; Tipe iv. 5, 6, quoted, 115 Alleged necessity of the Deity of Jesus to his mediatorial character, Fa a5 we - ibid, This opposed to common sense, a 3 116 Opposed also to scripture; Numb. xi. 1, 2; xiv. 19, 20; xxi. 7; xxxii. 30; Gen. xviii, 32; Jeremiah xxvii. 15 ; Deu- teronomy v. 5, re .» Ll6—117 The arguments of Hindoos for iat gtRiedis more powerful than those of Christians for the Trinity, a 118 —— i APPENDIX. No. I. On the Quotations from the Old Testament contained in the New. Matt. ii. 15, Bi As a 119 Matt. iv. 4, ay el us - ibid. aaa Oe w. Ba He ae ibid. ix. 18, se ee ee ee 121 — xix. 19; xxii. 39, mS a ibid. — xxi. 42, i is Boe | ibid. xxii. 44, bt as eee ae 122 John x, 35, Ye s4 re 3 ibid. xii) Matt. iv. 10, " ae oe "199 xiii, 14, ~ i , ibid. xix. 5, I ane FSi 123 —_— 18, 19, fe oY eu ibid. xxii. $2, AS eo: et ibid. xxii. 37, se nu eY ibid. : “xxvi. 31, “¢ ee oe 124 John vi. 45, ee fh efi ibid. xiii. 18, ue Y ay ibid. xv. 25, By A a i 125 Matt. xxi. 16, ey =e a x ibid. 13, 4 a 58 ibid. Matt. xv. 7, 8, 9, ne a ay 126 xi. 10, ip t wt ibid. Luke iv. §, 1x4: oa Me ibid. 18, 19, ate sy “¢ ibid. These -quotations prove the siboodinatl nature of Jesus to God, tats fe ate wid 127 No. II. On the references made to the Old Testament in support of the Deity of Jesus. John i. 14, compared with Isaiah ix. 6, explained, if) 123 Hebrewsii. 2, 9, compared with Psalm xlv. 6, 7, considered, 140 Luke i. 16, 17, compared with Isaiah xl. 3, and Malachi iii. 1, 141 John xii. 41, compared with Isaiah vi. 5, we 142 1 Cor. i. 30, compared with Jeremiah xxiii. 6, sb ibid, The original of Jeremiah xxiii. 6; xxxiii. 16; Gen. xxv. 26; 2 Sam. ii. 16; Gen. xvi. 14, compared i 143 Rom. xiv. 10, 12, compared with Isaiah xlv. 23, ee 144 2d Peter iii. 18, compared with Isaiah xliii. 3, on the term - Saviour, . sk tH 145 John x. 16, compared with Psalm xxiii. 1, on the term Shepherd, i .. # in 146 | xiii) 1 Cor. x. 9, compared with Psalm Ixxviii. 56, on tempting Christ, A way iy wii 147 John iii. 29, compared with Psalm liv. 5, on the term hus- — band, aha oe én se 148 Revelation xxii. 13, compared with Isaiah xliv. 6, on the phrase ‘‘ Alpha and Omega,” ‘ vi Datel A 149 Rey. xxii. 12, compared with Isaiah xl. 10, on the phrase ‘© My reward is with me,” eye 152 Ephes. iv. 8, compared with Psalm ixviii 18, on the phrase «© Thou hast ascended on high,” ad q ibid. John xix, 37, compared with Zechariah xii. 10, on the phrase “ whom they pierced,” es oe 153 1 Peter ii. 6, 7, 8, compared with Isaiah xxviii. 16, and Vili. 13, 14, on the phrase stone of stumbling, &c.” 155 The Hebrew and other Asiatic languages full of metaphor, John x. 34, 35, 36, aes at 157 The Deity of Moses and of David cannot be proved from Deut. xxx. 15; 1 Chron. xxix. 20, Bs 158 Personal interest does not influence the author ; nor desire of fame, paid ts BS ae She 159 Nor the hope of success, ie ae 160 But reverence for the author of Christianity, and a wish to raise it above all polytheistical systems, ni ibid. The author's views derived, from the Seriptures, se ibid. The Old Testament should be studied before the New, 161 Locke’s testimony respecting the fundamental articles of Christianity, he Se oe ne oe -- ibid, Extract from Sir Isaac Newton, pointing out the different natures of God and Christ, Be a oe peel G2 Argument in favor of the Trinity, from its analogy to the triangle, considered, he ste pis ich ibid. Several arguments occurring in the beginning of Serle’s Hore Solitariz considered, Sy ae me pe Bape (ae | Conclusion, “- =4 oe) etme oa POSTSCRIPT. Dr. Prideaux’s assertion respecting the testimony of Jona- than’s Targum on Isaiah ix. 6, 7, examined, ae 169 The term ‘‘ Messiah” applied to various kings, a 170 Quotations from several ancient Jewish commentators, .. 171 On the difference of meaning between “ to be called” and *< to be,” ht a ae bss <3 bi Passages illustrating the epithets employed in Isaiah ix. 6, ibid. The terms “ Son” ard. “ only-begotten” incompatible with the nature of the First Cause, ie ~ 172, The assertion respecting two sets of terms and phrases being applied to Jesus, examined, Me A .. ibid, No Hindoo can conscientiously prefer the doctrine of the © Trinity to Hindooism, : oh 173 True Christianity is free from polytieliat, oy ibid. SS A SECOND APPEAL. == CHAPTER I. General defence of the Precepts in question. THE observations contained in No. I. of the quarter- ly series of “ The Friend of India,” on the Introdue- tion to “ The Precepts of Jesus,” as well as on their defence, termed “An Appeal to the Christian Public,” are happily expressed in somild and Christian-like a style, that they have not only afforded me ample consolation for the disappointment and vexation I felt from the personality conveyed in the preceding Magazines, (Nos. 20 and 23), but have also encou- raged me to pursue my researches after the funda- mental principles of Christianity in a manner agree- able to my feelings, and withsuch respect as I should always wish to manifest for the situation and cha- racter of so worthy a person as the Editor of the Friend of India. The Reverend Editor labours in his Review to tablish two points—the truth and excellency of the iraculous relations and of the dogmas found in the criptaral writings—and 2ndly, the insufficiency of e compiled Precepts of Jesus alone to lead to sal- B ( 2) vation, unless accompanied with the important doc- trines of the Godhead of Jesus and his atonement, As the Compiler neither in his Introduction to the Precepts of Jesus, nor in his defence of those Pre- cepts, has expressed the least doubt as to the truth of any part of the Gospels, the arguments adduced - by the learned Editor to demonstrate the truth and excellence of the authority on which they rest, are, I am inclined to think, quite superfluous and foreign to the matter in question. The only reasonsassigned by the Compiler, (Intro: duction, page 4), for separating the Precepts from the abstruse doctrines and miraculous relations of the New Testament are, that the former “ are liable to ' the doubts and disputes of free-thinkers and anti. christians, and the latter are capable at best of car- rying little weight with the natives of this part o! the globe, the fabricated tales handed down to them being of a more wonderful nature.” These sentiments respecting the doctrines ant miracles, founded as they are upon undeniable facts do not, I presume, convey any disavowal or doubt o theirtruth. Besides, in applying the term “ fabricated’ to the tales received by the credulous Hindoos, the Compiler clearly evinced the contemptible light i which he viewed those legends; and in stating tha the miracles of the Scriptures were subject to th ( 3 ) doubts of “ free-thinkers and anti-christians,” it can never fairly be supposed that he meant himself, or any other person labouring in the promulgation of Christianity, to be included in that class. As to the second point urged by the Reverend Editor, namely, that the compiled Precepts were not sufficient to lead to salvation, I deeply regret that the Editor should appear to have overlooked the authority of the gracious author of this religion in the several passages cited by the Compiler in his Ap- peal, to prove beyond doubt the sufficiency of the Precepts in question to procure eternal life; as it is almost impossible that so numerous quotations, spreading over a great part of the Appeal, couldhave escaped his notice. The Rev. Editor, while endea- vouring to prove, that the compiled Precepts would fall short of guiding to peace and happiness, only illustrates by sacred authority the truth and excellency of the miracles and the doctrines of Christianity. But such illustration can have no tendency to demonstrate the position he endeavours to maintain; I am therefore under the necessity ofrepeating afew passages already quoted, with some others, shewing that the compiled Precepts are sufficient to conduct the human race to 1appiness; and | humbly intreat to know, if I be per- uaded to believe inthe divine origin of those passages, nd inthe entire veracity of their author, how I am to econcile their authority with the position maintain- d by the learned Editor, as to the insufficiency of B2 ( 4) the Precepts of Jesus to guide to peace and happi- ness.— Matthew, chap. xxii. beginning with. verse 37, “ Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; this is the first and great commandment. And the second is. like unto it, Thon shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Pro- phets.” Mark, chap. xii, beginning with verse 29, * And Jesus answered him, The first of all the com- mandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God: with all thy heart, and with_all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:—this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mat- thew, chap. vii. verse 12, “ Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you. even so to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Luke, chap. x. from verse 25, “ And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I doto inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law: How readest thou? He answering said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right. This do, and thou shalt live.” Matt. vii. 21, “Not every one that (8 saith unto me, Lord! Lord! shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord! Lord! have we not prophe- siedin thy name; and in thy name have cast out devils; and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them,I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock ; and every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.’ Luke, chap. xi. verse 27, ‘‘ Blessed is the womb (said a certain woman to Jesus) that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked: but he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” John, chap. xv. verse 12, “ This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you.” verse 17, “ These things I command you, that ye love one another.” Chap. xiii.-verse 34,“ A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” 35, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” Observing thosetwo commandments, (verse 37, 38, and 39, chap. xxii. Mat.) selected by the Saviour as a substitute for allthe Law and the Pro- phets, and sufficient means to produce peace andhap- piness to mankind, the Compiler never scrupled’to f 8 follow the example set forth by Jesus himself in compiling such Precepts as include those two com- mandments, and their subsidiary moral doctrines, as a true substitute of the Gospel, without: intending to depreciate the rest of the word of God. I regret that the Reverend Editor should have disapproved of this compilation on the ground, that ‘‘ it is of impor- tance that every compilation be given as a sample of the sacred writings in all their excellence and impor- tance, and not as asubstitute for the whole.” The authority of St. Paul, the most exalted among primitive Christians, quoted by the Reverend Editor, (page 89), “ If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain,” is not, I presume, adequate to set aside, nor even applicable to the express au- thority of the Author of Christianity, already quot- ed; as the latter includes not only the Mosaic law, to which St. Paul alludes, but both law and religion, as is evident from the following passages: “ There- fore all things whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to men; for this is the Law and the Prophets.” “On these two command- ments (to love God and to love our neighbours) hang all the Law andthe Prophets.” Every one must admit, that the gracious Saviour meant by the words “ the Law and the Prophets,” all the divine commandments found in the Scriptures, obedience to which is strictly required of us by the found- er of that religion. Luke, xi. 28. “Blessed are (Fy) they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” John, chap. xiv. 16, “If you love me, keep my com- mandments.” Had the manifestation of love towards God with all our strength, and towards our neigh- bours as ourselves, been practically impossible, as maintamed by the Editor, (page 112), or had any other doctrines been necessary to lead to eternal life, Jesus of Nazareth, (in whose veracity, candour, and perfection, we have happily been persuaded to place implicit confidence,) could not, consistently with his office as the Christ of God, have enjoined the lawyer to the obedience of those two com- 1s” mandments, and would not have promised him eter- . nal life as the reward of such obedience; (vide Luke x. verse 28, “This do and thou shalt live;)” for a man possessed of common sense and common hu- manity would not incite another to labour in vain by attempting what was practically impossible, nor delude him with promise of a reward upon condi- tions beyond his power to fulfil; much less could a Being, in whom dwelt all truth, and who was sent with a divine law, to guide mankind by his preach- ing and example, inculcate precepts that it was im- practicable to follow.—Any commandment enjoin- ing man to love God with all his heart and all his strength, requires of us of course to direct our love towards him as the sole Father of the universe ; but does not amount toa prohibition of the pursuits necessary for life, or to an abstinence from love to- wards any other object ; for such love also is enjoin- ahi . Sie ed by the subsequent commandment. ‘The follow- ing passages, John, chap. xiv. verse 21, “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be lov- ed of my Father ; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” Chap. xv. verse 10, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love” verse 14, “ Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you, &e.” and many other passages of a si- milar import exhibit clearly, that love of and adher- ence to Jesus can be evinced solely by obedience to the divine commandments. But if the observance of those commandments be treated as practically impossible, the love of Jesus and adherence to him must likewise be so considered, and Christianity al- together regarded as existing only in theory. I appeal to the Reverend Editor himself, whether we are to set at defiance the express commandments of Jesus, under the supposition that manifestation of the love enjoined by him is practically impossible? Yet this we must do, if we are to adopt the position of the Editor, found in his Review, page 111, “ That the most excellent precepts, the most perfect law, can never lead to happiness and peace, unless by: causing men to take refuge in the doctrine of the cross ;” meaning, I presume, the doctrine of the vi- carious sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, as an atonement for the sins of mankind. ie ( 9) As the Reverend Editor has most fairly and justly confined himself to arguments, founded on the au- thority of the divine Teacher himself, I should hope to be allowed to beg him to point out, in order to establish his position, even a single passage pro- nounced by Jesus, enjoining a refuge in such a doc- trine of the cross, as all-sufficient or indispensable for salvation; so that his position, thus supported, may be placed in competition with that founded on those passages which I have quoted in the foregoing pa- ragraph, shewing both the indispensableness and the all-sufficiency of the excellent Precepts in question to precure salvation ; and may impel us to endeavour to reconcile contradictions, which would in that case be shewn to subsist between the passages, declaring the all-sufficiency of the moral precepts preached by Christ for eternal life, and those that might be found to announce the indispensableness of the doctrine + the cross for everlasting happiness. tis however evident, that the human race are naturally so weak, and so prone to be led astray by temptations of temporary gratifications, that the best and wisest of them fall far short of manifesting a strict obedience to the divine commandments, and are constantly neglecting the duty they owe to the Creator and to their fellow-creatures ; nevertheless, in reliance on numerous promises found in the sa- cred writings, we ought to entertain every hope of enjoying the blessings of pardon from the merciful c (, 10") Father through repentance, which is declared the only means of procuring forgiveness of our failures. I have already quoted some of these comforting pas- sages in my Appeal, page 11; but as the Reverend Editor seems to have entirely overlooked them, and omitted to notice them in any of his publications, I deem it necessary to repeat them here with a few additions. Ezekiel, chap. xviii. verse 30, “ Repent and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so ini- quity shall not be your ruin.” ‘Luke, chap. xiii. verse 3. * Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish.” Chap. xv. verse 7, “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, ’ more than over ninety and nine persons who need no repentance.7Chap. ix. verse 13, “Tam not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Matthew, iii. verse 2, John the Baptist preached, saying, “ Re- pent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” and Jesus after his resurrection, lastly, directs his dis- ciples, Luke, chap.xxiv. verse 47, “ That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” wherein he declares the remission of sins as an immediate and necessary consequence of repentance. The foregoing authorities and remarks will, I trust, suffice with every candid reader, as my apology for persisting in the conviction, that the Precepts com- piled and published as a guide to peace and happi- ness, though deficient in respect to speculative doc- ( tr )) trines and creeds, as well as narrative, yet contain all that is essential in practical Christianity; since they teach us the performance of our duty to God and to our fellow-creatures, and the most acceptable atone- ment on our part to the All-merciful, when we have fallen short of that duty. CHAPTER II. Natural inferiority of the Son to the Father. IN endeavouring to prove what he represents as “the most abstruse, and yet the most important of doctrines, the Deity of Jesus Christ,” the Reverend Editor advances seven positions—lIst, that Jesus was possessed of ubiquity, an attribute peculiar to God alone. 2ndly, That he declared that a know- ledge of his nature was equally incomprehensible with that of the nature of God. 3rdly, That he exer- cised the power of forgiving sins, the peculiar pre- rogative of God. 4thly, That he claimed almighty power, “in the most unequivocal manner.” Sthly, That his heavenly Father had committed to him the final judgment of all who have lived since the creation. 6thly, That he received worship due to God alone. 7thly, That he associated hisown name with that of God the Father in the sacred rite of bap- tism.—The facts on which the Editor labours to establish these positions, however, seem to me, upon an impartial examination, not only unfavourable to his inference, but even confirmatory of the opposite opinion.—For admitting for a moment, that the po- sitions of the Editor are well founded, and that the ( #93) Saviour was in possession of attributes and powers aseribed to God; have we not his own express and often repeated ayowal, that all the powers he ma- nifested, were committed to him as the Son by the Father of the Universe? And does not reason force us to infer, that a Being who owes to another all his power and authority, however extensive and high, should be in reality considered inferior to that other? Surely, therefore, those who believe God to be Su- preme, possessing the perfection of all attributes, independently of all other beings, must necessarily eny the identity of Christ with God: as the sun, although he is the most powerful and most splendid of all known created things, the greatest immediate source of life and enjoyment in this world, ‘has yet no claim to be considered identical in nature with God, who has given to the sun all the light and ani- mating warmth which he shedson ourglobe. Toeffeet a material change without the aid of physical means, _ is a power peculiar to God; yet we find this power exercised by several of the prophets on whom ‘the | gift of miracles was bestowed. Besides, itis evident -from the first chapter of Genesis, that in the bégin- ning of the creation God ‘bestowed on man his own Jikeness, ‘and sovereignty over all living creatures. | Was not hisown likeness and that ‘dominion peécu- liar to God, before mankind were made ‘partaker's of them? Did God'then deify man by such ‘mark of distinction? ( ) The following passages, I presume, suffice to illus- trate the entire dependence of the Son on God, and his inferiority and subjection to, and his living by, him. Sé. John, chap. x. verses 17 and 18, “ Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father:? Chap. xii. verse 49, “For I have not spoken of myself: but the Father who sent me, he gave me command- ment what I should say, and what I should speak.” Chap. xiv. verse 31, “ But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.” Chap. xvii. verses 1 and 2, Jesus in his prayer—“ Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee; as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” John, chap. iii. verse 35, “ The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” Chap. v. verse 19, “ The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do, &c.” 22, “ For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” 30, “J can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear I judge ; and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me.” Chap. vi. verse 37, “ All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, &c.” 38, For I came down ( tar) from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Chap. viii. verse 28, “ That I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” Verse 50, “I seek not my own glory; there is one that seeketh and judgeth.” Chap. xiv. verse 24, “The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.” Verse 31, “ As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.” And after his resur- rection Jesus saith, Chap. xx. verse 21, “ ds my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” Verse 17, ‘I ascend unto my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Matthew, chap. xii. verse 18, from Isaiah, “ Behold my servant, whom I have chosen ; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased ; I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.”. Chap. xxviii. verse 18, “ And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Luke, chap. i. verse 32, “ He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest : and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.” For testimony that. he lived by the Father, see John, vi. 57, “ As the living Father hath sert me, and I live by the Father, &c.” Chap. v. ver. 26, “ For as the Father hath life in him- self, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” As the Reverend Editor in two instances quot- ( 16 ) ed, perhaps inadvertently, the authority of the Apostles, I think myself justified in imtrodue- ing some of the sentiments entertained by them on this subject, though I should be contented to de- duce my arguments, as proposed by the Editor, ex- clusively from the direct authority of Jesus himself— I shall confine myself to the quotation of one or two texts from the Epistles of St. Paul. Ist Corin- thians, chap. xv. verse 24—28, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet: the last ene- my that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet : but when he saith, All things are put under hin; it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when ali things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” Colossians, i. 15, “ Who is the image of the invisible God, the Jirst-born of every creature.” From a due attention to the purport of the above uoted texts, and to the term Son, distinctly men- tioned in them, the reader will, I trust, be con- vineed, that those powers were conferred on Jesus, and declared by himself to have been received by him from the Father, as the Messiah, Christ, or anointed Son of God, and not solely in his human ca- pacity; and that such interpretation as declares these ¢ WY.) and other passages of a similar effect to be appli- cable to Jesus as a man, is an unscriptural inven- ‘ion. Jesus spoke of himself throughout all the Scriptures only as the promised Messiah, vested vith high glory from the beginning of the world. John, xvii. 5, ‘* And now, O Father, glorify thou ne with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” In this passage, with the same breath with which he prays for glory, 1e identifies the nature in which he does so with shat under which he lived with God before the crea- tion of the world. and of course before his assuming he office of the Messiah. Verse 24, “ Father, I° will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.’ Here again Jesus prays, that his Apostles may witness such onor as the Father had bestowed on him, even efore the foundation of the world. Chap. ix. verse 5—37, “ Dost thou,” (says Jesus to a man who had een blind,) “believe on the Son of God? He an- wered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might elieve. on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou ast both seen him, and it is he (the Son of God) that alketh with thee.” Chap. xvii. ver. 1,2, “ Father, lorify thy Son; as thou hast given him power over ll flesh, that he should give eternal life to as any as thou hast given him.” John the Baptist, vho bore witness of Christ, looked not upon him | D on, in any other view than as the Son of God. St. John, i. 34,“ And I saw and bare record, (said John the Baptist, pointing out the person of Jesus), that this is the Son of God.” John, viii. 42, “ 1 proceeded forth and came from God; neither came 1 of myself, but he sent me ;” and in numerous _pas- sages Jesus declares, that before he assumed the of. fice of the Messiah in this world, he was entirely subject to and obedient to the Father, from whom he received the commission to come to this world fo: the salvation of mankind. But apparently with th very view of anticipating any misapprehension o ‘his nature on the part of his disciples, to whom h had declared the wonderful extent of the power committed to him by the Father, he tells them John, xiv. 28, “The Father is greater than I.” [I would have been idle to have informed them of | truth, of which as Jews they would never hay entertained the smallest question, that in his mer corporeal nature Jesus was inferior to his maker and it must therefore have been his spiritual nature of which he here avowed the inferiority to that a God. “The Son” is a term which, when used withou being referred to another proper name found i the context, implies invariably the Son of Go throughout the whole New Testament, especiall when associated with the epithet “The Father, so the latter epithet, when it stands alone, signi =o fies “the Father of the universe.” Matthew, chap. 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 Ghost.” Chap. xi. verse 27, “No man knoweth the Son but the Father, &c.” Vide rest of the Gospel.—lIt is true indeed, that the angels of God and some of the ancients of the hu- man race, as well as the children of Israel, are ho- noured in the sacred writings with the name of “ Sons of God.” Job i. 6, “ There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.” Genesis, vi.g, “ The sons of God saw the daughtersy1,2_ of men, that they were fair.” Hosea, i. 10,“ Then it shall be said unto them, ye are the sons of the liv- ing God:” yet the epithet “ Son of God,” with the definite article prefixed, is appropriated to Christ, the first-born of every creature,as a distinct mark of honor which he alone deserves. The Saviour having declared that unity existed etween the Father and himself, John, x. 30, “ I and y Father are one,” a doubt arose with regard to he sense in which the unity affirmed in those words hould be accepted. This Jesus removes by defin- ng the unity so expressed as a subsisting concord f will and design, such as existed amongst his postles, and not identity of being; vide xvii. 11, f John, “Holy Father, keep through thine own ame those whom thou hast given me, ¢that they ay be one, as we are.”—Verse 22, “The glory which . p2 ( 20 ) thou gavest me [have given them; that they may be one, even as we.are one.” Should any one under. stand by these texts real unity and identity, he must believe that there existed a similar identity betweer each and all of the Apostles ;—nay even that the disciples also. were included in the Godhead, whick in that case would consist of a great many time: the number of persons ascribed to the Trinity. John xvii. 20,21, 22and 23, “ Neither prayI for these alone but for them also which shall believe on me throug! their word—That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.—That they may be one, eben as we art one. IL in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one.” I know not how it is possible for these who profess obedience to the word of Chris to overlook the explanation he has here so clearly given of the nature of the unity existing between him and the Father, and to adopt a contrary system appa. rently introduced by some heathen writers to sui their polytheistical prejudices; but I doubt not th Editor of the Friend of India will admit the necessity of giving preference to divine authority over anj human opinion, however prevailing it may be. The Saviour meant unity in design andwill by th assertion also, that he was in God, or dwelt in Gos and God in him. John, x. 38, “That ye ma) know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and. in him,” as evidently appears from the followin; ( 21) passages :—Join, xiv. 20, “ At that day ye shall know (addressing his Apostles) that Tam in my Father, and ye in me,and I in you.” Chap. xvii. ver. 21, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.’ John, vi. 56. “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” 1 John, iv. 15, “ Whosoever. shall confess that Je= sus is the Son of God—God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” ‘There appear but three modes in which such passages are capable of interpreta- tion. Ist. As conveying the doctrine that the Supreme Being, the Son, and the Apostles were to be absorbed mutually as drops of water into one whole; which is conformable to the doctrines of that sect of Hindoo Metaphysicians who maintain, that in the end the human soul is absorbed into the Godhead; but is quite inconsistent with the faith of all denominations of Christians. 2dly, As proving an dentity of nature, with distinction of person, beé- tween the Father, the Son, andthe Apostles ;—a doctrine equally inconsistent with the belief of every hristian, as multiplying the number of persons of he Godhead far beyond what has ever been propos- d by any sect: or 3rdly, As expressing that unity hich is said to “exist wherever there are found per- et concord, harmony, love, and obedience, such as he Son evinced towards the Father. and taught the isciples to. display towards the divine will—That the language of our Saviour can be understood in ( 22 ) this last sense solely, will, I trust, be readily acknow- ledged by every candid expounder of the sacred writings, as being the only one alike warranted by the common use of words, and capable of apprehen- sion by the human understanding. Had not experi. ence, indeed, too clearly proved that such metaphori- cal expressions, when taken singly and without atten- tion to their contexts, may be made the foundation o: doctrines quite at variance with the tenor of the rest of the Scriptures, I should have had no hesitation ir submitting indiscriminately the whole of the doctrines of the New Testament to my countrymen; as J should have felt no apprehension that even the most igno- rant of them, if left to the guidance of their own unprejudiced views of the matter, could miscon- ceive the clear and distinct assertions they every where contain of the unity of God and subordinate nature of his messenger Jesus Christ. Many of these have been already quoted; to which may be addec¢ the following—John, xvii. 3, ‘ This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, anc Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” Here Je: sus in addressing the Father declares, that the means to be afforded for eternal salvation, were < knowledge of God, and of himself as the anointec messenger of God. Also chap. xix. verse 17, Christ saith, “ Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God.” Here Jesus, pure as he was and without reproach, thinks it necessary to check the man who: applies to him an epithe (@ oB 4 ustly due to God only.—Chap. xiv. 1, “Let not your 1eartbe troubled: ye believeinGod; believe also in ne.” In these words Jesus commands his disciples to put heir trust in God, and further to believe in him as he Messenger of God; and thus plainly distinguishes uimself from the Godhead.—Nor can it for a moment ye understood by thefollowing passage, John, xiv. 9, ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” that God was literally and materially visible in the Son —a doctrine which would be directly contrary to the spirit of the religion taught by Jesus, and by all the Prophets of God. Vide John, iv. 24, “ God is a Spirit.” The Apostles also maintained a belief of the immateriality and invisibility of God, 1 Tim. vi. 16, ‘“ Whom no man hath seen nor can see.” 2 John iv. 12, “No man hath seen God at any time. Besides, Jesus explains himself in the two passages immediately succeeding, that by the phrase, “He that ath seen me hath seen the Father,” he meant only that whosoever saw him and the works per- ormed by him, witnessed proofs.of the entire con- cord of his words and actions with the will and de- sion of the Father,and ought therefore tohave admit- ed the truth of his mission from God. John, xiv. 9. ‘ He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. How ayest thou then, Shew us the Father?’ verse 10. ‘ Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and he Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I peak not of myself; but the Father, that dwelleth in e, he doeth the works.” Ver. 11, “ Believe me, thatI tJohn ( MM ) am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” We have already seen in what sense the expression “ dwelleth inme” must be understood, unless we admit that all true follow- ers of Christ are admitted as portions of the Godhead. John, vi. 56. “ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him’ 1 John, chap. iv. verse 12, “ If we love one another, God dwelleth in us.’ For my conviction, and for the satisfaction of those who consider the Precepts of Jesus as a guide to peace and happiness, his word, “They may be one as we are,” John, xvii. 11, in defining the nature of the unity between God and Jesus, fully suffices. Disgust. ed with the puerile and unsociable system of Hindoe idolatry, and dissatisfied at the cruelty allowed bj Moossulmanism against Non-moossulmans, I, on mj searching after the truth of Christianity, felt for < length of time very much perplexed with the differ. ence of sentiments found among the followers o: Christ (I mean Trinitarians and Unitarians, the gran¢ divisions of them), until I met with the explanatior of the unity given by the divine Teacher himself as a guide to peace and happiness.—Besides, when the Jews misunderstood the phrase used bythe Saviour “JT and my Father are one,” and accused him o blasphemy, (chap. x. 33, “ But for blasphemy, ant because that thou being a man makest thyself God,) Jesus in answer to the accusation denied having mad ( 2% ) himself God, saying, verse 34—36, “Is it not writ- ten in your Law, I said, Yeare Gods? If ye called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken: say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, Iam the Son of God ?” How was it possible that Jesus, the founder of truth and true religion, should have disavowed the charge of making himself God by representing him- self as the Son, honoured with sanctification by the Father, and sent by him to this world, if he were the true living God, possessed of everlasting sanctifica- tion, independently of another being. From this and all other local evidence the Pharisees and chief Priests, though inveterate enemies of the Savi- our, accused him to Pilate of having made him- self the Son of God and King of the Jews ; but relin- | quished the charge of making himself equal to God, or having ascribed to himself divine nature ; although the latter (i. e. making himself God) was better cal- culated to excite the horror of the people. Vide John, | xix. 7, “The Jews answered him, We have a law, | and by our law he ought to die; because he made himself the Son of God.” Vide Matthew, xxvii. 37, | « Andset up overhishead his accusation written, This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” 43, “ He TRUSTED IN Gop ; let him deliver him now, if he will have ‘him: for he said, I am the Son of God.” That the epithet God is frequently applied in the sacred Scriptures, other- ‘wise than to the Supreme Being, as pointed out by E a ( 26°) Jesus, may be shewn by the following out of many’ instances to be found in the Bible. Deuteronomy, x. 17, “ For the Lord your God is Gop oF Gops, and Lord of Lords, &e.” xxxii. 21, “ They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God.” —Exodus xxii. 28, “ Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” Joshua, xxii. 22, “ The Lord God of Gods knoweth.” Psalm |xxxii. 1, “ God standeth in the congregation of the mighty ; he judg- eth among the Gods.” 6, “I have said, Ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.” exxxvi. 2, “ O give thanks unte the God of Gods.” Isaiah, xli. 23, “ Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are Gods.” Psalm xevii. 7, “Worship him, allye Gods.” Zephaniah, ii. 11.“ He will famish all the Gods of the earth.” Exodus, iv. 16, “God said to Moses, that he should be to Aaron inst s1d of God.” vii. 5, “ See, Ihave madethee a God to Pharaoh.” also 1 Corinth. viii. 5, “As there be Gods many and Lords many,” and the versealready quoted from John x. 34, 35, “ Jesus answered, Is it~ not written inyour Law, Ve are Gods ? If ye call them Gods, to whom the word of God came, &c.” In none of these instances is it in any degree admissible, that by the epithet God it is implied, that the hu- man beings to whom it was attached were thereby declared to be a portion of the Godhead. Moses was to be as a God to Aaron and a God to Pharaoh by the express command of the Almighty ; but no Christian will thence argue the equality of Moses with. b(=97)) the Father of all things. On what principle then can any stress be laid in defence of the deity of the Son on the prophetic expression quoted in Hebrews from Psalm xlvii. 6, “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever Be) Z and ever,” especially when we find in the very next verse, words that declare his subordinate nature ; * Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness : therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows?” We cannot allow much weight to the phrase “ for ever,” as esta- blishing literally the eternal nature of the power of the Son, this phrase being often found metapho- rically applied in the Scriptures to other created beings: as Proverbs, xxix. 14, “The king that faith- fully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be establish- ed for ever.” Deut. iv. 40, “ And that thou mayest prolong thy days in the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever.” Similar to this is the remarkable expression of Jesus to Mary after his resurrection, and therefore at a time when no design can be conceived to have existed that could have been advanced by his any longer withholding the knowledge of his true nature, if any thing remained unrevealed during the previous period of his mission on earth. John, xx. 17, “ Go tomy brethren, and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” | After a slight attention to the terms Lord and God being often applied to menin the sacred writings, E2 ( 28 ) cap any weight be allowed to the exclamation of the astonished disciple, John, xx. 28, “ My Lord and my God ;” especially as the Apostle who relates the circumstance within a few verses concludes by saying, 31, “ These are written that ye might be- lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ;” but no where desires the readers of his Gospel to believe that Jesus is God?—Does not common sense point out the inferiority and subordination of a Being, though called God, to one who is at the same time declared to be his God, his father, his sanctifier, and his promoter to the state of exaltation ¢ " The passage John i. 1, “ The Word was God, and the Word was with God,” which contains the term God twice, may according to such use of the term be inter- preted without involving inconsistence with itself, or the contradiction which it apparently implies with another most decisive passage in Deut. xxxii. 39, where Moses representeth God as declaring, that with him there is no God: “ See now that I,even I am he; and there is no God with me ;” if it should be under- stood to signify in both instances the Supreme Dei- ty. Should we follow on the other hand the inter- pretation adopted by Trinitarian Christians, namely, that the Godhead, though it is one, yet consists of three persons, and consequently one substance of the Godhead might abide with the other, both being equally God; we should in that case be forced to view the Godhead in the same light.as we considep ( 29) mankind and other genera, for no doubt can exist of the unity of mankind :—the plurality of men consists in their persons ; and therefore we may safely, under the same plea, support the unity of man, notwith- standing the plurality of persons included under the term mankind. In that case also Christians ought in conscience to refrain from accusing Hindoos of polytheism ; for every Hindoo we daily observe con- fesses the unity of the Godhead. They only ad- vance a plausible excuse for their polytheism, which is, that notwithstanding the unity of the Godhead, it consists of millions of substances assuming differ- ent offices correspondent to the number of the va- rious tr ansactions superintended in the universe by divine Providence, which they consider as infi- nitely more numerous than those of the Trini- tarian scheme. The Saviour in his appeal, “ If I do not the works of my Father believe me not,” John, x. 37, meant of course the performance of works prescribed by the Father, and tending to his glory. A great number of passages in the Scriptures, a few of which I have already cited, and the constant practice of the Savi- ur, illustrate this fact beyond doubt.—In raising La- arus after he had died, Jesus prayed to the Fa- her for the power of bringing him to life again, and hanked him for his compliance. John, xi. 41, “ And esus lifted up his eyesand said, Father, I thank thee ( 30) that thou hast heard me.” Besides, in declaring that whosoever believed him would do not only the works he performed, but even works of greater importance, Jesus never can be supposed to have promised to such believers equality in power with God, or to have exalted them above himself. John, xiv. 12, “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do.” yi. 29, “ Jesus an- swered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” It must be admitted that one, who can perform works of God independently of the Deity, is either greater than or equal in power to the Almighty. The wonderful works which Jesus was empowered to perform drew a great number of the Jews toa belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah, and confirmed his Apostles in their already acquired faith in the Saviour, and in the entire union of will and design that subsisted be- tween him and the Father, as appears from the fol- lowing passages; John vi. 14, “ Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world.” See also John, x. 21. The Scriptures indeed in several places declare, that the Son was superior even to the angels in hea- ven, living from the beginning of the world to eter- nity, andthat the Father created ali things by him and for him. At the same time I must, in confor- ( 3t ) mity to those very authorities believe him as pro- duced by the Supreme Deity among created Be- ings. John, v. 26, “ For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” Colossians, i. 15, “ Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature.” | ( 32 ) CHAP. III. Separate consideration of the seven positions of the Reviewer. IN attempting to support his first position, that Jesus was possessed of ubiquity, the Reverend Editor has quoted two passages. The first is, S¢. John, iii. 13, “ No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven ;” wherein Jesus, as the Edi- tor conceives, deciares his location both in heaven and on the earth at one time.—The Editor rests entirely the force of his argument upon the term “js,” in the above phrase “ who is in heaven,” as sig- nifying the presence of Jesus in heaven while he was conversing with Nicodemus on earth.—This argu- ment might perhaps carry some weight with it, were not the frequent use of the present tense in a pre- terite or future sense observed in the sacred writings, and were not a great number of other passages to determine that the term “ is,” in this instance, must be understood in the past sense. John, viii. 58, “ Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say © unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” Here the same verb, though found in the form of the present tense, must obviously be taken in a preterite sense. John, xi. 8, “ His disciples say unto him, Mas- ter, the Jews of late sought to stone thee, &c.” that is, His disciples said unto him. 38, “ Jesus there- ” 7 SS ap ee ee , (Re, |) MM Ty ( 83. ) z. e. he came to the grave. Matthew, xxvi. 2, “ Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and. the Son of man 7s betrayed to be crucified ;” that is, the Son of man is to be betrayed and to be cruci- fied.—vide the remainder of the chapter. John, xiii. 6, “ Then cometh he to Simon Peter, &c.” that is, he came to Simon Peter, &c. Again, John, xvi. 32, “ That ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: yet J am not alone,” i. e. yet I shall not be alone. So in all the prophecies contained inthe Old, as well as in the New Testa- ment, the future tense must frequently be under- stood where the terms used are those grammatically appropriated to the preterite: as Matthew, ii. 18, * In Rama was there a voice heard,” that is, will there be a voice heard. 15, “Out of Egypt have I'called my Son,” 7. e. I will call my Son.—After a diligent at- tention to the following passage no one will, I pre- sume, scruple to conclude that the Son was actually absent from heaven during his locality on the earth, | and consequently. the phrase quoted by the Editor | is applicable. only to the past time. John, vi. 62, | “ What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend | up where he was before.” The verb was, accompa- | nied with the term before in this passage, positive- | ly implies the absence of Jesus from heaven during his stay on the earth. xvi: 7, ‘“‘ Nevertheless I tell | you the truth ; it is expedient for you that I go away. If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto ) you; but if Z depart, I will send him unto you.” 5, “ But now I go my way to him that sent me.” 28, ( 34 ) * I came forth from the Father, and am conte into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” xiii. 36, “ Jesus answered him, Whither Igo thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards.” xii. 1, “ Jesus knew that his hour was come, that he should depart out of this world unto the Father.” For further conviction I-may safe- ly refer even to the preceding terms of the verse re- lied on by the Editor :—“ No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man.” For the attribute of omnipre- sence is quite inconsistent with the human notions of the ascent and descent effected by the Son of man. Is it possible to reconcile the contents of hundreds of such passages, consistent with reason and conform- able to the established order of interpretation, to the apparent meaning of a single phrase, that, taken literally, is totally opposed to common sense? For to. a being named the Son or the created (the one term implying the other), and sent from one man- sion to another, the attribute of ubiquity can never be justly ascribed. Besides, in examining tke original Greek Testa- ment, we find in the phrase in question, “Who is in heaven,” that the present participle ay, “being,” is used in lieu of éozi, “ is,” viz. 6 ay & Tq gpa; a true translation of which should be, “ the ens” or “being in heaven:” and as the nominative case ow, “the being,” requires a verb to complete the sense, it should be connected with the nearest ( 35°) verb dva€sGyxe, “hath ascended,” no other verse in fact existing in the sentence. The whole verse inthe original runs thus: Ka edale coves Cgxen eg rov Secor & wu 6 Tod seas xurubsc, 0 vidg To) wieers 0a tv 7a sour. A verbal translation of the above would run thus: “ And no one hath ascended into heaven, if not the out of heaven descender,— the Son of man—the being in heaven;” which words, arranged according to the rules of English gram- mar, should run thus; “And no one, except. the» descender from heaven, the Son of man, the being in heaven, hath ascended into heaven.” In this case the presence of the Son in heaven must be understood as referring to the time of his ascent, and not to that of his addressing himself to Nicodemus —an explanation which, though it does not serve to establish the omnipresence of the Son urged by the Editor, ought to be satisfactory to an impartial mind*. Thesecond passage which the Editor quotes on this subject is, Matthew, xviii. 20, “ For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Is it not evident that * See Bishop Middleton’s “ Doctrine of the Greek article,” Part I. pave 42. Note. “ We are to refer the time of the participle to the time of the act &c. implied in the verb; for past, present, and future can- not he meant otherwise than in respect of that act.” Leviticus, ch. vii. 23, « ta | 2 MeIGOspav—auTw eotat 5 Feaxiwyo dekios. “The offering (person) for | hm siit be the right shonider.” xiv. 47, 9 E0S@v—rrAvvet TH ARTIC AUTOV “ Yhe eating (person) shall wash his clothes.” ‘These present participles | are referred to a time present with respect to the act of the verbs con- nected with them; but fnture with respect to the command of God, | John i. 49 ovTa—E10oy oé “ J saw thee when thon wast.” Moreover, we - frequently find the present participle used in a past sense, even without reference to the time of the verb. John ix, 25, TUDA0s wy apts Brew |» “ Being biind now I see,” that is, “ Having been blind now I see,” ( 36 ) the Saviour meant here, by being in the midst of two or three of his disciples, his guidance to them when joined in searching for the truth, without preferring any claim to ubiquity? We find similar expressions — in the Scriptures, wherein the guidance of the Pro- phets of God is also meant by words that would im+ ply their presence. Luke, xvi. 29, “ Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the Prophets ; let them hear them.” No one will suppose that this expression is intended to signify that the Jews ac- tually had Moses and the Prophets in person among them, or that they could hear them speak: in the literal and not in the figurative sense of the words ; nor can any one deduce the omnipre- sence of Moses and the Prophets from such ex- pressions. The second position advanced by the Reverend Editor is, that “ Jesus ascribes to himself a know- ledge and an incomprehensibility of nature equal to that of God, and peculiar to God alone ;” and in attempting to substantiate this point he quotes Matthew, xi. 27,“ No man knoweth the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” Here the Editor seems to rest on two grounds; Ist, That God is incomprehensible to man; 2ndly, | That incomprehensibility of nature is peculiar to ‘God alone :—whence the Rev. Editor draws his infer- ence, that Jesus knowing the nature of God, and be- ing himself possessed of an incomprehensible nature. ( 37)- is equal with God. Now I should wish to know if the Editor, by the term “incomprehensible,” understands a total impossibility of comprehension in any degree, or only the impossibility of attaining to a perfect knowledge of God.—If the former, I must be un- der the necessity of denying such a total incompre- hensibility of the Godhead; for the very passage cited by the Editor declares God to be comprelen- sible not to the Son alone, but also to every one who would receive revelation from the Son; and in this case the latter part of the passage, “ He to whom- soever the Son will reveal him,” must be acknow- ledged as conveying an exception to the assertion made in the former part of the sentence, “ Neither knoweth any man'the Father,” &c. We find also the following passages in John xiv. 16, 17, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nei- ther knoweth him: but ye know him,’—wherein Jesus ascribes to his disciples a knowledge of the Holy Ghost, whom the Editor considers one of the per- sons of the Godhead, possessed of the same nature with God. But if the Editor understands by the passage he has quoted, the incomprehensibility of the real nature of the Godhead ; I admit the posi- tion, but deny his inference, that such an incompre- “hensibility proves the nature of the object to be di- ee ( 38 ) vine, as being peculiar to God alone: for it appears evident that a knowledge of the real nature even of a common leaf, or a visible star, surpasses human comprehension; how then can a simple assertion, setting forth the incomprehensibility of an object, be considered as establishing its identity with God? In 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,” we have a passage, which, though it affirms in a stronger man- ner an ignorance of the day of resurrection, than that already quoted does of God, yet will not, I presume, be considered by any one as conveying the slightest insinuation of the divine nature of that day; though time is a common. object of ado- ration amongst Idolators. In treating of this point the Editor quotes another text, Matt. xi. 28, “Comeunto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest ;’—wherein Jesus declares his power of affording rest, which the Editor considers as_pe- culiar to God. All the Prophets, as well as Jesus, were from time to time sent by the Almighty to af- fordmentalrest to mankind, by imparting tothem the _comforts of divine revelation ; and by so doing they only fulfilled the commission given them by God: but no one ever supposed that in so doing they es- tablished claims to be considered incarnations of the divine essence. Proverbs xxix. 17, “Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest ; yea, he shall give | delight unto thy soul.” Revelation guides us toa ( 39 ) sure belief, that it is God that affords peace of mind, effects cures of the body, and bestows all sorts of comforts on his creatures. “I thank thee,” (says Jesus, Matthew xi. 25,) “ O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” Both our perceptions indeed and sacred authorities point out, that he lavishes all these gifts on us through prophets, physicians, and other phy- ‘sical causes, that are not considered by any sect as of a divine nature. The third position is, that Jesus exercised in anh independent manner, the prerogative of forgiving sins, which is peculiar to God alone; and the Reve- rend Editor quotes the passage, Mark ii. 5, “ Thy ‘sins be forgiven thee,” and the 9th verse, “ For whether is it easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; “or to say, Arise and walk ¢’—taking those texts as the grounds of his position, I therefore beg to call the ) attention of the Editor to the passage almost imme- “diately following, in which the evangelical writer in- /timates, that this power of forgiving sins, as well jas of healing men, was given by the Almighty. |“ But when the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such power unto men.” Does not this passage convey an express declara- tion, that Jesus was as much dependent on God in exercising the power of forgiving sins and healing the sick, as the Prophets who éame forth from God ( 20 4 before him? The Apostles. who witnessed the pow- er of forgiving sins in the Saviour, were thoroughly impressed with a belief that it was the Almighty Fa- ther who forgave sins through the Son. Acts v. 31, 32, “ Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things.” Chap. xii. 38, “ Be it known, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man, (meaning the Saviour,) is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” I know not how far religious zeal in the breasts of many of the followers of Christ may excuse them in encroaching upon the prerogatives which revelation and reason ascribe to the divine Majesty alone; but Jesus himself clearly avows, that the power of forgiving sins had its source and origin in God alone, as appears from his petitioning the Father to forgive those that were guilty of bringing the death of the cross upon him, the greatest of all imaginable crimes. Luke xxiii. 34, “© Father, forgive them,” (says Jesus,) “for they know not what they do;” and from his directing all those that followed him to pray the Father alone for forgiveness of sins. Luke xi, 4. “ And forgive us our sins.” Matthew vi. 14, “If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you.” | The fourth position advanced by the Editor is, the « Almighty poweris also claimed by Jesus in the most unequivocal manner.” In ende av’ ouring to demonstrate f %, ( 41 ) this, the Editor notices three passages of John, (chap. v. 21, 22, and 23,) “ As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Sen, even as they honour the Father.” A candid enquirer after truth must, I think, feel surprised and disappointed, that in quoting these texts, the Editor should have overlooked the force of the words, in which the Son declares that he hath received the commission to judge from the Father; “ For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.’ [am ready to admit indeed, that, taken simply as they stand, the words “ As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will,” and, “ That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father,” might very readily be understood as implying an assertion of equality with the Father. But this affords one of numerous instances of the danger of resting an opinion on the apparent meaning of the words of insulated passages f Scripture, without attention to the context; for am convinced, that no unprejudiced person can eruse the verses preceding and subsequent to those quoted by the Editor, without feeling that a more xplicit disavowal of equality with God can hardly pexpressed by language than that which they con- :—I must therefore beg permission to give the tire passage in this place, though some parts of it G ( 42 ) have been quoted before in support of arguments already discussed. It is to be observed, that the oc- casion of the expressions here made use of by Jesus was the accusation brought against him by the Jews, that he had made himself equal with God: —John, v. 19—36, “ Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Fa- ther do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth himallthings that himself doeth; and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quick- eneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Som: that all men should honour the Son, even as. they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is pass- ed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in him- self, so hath he given to the Son to have life in him- self; and hath given him authority to execute judg- mentalso, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that ( 48 ) are in the grave shall hear his. voiee, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrec- tion of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. I can of mine own self do nothing : as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just ; because I seek not mine own will; but the will of the Father who hath sent me. If I bear witness of inyself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But T receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning and ashining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. ButI have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Futher hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.” | _ It-would have been strange indeed had Jesus, in | repellingthe accusation of blasphemy, which had | wrought on the minds of the Jews so far that they | sought to kill him, confirmed their assertion, that he | made himself equal with God, and thus prematurely endangered his own life—but we find that so far \from being further incensed by the explanation above quoted, they seem to have quietly acquiesced in his appeal to their own Scriptures, that the Mes- siah should have all the power and authority which he asserted the Father had given to himself. 46, a2 ( 4) “ For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” The only text in the writings of Moses that refers to the nature of the Messiah, is that of Deuteronomy, xviii. 15 and 18, quoted by St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, iii. 22, and by St. Stephen, vii. 37, Moses said to the children of Israel, “'The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.” The. words which the Lord addressed to Moses were exactly of the same import, “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, &e.” It was no doubt to this remarkable passage that Jesus referred, and nothing can more distinctly prove the light in which he wished to be considered, namely, that of a Messenger or Prophet of God. But this is not the only instance in which Jesus entirely disclaims the attribute of omnipotence. On many other particular occasions he declares in the strongest language, his want of almighty power, and his constant need of divine influence. Mat- thew, xx. 23,“ And he saithunto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give ; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” xii. 28, “ But if I cast out devils’ by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” xxvi. 39, “ And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my ( 45 ) Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: rievertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” 42, “He went away again the second time, and prayed, say- ing, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” Luke xxii. 32, “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith failnot, &c.” John xii. 27, “Father, save me from this hour.” Whosoever honours God, cannot, I presume, consistently refuse to honour his Prophet, whom he dignified with the name of “ Son of God ;” and as he honours God he will also honour that Prophet, though lie be well aware of the distinction beween the Al- mighty and his chosen Son. The honour paid to the Prophet may in this sense be fairly considered the test of thereal degree of respect entertained for God—as Jesus saith, Matthew x. 40, “ He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” The obvious meaning of which words is, As far as men listen to your instructions, they listen to mine; and in so far they receive the ‘commandments of God who hath sent me. Prejudice alone could, I think, infer from such expressions, that those who received the Apostles were literally receiving God himself under their form and sub- stance. Equally demonstrative of prejudice, I con- |eeive, would it be to deduce the identity or equality of the Father and the Son from the following passage ; John v. 23, “That all men should honour the Son, leven as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent im.” For in this very passage the Son is represented things are possible, (Luke i. 37.) to bestow wisdom| ( 46 ) as the Messenger of the Father, and for that reason only entitled to honour. That the preposition as” implies here, as in many other places, likeness in nature and quality, and not in exact degree of ho- nour, is illustrated by its obvious meaning in the last verse of Matthew yi. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect;” for by these words no one can conceive, that equality in degree of perfection between God and the disciples is in- tended to be enjoined, The fifth position is, that his heavenly Father had committed to Jesus the final judgment of all who have lived since the creation. I readily admit the correctness of this position, and consider the fact as confirming the opinion maintained by me, and by numerous other followers of Christ, as to the Son’s total dependence on the com- mission of God for his power in administering such judgment. I agree also with the Reverend Editor, in esteeming the nature of this office most important; and that nothing but the gift of supernatural wisdom can qualify a being to judge the conduct of thousands of millions of indivi- duals, living at different times from the begin- ning of the world to the day of resurrection. It is however perfectly consistent with the omnipotence and wisdom of God, who is declared by revelation to be “able of these stones to raise up children unt Abraham,” (Matthew iii. 9.) and with whom ( 47 ) equal to the important nature of this office on the first- born of every creature, whom he has anointed and exalted even above his angels. But the Editor goes much further than I am willing to follow him, in con-: eluding the omniscience of the Son, from the cireum- stance of his distributing final judgment ; since Jesus: not only disclaimed that attribute, but even expressly avowed that he received his qualifications for exer- cising judgment from God. With respect to his dis- claiming omniscience, see Mark xiii. 32. “ Buti of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but: the Father.” Omniscience, as the Editor must be well aware, has no limit; but here Jesus expressly declares, that he is ignorant of the day appointed by the Father for the resurrection and judgment: What words can be more expressly declaratory than these of the finite nature of the knowledge grant- _ed to Jesus, however its extent may actually surpass our limited capacity. As a proof that his judicial. authority is derived from God, see John v. 26 and | 27, “For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath _ he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath. given him authority to execute judgment also.” 30, | “I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear, I | judge ; and my judgment is just ; because I seek not | mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” Is it possible to misunderstand the asser- tion contained in these words, that both the au- thority and the ability to judge are gifts estas ‘on the Son by the omnipotent Father? ~ (\ 48 ) The sixth position is, thatin several instances, Je- sus accepted worship “ due to no man, but to God alone ;” and instances of his receiving worship from a blind man, a leper, from mariners, and from his disciples, are adduced from the evangelical writings. —Every one mustadmit that the word“ worship,” both in common acceptation and in the Scriptural writings, is used sometimes as implying an external mark of religious reverence paid to God, and at other times, as signifying merely the token of civilrespect due to superiors ; and that concurrent circumstances in every instance determine the real sense in which the word should be taken. Among the Prophets of God, Jesus was not the only one that permitted him- self to be worshipped, as we find Daniel the Prophet allowing himself such worship. Daniel ii. 46, “Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel.” Daniel, like Jesus, neither re- buked the man who worshipped him, nor did he feel indignant at such a tribute of respect; yet we can- not find any subsequent assertion that he had offend- ed God by suffering himself to be the object of the King’s worship in this instance. Besides, Jesus him- self uses the word worship in the latter sense, (I mean that of civil-reverence) in one of the evange- lical parables, where he represents a servant as wor- shipping his master. Matthew xviii. 26,“The ser-— vant therefore fell down and worshipped him.” From the circumstance of Jesus positively com- manding human beings to worship God alone in spirit, and not in any form or shape, either human or ( 49 ) angelic; as John iv. 24, “ God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Matthew iv. 10, “ Thow shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” And from the circumstance of his rebuking the man who called him “good master,’ on the ground that the term “good” should be peculiarly applied to God alone, (Matthew xix. §&G,) we necessarily conclude that Jesus accepted worship only as a mark of hu- man respect and acknowledgment of gratitude. Let us moreover ascertain from the context, the sen- timents which the blind man, the leper, the mari- ners, and the disciples of Jesus entertained of his na- ture ; and we can no longer hesitate to believe, that they meant by the worship they offered only the manifestation of their reverence for him as a superi- or indeed, yet still as a created being. The question is; Did those that offered worship to Jesus evince ‘that they believed him to be God, or one of the three | persons of the Godhead, and equal to God? Nothing of the kind—the blind man after his cure spoke of Jesus as a Prophet, and a righteous man, and be- lieved him when he said he was the Son of God. John ix. 31, “ Now we know,” (says the blind man), “that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be eth.” 33, “If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.” And in answer to the question of peat “ Dost thou believe on the Son of God” he answers, “ Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.” H a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he hear- | 7° ( 50 ) 38. The unclean spirit which is said in Mark to have worshipped Jesus, “Cried witha loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou tor- ment me not.” Mark, v.7. This adjuration would have been absurd if Jesus were himself addressed as God; and clearly shews, that the worship offered was to deprecate the power.of,a being whose nature was subordinate to that of God, by whose name he was adjured.—The leper, too, glorified God, while to Jesus he gave only thanks for being the instru- mentof his cure. Luke xvii. 15 and 16, “ And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks.” —The mariners who worshipped Jesus declared at the same instant, “Of atruth thou art the Son of God.” Matthew xiv. 33. The woman of Canaan, who is also stated in Matthew xv. 25, to have worshipped Jesus, addressed him, 22, as “the son of David,” by which term,she certainly would not have designated a being whom she wor- shipped as God. Peter, the most celebrated of his disciples, shewed his faith in acknowledging Jesus merely as the Christ, or in other words with the same exact sense, the anointed of God—which is certainly far from implying “ very God.” Mark vill. 9. Even after the crucifixion we find the disci-_ ples conversing of Jesus only as “ a Prophet, mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people.” Luke xxiv. 19. It was Jesus himself risen from the dead whom they addressed, yet throughout the re- ( abe) mainder of the chapter, which concludes with the ac- count of his being carried up to heaven, they are only further taught that this Prophet was the pro- mised Messiah, but by no means that it was their duty to worship him as God. Peter in the name of all the disciples declares, John vi. 69, “ We believe and are sure that thou art Christ, the son of the living God.” And as already observed, the disciple John de- clares, that the object of the Gospel is, “that it may be believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of Ged.” John xx. 31. When the leper prayed to Jesus for cure, he addressed him only with the term zypi0; (Matthew viii. 2,) which in Greek is used as syno- nymous to Lord or Master, and often applied to superior persons. Every Christian is morally bound to evince obedi- ence to the commandments of Jesus, and exert him- self to follow his example. It behoves us therefore to ascertain, what his commandments are with re- gard to the object of sacred worship and prayer, and in what manner he himself performed those solemn religious duties. The very act of prayer indeed | implies an acknowledgment of inferiority to the | beingadored ; but though Trinitarians affirm that such | devotion was paid by Jesus only in his human capaci- _ty, his form of prayer ought still to be sufficient to | guide human creatures as to the Being to whom ~ their prayers should be addressed. Let us examine therefore, whether Jesus in his acknowledged human | capacity ever offered worship or prayer to what Tri- t H 2 KV ( 92 ) nitarians term the second or third person of the Godhead, or once directed his followers to worship or pray to either of them. But so far from finding a single direction of the kind, we observe on the contra- ry, that Jesus strictly enjoins us to worship the Father alone in that form of prayer which he offered for our guidance. Maithewvi.9,“ After this manner therefore pray ye, Our Father which art in heaven, &c.” “ Pray te thy Father whichisin secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall rewardthee openly.” In the same way, when the Saviour himself prays, he addresses the Father alone.—Matthew xxyi. 53, “ Thinkest thou,” says Jesus to Peter, “ that I cannot now pray to my Father.’ John xvi. 26, “I will pray the Fa- ther for you.” Luke xxii. 41 and 42, “ And he (the Saviour) was withdrawn from them about a stone’s east, and kneeled down; and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me.” Mark xiv. 35 and 36, “ And fell on the ground, and prayed, that if it were possible the hour might pass. from him. And he said, dbba, Father, all things are. possi- ble unto thee.’,vi. 12, “He wentout unto a mountain to pray, and continued all night in. prayer to. God.” Luke x. 21, “ In that hour Jesus. rejoiced in. spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of. heaven and earth.” John xi. 41, “ And Jesus lifted, up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.” Matthew xxviii. 46, ““My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?”. John iy. 22, “ Ye worship ye know not what ; we know what.we worship.” No creed drawn up by men, nor opinion entertained by ( 53) any sect, can by an unbiassed searcher after the true doctrines of Christianity be suffered to set aside the express authority and constant example of the gracious author of this religion. The last position is, that Jesus associated his own name with thatof God in the rite of baptism, intend- ed to remain in force to the end of the world; and ordained by the passage, Matthew xix. 28,“ Go yeAxv'® and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” A profession of belief in God is unquestionably com- mon to all the religions supposed to have been found- ed upon the authority of the Old Testament ; but each is distinguished from the other by a public profession of faith in their respective founders, ex- pressing such profession in a language that may clearly exhibit the inferior nature of those founders to the divine Being, of whom they declare them- | selves the messengers. This system hasbeen carried 'on from the first, and was no doubt intended to serve as a perpetual distinguishing mark of faith. The Jews claim that they have revelation, rendering a belief not in God alone, but in Moses also, incum- bent upon them. Exodus xiv. 31, “ The people fear- | ed the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses.” But the term “ his servant Moses,” in this passage, suffices to prove the subordination of Moses, though declared, equally with God, to be an object of | their belief. In like manner Mohummudans, in-the first acknowledgment of that system of religion, UG "2s 4 ‘ 4. ( “ot 9) are directed to profess faith in God, and also in Mohummud, his messenger, in the following form: alll ae) sox aid al¥ “There is no God except the true God, Mohummud is his messenger.” The term “his messenger” removes every doubt of Mohum- mud’s identity or equality with God; so the epithet “ Son” found in the passage, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, &e.” ought to be understood and admitted by every one as expressing the created nature of Christ, though the most highly exaltedamong all creatures. If baptism were admi- nistered to one embracing Christianity in the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost, he would thereby no more become enrolledas a Christian, than as a Jew or as a Mohummudan; for both of them, in common with Christians, would readily submit to be baptized in the name of God and his prevailing influence over the universe. But as Christianity requires peculiarly a faith in Jesus, as the promised Messiah, the gracious Saviour enjoins baptism in the name of the Son also, so as to distinguish his happy followers from the Jews and the rest of the people. A mere associati- on of names in divine commandments therefore ne- ver can be considered as tending to prove identity or equality between the subjects of those names :— such junction of names is found frequently in the sacred writings without establishing unity among: the persons whom those names imply. . _ The Editor quotes the following passage, Mat- thew xxviii. 18, “ All power in heaven and oie is + ( 550 ) delivered unto me,” recommending it as a sure proof of the deity of Jesus.—I regret very much that the force of the expression “is delivered unto me,” found in this passage, should have escaped the dis- cerning notice of the Reverend Editor. Does not the term “ delivered” shew evidently an entire depen- dence of Jesus upon the being, who has committed to him such power? Is it consistent with thenature of an omnipotent God to exercise power delivered to him by another being, or to confess that the power he possesses has been received by him from another? As to the question of the Editor, “ Did Mo- hummud, arrogant as he was, ever make such a de- claration as Jesus did, namely, that ‘I am with you always even to the end of the world?” I will not renew the subject, as it has been already discussed in examining the first position. I only entreat the attention of the Editor to the following assertions of Mohummud, known to almost all Moossulmans who Ihave the least knowledge of their own religion. jayak bel) sade ins o> pal w! “Truly the great and slorious God: raised me as mercy and guidance to orld” aS ere Ny GN gd eds hess ‘Iwas the first of all Prophets in creation, and the last in appearance.” a ie WI gpols We wis “I was Prophet when Adam was in earth and water.” ese" 35 okey | sai! “I am the Lord of those that ere sent by God. This is no boast to me.” ( 56 ) Se de tbls | “My shadow is on the head only of my followers.” Mt el, A Gly ope “He who has seen me has. seen God.” al sie > M1 e bi as ce WU ye “He who has obeyed me, has obeyed God; and he who has sinned. against me, has smned against God.” It is however fortunate for Moossulmans, that from want of familiarity and intimate connection between | the primitive Mohummuddans and their contempo- rary heathens, the doctrines of Monotheism taught by Mohummud, and entertained by his followers, - have not been corrupted by polytheistical notions of pagans, nor have heathen modes of worship or festi-” vals been introduced among Moossulmans of Arabia™ and Turkey as a part of their religion. Besides, me-~ taphorical expressions having been very common” among Oriental nations, Mohummuddans could not fail to. understand them in. their propescrne, ale though these expressions may throw great difficulty in the way of an European Commentator even of profound learning. | a CHAPTER IV. Inquiry into the doctrine of the atonement. ALL the texts collected by the Reverend Editor in his review from the authority of the divine Teacher, in favour of the second important doctrine of the cross, implying the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus as an atonement for the sins of mankind, areas follow: * Tamtheliving bread which came down from bemien? if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.’ “ His giving his flesh for the life of the world.” “I | down my life for my sheep.” “ The Son of man is come to give his life aransom for many.” Is any one of these passages, I would ask, in the shape of an ex- plicit commandment, or are they more than a mere ‘statement of facts requiring figurative interpreta- tion? For it is obvious that an attempt to take them in their direct sense, especially the first, (“ Iam the living bread ;—if any man eat of this,” &c.) would a- mount to gross absurdity—Do they reasonably con- jvey any thing more than the idea, that Jesus was in- vested with a divine commission to deliver instruc- tions leading to eternal beatitude, which whosoever should receive shouldlive for ever? And that the Sa- viour, foreseeing that the imparting of those instruc- I ( 58 ) tions would, by exciting the anger and enmity of the superstitious Jews, cause his life to be destroyed, yet ‘hesitated not to persevere in their promulgation— as if a king, whohazards his life to procure freedom and peace for his subjects, were to address himself to them, saying, “I lay down my life for you.” This interpretation is fully confirmed by the following passages, Luke iv. 43, “ And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities al- so; for therefore am I sent.” ii. 47, 48 and 49, “ And all that heard him were astonished at his understand-_ ing and answers. And when they (his parents) saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? be- hold, thy Father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's bu- simess ?” Wherein Jesus declares, that the sole object’ of his mission was to preach and impart divine in- structions. Again, after having instructed his disci- ples in all the divine law and will, as appears from the following text, “ For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have receiv- ed them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me ;” (John xvii. 8.) Jesus in his communing with God manifests that he had completed the object of his mission by imparting divine commandments to mankind. “I have glorified thee on the earth, I have ( 59 ) Jinished the work which thou gavest me to do.” Had his death on the cross been the work, or part of the work, for the performance of which Jesus was sent into this world, he as the founder of truth would not -have. declared himself to have finished that work prior to his death. That Jesus should ride on a colt, should receive an offer of vinegar to drink, and should be wounded with a spear after he had delivered up the ghost, as well as his death on the cross, were events prophesi- ed in the Old Testament, and consequently these were fulfilled by Jesus: vide Luke xxiv. 26 and 27, “ Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” But -we are unhappily at a loss to discover any other de- _ sign in each of these events, which happened to Je- | sus before his ascent to heaven. I am therefore sor- _ ry that I must plead my inability to make a satisfac- tory reply to the question of the Editor, “ Had ever Jesus transgressed his heavenly Father's will, that he _ underwent such afflictions 2” I can only say, that we _ find in the scriptures that several other Prophets in common with Jesus suffered great afflictions, and some even death, as predicted. But I know not whether those afflictions were the consequences of . the sins committed by them or by their parents, or whether these distresses were experienced by them } 12 ( 60 ) through some divine purpose unknown to us; as som scriptural authorities shew beyond doubt, that mai may be made liable to sufferings for some secre divine purpose, without his or his parents having per petrated any remarkable crime; (John x. 3, “Jesu answered, Neither hath this man sinned nor his pa rents: but that the works of God should be mad manifest in him.”) The latter alternative, (namely that the righteous Prophets suffered afflictions anc even death for some divine purpose, known thorough _ ly to God alone), seems more consistent with th contents of the sacred writings, such as follow Mark xii. 1 to9, “ And he began to speak unt them by parables. A certain man planted a vine yard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a places for the wine fat, and built a tower, and let it out t husbandmen, and went into a far country. And a the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant that he might receive from the husbandmen of th fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him, an beat him, and sent him away empty. And again h sent unto them another servant; and at him the cast stones, and wounded him in the head, an sent him away shamefully handled. And again sent another; and him they killed, and many others beating some, and killing some. Having yet ther fore one Son, his well-beloved, he sent him also la unto them, saying, They will reverence my So But these husbandmen said among themselves, T is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inhe ( 61 ) tance shall be ours. And they tock him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do ? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vine- yard unto others.” John xv. 21 and 22, “ But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.” This parable and these passages give countenance to the idea, that God suffered his prophets, and Jesus, his be- loved Son, tobe cruelly treated and slain by the Jews, for the purpose of taking away every excuse that they might offer for their guilt. | Inexplaining the objects of Jesus’s death on the cross, the Editor confidently assumes, that “ If we _ view Jesus Christ as atoning for the sins of men, we _ have every thing perfectly in character: he became _ incarnate to accomplish that which could have been _- effected by neither men nor angels.” I should there- | fore wish to know whether Jesus, whom the Editor _ represents as God incarnate, suffered death and pain |. for the sins of men in his divine nature, or in his hu- man capacity? The former must be highly inconsis- _ tent with the nature of God, which, we are persuad- _ ed to believe by reason and tradition, is above being rendered liable to death or pain ; since the difference we draw between God, and the objects that are not _ God, is, that one cannot be subjected to death or ( 62 ) termination, and the other is finite and liable to mor- tality. That the effects of Christ’s appearance on earth, whether with respect to the salvation or con- demnation of mankind, were finite, and therefore suitable to the nature of a finite being to accom- plish, is evident from the fact, that to the present time millions of human beings are daily passing through the world, whom the doctrines he taught have never reached, and who of course must be considered as excluded from the benefit of his -having died for the remission of their sins. ‘The lat- ter, namely, that Jesus suffered death and pain in his human capacity as an atonement for the offences of others, seems totally inconsistent with the justice ascribed to God, and even at variance with those principles of equity required of men; for it would be a piece of gross iniquity to afflict one innocent being who had all the human feelings, and who had never transgressed the will of God, with the death of the cross for the crimes committed by others, espe- cially when he declares such great aversion to it, as is manifest from the following passages. Matthew xxvi. 37, 39,42 and 43,“ And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. And prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup (meaning death) pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will ( 637) be done.” Mark xiv. 36, “ And he said, Abba, Fa- ther, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.” Luke xxii. 42 and 44, “ Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, falling down to the ground.” John xii. 27,“ Nowis my soul troubled ; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.” Donot these passages evidently shew, that Jesus in his human capacity, (according to the _ Trinitarian phrase) felt averse to death and pain, and _ that he earnestly prayed that he might not be subject- _ ed toit? Jesus however, knowing that the will of the Father rendered such death unavoidable, yielded | to itas predicted. Jofn xi. 17 and 18, “ Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again: no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it _ down and Ihave power to take it again: this command- ment have Ireceived of my Father.” Matthew xxvi. 53 and 54, “ Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than ) twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scripture be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” The ini- -quity. of one’s being sentenced to death as an atone- ‘ment for the fault committed by another is so pal- /pable, that although in many countries the human z ( 64 ) race think themselves justified in detaining the per- sons of those men who, voluntarily making themselves responsible for the debt or the persons of others, fail to fulfil their engagements ; nevertheless, every just man among them would shudder at the idea of one’s being put to death for acrime committed by another, even if the innocent man should willingly offer his life in behalf of that other. In endeavouring to prove Jesus’s atonement for sin _by his death, the Reverend Editor urges, “Is he call- ed the Saviour of men because he gave them moral precepts, by obeying which they might obtain the divine favor, with the enjoyment of heaven as their just desert ? or, because he died in their stead to atone for their sins and procure for them every blessing, &e.? If Jesus be termed a Saviour merely because he instructed men, he has this honor in common. with Moses and Elijah and John the Baptist, neither of whom however assumed the title of Saviour.” We find the title “ Saviour” applied frequently in the di- vine writings to those persons who had been endued with the power of saying people, either by inculcat- ing doctrines, or affording protection to them, al- though none of them atoned for the sins of mankind by their death. Obadiah 21, “And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of| Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s.” Nehe- miah ix. 27, “ And according to thy manifold mer- cies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them ( &) out of the hand of their enemies.” , 2d Kings xiii. 5, “ The Lord gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Sy- rians.” How could therefore the Editor, a dili- gent student of the Bible, lay such stress upon the application of the term “Saviour” to Jesus, as to ad- duce it as a proof of the doctrine of atonement; es- pecially when Jesus himself declares frequently, that he saved the people solely through the inculeation of the word of God? John xv. 3, “ Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” y. 24,“ He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life.” vi. 63, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life :"—-wherein Jesus represents him- selfas a Saviour, or a distributerof eternal life, in his eapacity of divine teacher. Jesus is of course justly termed and esteemed a Saviour, for having instructed men in the divine _ will and law never before so fully revealed. Would _ it degrade Jesus to revere him as a divine teacher, because Moses and the Prophets before him deliver- _ ed to the people divine instructions: or would it _ depreciate the dignity of Jesus, to believe that he in } Common with several other Prophets underwent af- | flictions and death? Such an idea is indeed unscrip- | tural, for God represents the Christ as a Prophet equal | to Moses (Deuteronomy xviii. 18.) ; Jesus declares | himself to have come to fulfil the law taught by Mo- (79 ses, (Matthew v.A7.) “Think not that Iam come to de- stroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to de- stroy but to fulfil ;” and _ strictly commands his dis- ciples and the people at large to obey whatever Mo- ses had taught. xxii. 2 and 2, “ Saying, The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat : all therefore what- soever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” Iam sorry that I cannot, without offending my conscience, agree with the Reverend Editor in the opinion, that “If Jesus be esteemed merely a teach- er, the greater degree of honor must be given to Moses, for it was in reality his Law that Jesus ex- plained and established.” It is true that Moses began to erect the everlast- ing edifice of true religion, consisting of aknowledge of the unity of God, and obedience to his will and commandments; but Jesus of Nazareth has com- pleted the structure, and rendered his law perfect. To convince the Editorof this fact, I beg to call his attention to the following instances found even in asingle chapter, as exhibiting the perfection to which Jesus brought the Law given by Moses and other Prophets: Matthew v.21 and 22, “ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, ‘That ( g@%:5) whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the. council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” 27 and 28, “ Ye have heard that it was said by themof old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery.” 31 and 32, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” 33 and 39, “ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” 43, 44 and 45, ““ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy: but Isay unto you, Love your ene- mies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the chil- - dren of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.— Now I hope I may be justified in expressing my belief, (though it varies from the declaration made By the Editor,) that no greater honor can be justly giv- en to any teacher of the will of God than what is K?2 ( 68 ) due to the author of the doctrines just quoted, which, with a power no less than standing miracles could produce, carry with them proofs of their divine ori- gin to the conviction of the high and low, the spoil ed and unlearned. The Editor in page 101, lays much stress on cir- cumstances, the very minuteness of which, he thinks, “ serves to enhance their value as testimonies.” He alludes tothe epithet “Lamb of God” having been twice applied to Jesus by John the Baptist, two of whose disciples were thereby induced to become fol- lowers of Jesus. This is considered by the Editor as implying an admission on the part of Christ, that | as a lamb, particularly the Paschal Lamb, was used in sacrifice as an atonement for sins, he also came into the world to sacrifice his life as an atonement for sin. We find however the term “ lamb,” as well as * sheep,” applied in other places, where ‘no allusion to the sacrificial lamb can be well imagined, and from which we infer that these were epithets generally — applied to innocence subjected to persecution; a meaning which sufficiently accords with the use of . the word lamb in the instance in question. We have those terms applied by Jesus to his disciples in John xxi. 15, 16 and 17, where he commands Simon Peter “ to feed his lambs,” “ to feed his sheep ;” and in x. 26 and 27, “ Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep’—“My sheep hear my voice.”—Now many of the Apostles suffered death in consequence (PS 7) of their endeavours to withdraw men from sin ; but the Editor will not thence, I presume, maintain, though it follow from his argument, that the term “lamb” was applied to them, to shew that by their death, they also atoned for the sins of mankind. ‘The Reverend Editor might have spared the argu- ments he has adduced to prove, that Jesus was sent into this world as the long-expected Messiah, in- tended to suffer death and difficulties like other Prophets who went before him; as the Editor may find in the compilation in question, as well as in its defence, Jesus of Nazareth represented as “ The Son of God,” a term synonymous with that of Messiah, the highest of all the Prophets; and his life declares him to have been, as represented in the Scriptures, pure as light, innocent as a lamb, necessary for eternal life as bread for a temporal one, and great as the angels of God, or rather greater than they. He also might have omitted to quote such authority as shews, that Christ, being a mediator between God and men, * declared that whatsoever they (his Apostles) shall ask in his name, the Father will give them.” For the Compiler in his defence of the Precepts of Jesus re- peatedly acknowledged Christ as the Redeemer, Mediator, and Intercessor with God, in behalf of his followers. But such intercession does not, I presume. ‘tend to a proof of the deity or the atonement of Jesus, as interpreted by the Editor; for God is re- presented in the sacred books to have often shewn mercy to mankind for righteous men’s sakes; how 1 much more then would he naturally manifest his fa- vor towards those who might petition him in the name of one, whom he anointed and exalted over all creatures and Prophets? Genesis xxx. 27,. “I have learned by experience, that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.” Jeremiah xxvii. 18, “Butif they be Prophets, and if the word of the Lord be with them, let them now make intercession to the Lord of hosts.” Moreover, we findangels declared to have been endu- ed with the power of pardoning and redeeming men on various occasions. Genesis xlvili. 16, “The An- gel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads!” Exodus xxiii. 20 and 21, “ Behold, 1 send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.” ie x ~ With regard to this doctrme I have carefully no- ticed every argument advanced by the Editor; from the authority of Jesus himself, in its support ; and have adduced such arguments as may be used by those that reject that doctrine, and which they rest] on the authority of the same divine Teacher ; leavin the decision of the subject to the discreet judgment of the public, but declining to deliver any opinion an individual as to the merits thereof. — CHAPTER V. On the doctrines and miraculous narrations of the New Testament. - | REGRET that the Editor should have accused the Compiler of having charged “on the dogmas or doctrines of Christianity those wars and that blood- shed which have occurred between nations merely termed Christians.’’ The Compiler in his defence of the Precepts of Jesus has ascribed such disputes and contentions not to any thing contained in the Scrip- tures, but to the different interpretations of dogmas, which he esteemed not essential for salvation. In order to convince the Editor of the accuracy of my pasttion: I intreat his attention to page 18, line 22, and page 22, line 24, of my defence of the compiled Bre cepts, under the designation OE AD Appear cs to the Christian Public.” } } | The Editor observes, that “wars and bloodshed ex- isted before the promulgation of Christianity in the world; neither Christianity therefore nor its dogmas created the causes of wars and bloodshed. They existed in the human mind long before its doctrines were published ;” and that “ quarrels and feuds between the on and the orthodox in the fourth and the fifth ( FR) centuries were little more than struggles for power and wealth.” Although human frailty and want of perfection in men are in fact esteemed as the first and original causes of their improper conduct and wicked deeds, yet in the ordinary acceptation of the term “cause,” good or evil acts are invariably attributed to their immediate motives, ascertained from cireum- stantial evidence; and these acts are consequently held to entitle their respective agents to praise or re- proach.—But as the motives of actions and the se- erets of the human heart are in truth known to God alone, it is indeed beyond my power to establish in a satisfactory manner, that the majority of the primitive Arians and Trinitarians were excited by their mistaken religious zeal to slay each other, and not by a desire of power and wordly advancement—I would appeal however to the Editor himself, whether it would not be indeed very illiberal to suppose, that almost all the Christian world should for a period of two hun- dred years have been weak or wicked enough to en- gage wilfully in causing the blood of each other to be shed under the cloak of religion, and merely for worldly motives.—But as this must be a matter of opinion, I beg to shew that which has been entertain- ed on the subject by one of the highest authorities amongst the Trinitarians who have written on the his- tory of Christianity. I allude to Dr. Mosheim, whose. words I here give, and I entreat my readers to draw their own inferences from them. ( 73 ) Volume Ist, page 419—“ After the death of Con- stantine the Great, one of his sons Constantius, who in the division of the empire became ruler of the East, was warmly attached to the Arian party, whose prin- ciples were also zealously adopted by the Empress, and indeed by the whole Court. On the other hand Constantine and Constantius, Emperors of the West, maintained the decrees of the Council of Nice through- out all the provinces between the two contending parties.—Hence arose endless animosities and sedi- tions, treacherous plots, and open acts of injustice and violence between the two contending parties: Coun- cil was assembled against Council, and their jarring and contradictory decrees spread perplexity and confusion throughout the Christian world.” Page 420, “His (Gratian’s) zeal for their interest, though fervent and active, was surpassed by that of his suc- eessor Theodosius the Great, who raised the secular arm against the Arians with a terrible degree of vio- lence, drove them from their churches, and enacted laws, whose severity exposed them tothe greatest cala- ‘Mmities.” It is difficult to conceive what other motives than those of mistaken zeal for a particular doctrine could have influenced the mind of an Emperor like Theodosius to such acts of cruelty and yviolence— but however that may be, it is obvious that if such a mode of interpreting conduct be adopted, it is diffi- ‘eult to say where we are tostop. The devotion even ‘of the Apostles and Martyrs of Christianity may be attributed to a pursuit after power over the minds I (\ Aa and respect in the eyes of men, and all distinction of good and evil character be considered as futile and without foundation. With respect to the final success of the Trinitarian party, it appears to me the event naturally to have been expected. For to the people of those ages, doctrines that resembled the polytheis- tical belief that till then prevailed, must have been more acceptable than those which were diametrically epposed to such notions. The idea of a God in human form was easy and familiar: Emperors and Empresses had altars raised to them even during their lives, and after death were enrolled as divinities. Per- - haps too something may justly be attributed to a certain degree of pride and satisfaction in the idea, that the religion they had begun to profess was dic- tated immediately by the Deity himself, rather than — by any subordinate agency. There had not been among the Heathens any class of mankind to whom they were accustomed to look up with that devotion familiarly entertained by the Jews towards Moses and their Prophets, and they.were consequently ready to elevate to a God any being who rose in their esti- mation above the level of mankind. The violence and outrages which Roman. Catho- lics and Protestants have experienced from each other were not of course, as observed by the Reve- » rend Editor, owing in their origin to the adoption of ditferent interpretations respecting the deity of Christ or of the Holy Ghost; but they were the immediate ( 3%3)) consequences of the different sentiments they have held with respect to the doctrine of an exclusive power of granting absolution, and leading to eternal life, being vested inSt. Peter andhis successors. What great mischief has however been produced, and how many lives have from time to time been destroyed, from the difference of sentiments held by the parties with regard to this doctrine, which even the Editor himself does not deem an essential point of religion! The Editorin p. 114. argues, as a proof of theimpor- tance of the doctrines of the Gospel, that Christ taught them, fully foreseeing that they would be the subject of dispute ; and quotes his saying, that he came not to send peace on the earth, butasword. The whole of the 10th chap. of Matthew, from which the Editor quotes the passage here alluded to, consists of the instruc- tions delivered by Jesus to the twelve Apostles, when he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of heaven to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ; but has no allusion, that I can perceive, to eternal dissensions amongst those who were already or might afterwards become Christians. That Jesus foresaw, as one of the primary effects of preaching his Gospel, that great dissensions would arise—that he was aware that the great question of confessing him to be the Messiah or not would be as a sword between a man and his father, the daughter and her mother, and the daugh- ter-in-law and her mother-in-law, is evident. But this seems tome by no means to prove that Jesus, as sup- ( 76 ) posed by the Editor, “longed or almost longed” to see a fire kindled in the earth respecting doctrines not essential to the salvation of mankind. Nor would it have been any reason for suppressing the | most trivial of his sayings, that priesteraft work- ing on the ignorance and superstition, the bigotry or intolerance of mankind, should have wrested | his words to evil purposes.—As observed by the Editor himself, the mischief lay originally in hu- | man nature, not in any part of the doctrines of Christ; _ but as those dissensions are now perpetuated princi- | pally by education, a cause essentially distinct from their origin, the case is entirely altered. The corruption of the human heart cannot be totally removed ; but the evil effects that spring from human institutions may be avoided, when their real sources are known. After the secret and immediate causes of persecution have passed away, the differences of opinion which have been the declared grounds of hostility are hand- ed down by the teachers of different sects; and, as al- ready repeatedly avowed, it was with the view of evad- ing, not those questions concerning which Jesus spoke and which distinguish his followers from all others, but those which have from time to time been seized upon to excite enmities still existing amongst fellow Christians, that the Compiler confined himself to those Precepts, concerning which all mankind must be of one accord. ( £89 As to the question of the Editor, “It can scarcely be unknown to the Compiler, that the very being of a God has been for numerous ages the subject of dispute among the most learned of his own country; does he account this a sufficient reason for suppress- ing this doctrine? We know that he does not. Why then should he omit the doctrines of Christ and his | Apostles, because men have made them the subject _of dispute?” For a direct answer to this question I beg to refer the Reverend Editor to the Appeal of the Compiler, page 27, wherein he will find that he assigns not one, but two circumstan- ces, as concurring to form the motive of his hav- ing omitted certain doctrines of Christianity in his selection—Ist, that they are the subject of disputes and contention.—2ndly, that they are not essential to religion. It is therefore obvious, that the analogy between the omission of certain dogmas, and that of the being of a God, has been unfairly drawn by the Editor. Admitting that the doctrines of Christianity _and the existence of a God are equally liable to dis- putes, it should be recollected that the former are, in the estimation of the Compiler, not essential to re- ligion; while the latter is acknowledged by him, in _common with the professors of every faith, to be the foundation of all religion, as distinctly stated in his _ Introduction to the selected Precepts of Jesus. Eve- _ ry system of religion adopts the idea of a God, and _ avows this as its fundamental principle, though they _ differ from one another in representing the nature and attributes of the Deity. The Compiler therefore | could have no motive for suppressing the doctrine | of the being of a God, though disputed by a few pre- tended literary men ; and he has consequently never hesitated to inculcate with all his power the idea of one God to the learned and unlearned of his own country, taking care at the same time as much as possible not to enter into particulars as to the real nature, essence, attributes, person, or substance of the Godhead, thosebeing points above his comprehension, and liable to interminable disputes. ~The Reverend Editor thus expresses his surprize at the conduct of the Compiler, in omitting in his selection the miraculous relations of the Gospel:—“ We cannot but wonder that his miracles should not have found greater favor in the eyes of the Compiler of this selection, while the amazing weight which Jesus himself attached to them could scarcely have escaped his notice :” and in order to prove the importance of the miracles ascribed to Jesus, the Editor quotes three instances, in the first of which Jesus referred John the Baptist to his won- derful miracles ; in the second, he called the atten- tion of unbelieving Jews to his miraculous works as a proof of his divine mission ; in the third, he reeom-. mends Philip the Apostle to the evidence of his mi- racles. But after a slight attention to the cireum- stances in which those appeals were made, it appears clearly, that in these and other instances Jesus refer- red to his miracles those persons only who either scrupled to believe, or doubted him as the promised 1 ( (7) Messiah, or required of him some sign to confirm their faith. Vide Mat. xi. 2,3 and 4, “When John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another ? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew ; | John these things which ye do hearand see.” John x, 37 and 38, Jesussays to those Jews who accused him of blasphemy, “ If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works.” In reply to the request of Philip, who, being discontented with the doctrines Je- sus inculcated, said, “ Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us;’ Jesus answered and said, “ Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me, or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” (John xiv. 11.) : ; ; Jesus even speaks in terms of reproach of those ‘that seek for miracles for their conviction as to his divine mission. Matthew xii. 39, “ But he answer- ed and said unto them, An evil and adulterous ge- neration seeketh after a sign.” Moreover he blesses them, who, without having recourse to the proofs of | miracles, profess their belief on him. . John xx. 29, * Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen mae thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” Under these circumstances, and from the experi- “ence that nothing but the sublimity of the Precepts of Jesus. had at first drawn the attention of the | ( 80 } Compiler himself towards Christianity, and excited his veneration for the author of this religion, without aid from miraculous relations, he omitted in his com- pilation the mention of the miracles performed by Jesus, without meaning to express doubts of their authenticity, or intending to slight them by such an omission. I regret therefore, that the Editor should have suf- fered any part of his valuable time to be spent in advancing several arguments, in the concluding part of his Review, to establish the truth of the miracu- lous statements of the New Testament. But as this discussion applies to the evidence of miracles gene- rally, it may be worth considering. Arguments ad- duced by the Editor amount to this: “If all social, political, mercantile, and judicial transactions be al- lowed to rest upon testimony; why should not the validity of Christian miracles be concluded from the. testimony of the Apostles and of others, and be re-| lied upon by all the nations of the world.” The Edi- tor must be well aware, that the enemies to revelation draw a line of distinction on the subject of proofs by testimony, between the current events of nature fa-. miliar to the senses of mankind, and within the scope: of human exertions ; and extraordinary facts beyond the limits of common experience, and ascribed to a direct interposition of divine power suspending the: usual course of nature. If all assertions were to be indiscriminately admitted as facts, merely because QL eie) they are testified by numbers, how can we dispute the truth of those miracles which are said to have been performed by persons esteemed holy amongst natives of this country ? The Compiler has never pla- ced the miracles related in the New Testament on a footing with the extravagant tales of his countrymen, but distinctly expressed his persuasion that they (Christian miracles) would be apt at best to carry little weight with those whose imaginations had been ac- customed to dwell on narrations. much more wonder- ful, and supported by testimony which they have ‘been taught to regard with a reverence that they can- not be expected all at once to bestow on the Apostles. See Introduction to the Precepts, p. 4, and Appeal, p. 17. The very same line of argument indeed pursued oy the Editor would equally avail the Hindoos. Have | ‘hey not accounts and records handed down to them jelating to the wonderful miracles stated to have een performed by their saints, such as Ugustyu, Vu- histu, and Gotum; and their Gods incarnate, such as am, Krishnu, and Nursingh ; in presence of their temporary friends and enemies, the wise and the | snorant, the select and the multitude :—Could not he Hindoos quote in support of their narrated mi- hacles, authorities from the histories of their most hveterate enemies the Jeins, who join the Hindoos mtirely in acknowledging the truth and credibility hf their miraculous accounts ? The only difference jjhich subsists between these two parties on this isibject, is, that the Hindoos consider the power of K ( 82 ) performing miracles given to their Gods and Saints by the Supreme Deity, and the Jeins declare that they performed all those astonishing works by Asooree Shukti, or by demoniac power. Moossulmans on the other hand can produce records written and testified by cotemporaries of Mohummud, both friends and ene- mies, who are represented as eye-witnesses of the miracles ascribed to him; such as his dividing the moon into two parts, and walking in sunshine with- out casting a shadow. They can assert too, that se- veral of those witnesses suffered the greatest cala- mities, and some even death, in defence of that reli- gion; some before the attempts of Mohummud at conquest, others after his commencing such attempts, and others after his death. On mature considera- tion of all those cireumstances the Compiler hopes he may be allowed to remain still of opinion, that the miraculous relations found in the divine writings would be apt at best to carry little weight with them, when imparted to the Hindoos at large im the pre- sent state of their minds: but as no other religion can produce any thing that may stand in competi- tion with the Precepts of Jesus, much less that can be pretended to be superior to them, the Compiler deemed it incumbent upon him to introduce these among his countrymenas a Guide to Peace and Hap- piness. ( 83. ) CHAPTER VI. On the Impersonality of the Holy Spirit. Miscella- neous remarks. I WILL now enquire into the justness of the con- clusion drawn by the Editor in his attempt to prove the deity of the Holy Ghost, from the circumstance of his name being associated with that of the Father in the rite of Baptism. This subject is incidentally brought forward in the course of the arguments he has adduced respecting the nature of Jesus, where he observes, “It is needless to add that this testimo- ny of Jesus, (the associating of his own name and that of the Holy Ghost with the name of the Father,) is equally decisive respecting the deity of the Holy Ghost.” I have hitherto omitted to notice this ques- tion among other matters in review, reserving it for _ the express purpose of a distinct and separate exa- | mination. It seems to me in the first place rather _ singular, that the Reverend Editor, after having filled | up many pages with numerous arguments in his en- _ deayour to establish the Godhead of Jesus, should have noticed in so short and abrupt a manner, the | question of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, although _ the Editor equally esteems them both as distinct ( &&) persons of the Deity. I wonder in the next place, how the learned Editor could suppose a mere association of names in arite to be sufficient to prove the iden- tity of their subjects. Iam indeed sorry I cannot, without overlooking a great many scriptural autho- rities, and defying reason totally, join the Editor in the opinion, that the association of the name of the Holy Spirit with that of the Father of the Universe in the rite of Baptism, is “ decisive” of, or even allu- sive to the separate personality of the Spirit. 2d Chronicles, xx. 20, “ Jehoshaphat stood and said, Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem ; Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be esta- blished; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper :” — wherein the name of the Prophets of God is associat- ed with that of the Deity himself in the profession of belief, which is considered by Christians of all denominations more essential than an external sym- bol of Christianity. Again, in Jeremiah xxx. 9, “ But they shall serve the Lord their God, and Da- vid their King, whom I will raise up unto them,” the Lord joins his name with that of David in the act of religious sei vice, whichis in its strictest sense esteemed due to God alone. Would it not therefore be unserip- tural to make an attempt to prove the Deity of the Prophets, or David, under the plea that their names _are associated with that of God in religious obsery- ances? But we must do so, were we to follow the process of reasoning adopted by the Reverend Edi- ' ( 85 ) tor. The kind of evidence on which the Editor relies in this instance, would besides suit admirably the purposes of those who might seek in the sacred scriptures, grounds for justifying idolatry. Fire wor- shippers, for instance, insisting on the literal sense _ of the words, might refer to that text in the 3d chap- ter of Matthew repeated in Luke iii. 16. in which it is announced, that Jesus Christ will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. If the association in the rite of Baptism of the names of the Son and Holy Ghost, with that of the Father, proves their divinity; it is clear, that fire also, being associated with the Holy Ghost in the same rite, must likewise be con- _ sidered as a part of the Godhead. God is invariably represented in revelation as the main object of belief, receiving worship and prayers _that proceed from the heart through the first-born ofevery creature, the Messiah, (“ No mancometh unto _the Father but by me,” John xiv. 6,) and leading such as worship him in spirit to righteous conduct, and ultimately to salvation, through his guiding influence which is called the Holy Spirit, (“‘ when he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth,” John xvi. 13.) There is therefore a moral obligation on those who avow the truth of such revelation to | profess their belief in God as the sole object of wor- ship, and in the Son through whom they, as Christi- || ans, should offer divine homage, and also in the Holy influence of God, from which they should expect ' ( 86 ) direction in the path of righteousness, as the conse- quence of their sincere prayer and supplication. For the same reason also, in publicly adopting this religion, it is proper that those who receive it should be baptized in the name of the Father, who is the ob- ject of worship; of the Son, who is the mediator ; and of that influence by which spiritual blessings are conveyed to mankind, designated in the Scriptures as the Comforter, Spirit of truth, or Holy Spirit. As God is declared through his Holy Spirit to have led to righteousness such as sought heartily his will, so he is equally represented to have through his wrath afflicted rebels against his authority, and to have prospered through his infinite merey those who mani- fested obedience to him; as appears from the follow- ing passages :—2dKings xxiv. 20, “ For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem, until he had cast them out from his presence.” Psalm xe. 7, “ For we are consumed by thine an- ger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.” Psalm xxi. 7, “ And through the mercy of the Most High he shall not be moved.” Psalm vi. 4, “ Return, O Lord, deliver my soul: O save me forthy mercy’s sake.” | Norcanwelegitimately infer the idea of the self-exis- tence or distinct personality of the Holy Ghost, from such metaphorical language as the following, “ ‘The- Holy Ghost shall teach you,” Luke xii. 12. “The Holy Ghost is come upon you,” Acts i. 8. “ The Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send,” John xiv. 26. For we findexpressions of a similar nature ( 87 ) _ applied to other attributes of God, personifying them _ equally with the Holy Spirit. Psalm lvii. 3, “God shall send forth his mercy and his truth.” lxxxv. 10, “« Mercy and truth are met together.” c. 5, “The Lord _ is good, his mercy is everlasting.” xxxiii. 22, “ Let thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us.” xxxvi. 5, “Thy mercy, . O Lord, is in the heavens.” eviii. 4, “ For thy mercy _ is great above the heavens.” Evxek. vii. 3, “I will. send my anger upon thee.” 2d Chronicles xxiv. 18, “ Wrath came upon Judah for this trespass.” Were every attribute ascribed to the Deity, which is found personified, to be therefore considered as a _ distinct personage, it would be difficult to avoid | forming a very strange notion of the theology of || the Bible. It appears indeed to me impossible to | view the Holy Spirit as very God, without coming to ideas respecting the nature of the Deity, little i different from some of those most generally and _ justly condemned as found amongst Polytheists. | Take for instance, Matthew i. 11, where it is said, | that Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.. | 20, “That which is conceived in her, is of the | Holy Ghost.” Luke i. 35, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” In interpreting these passages / according to the opinion maintained by the Editor, | we should necessarily be drawn to the idea that God came upon Mary, and that the child which she bore’ ) was in reality begotten of him.—TIs this idea, I would ( 88 ) beg to know, consistent with the perfect nature of the righteous Ged? Or rather, is not such a notion of the Godhead’s having had intercourse with a human female, as horrible as the sentiments enter- tained by ancient and modern heathens respecting the Deity: On the other hand, if we understand by those passages, merely that the miraculous influence of God came upon Mary, so that, though a virgin, she bore a child, every thing would stand consist- ent with our belief of the divine power, without shocking our ideas of the purity of the Deity, incul- cated alike by reason and revelation. ‘This mode of interpretation is indeed confirmed by the very passage of Luke above quoted, “ The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ;” plainly and simply declaring, that it was the power of God which gave birth to the child, contrary to the ordinary course of nature. If by the term “ Holy Ghost” be meant a third distinct person of the Godhead, equal in power and glory with the Father of all; Iam ata loss to know what Trinitarians understand by such expres- sions asthe following: Matthew iii. t1, and Luke iii. 16, “ He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Acts x. 38, “Godanointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” Matthew xii. 28, “I cast out devils by the Spirit of God.” 31, “ All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” Luke iv. 1, “ And Jesus, being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from J ordan.” ( 89 ) If the term “ Holy Ghost” be synonimous with the third person of the Godhead, and “ Christ” with the second person, tke foregoing passages may be read as follows: ‘“ He, the second person, shall baptize you with the third person of the Godhead, and with fire.” “God anointed Jesus of Naza- reth (the second person of the Godhead) with the third person of the Godhead, and with power.” I (the second person of the Godhead) cast out devils by the third person of the Godhead.” “All manner of sin and blasphemy, even against the first and se- cond persons of the Godhead, shall be forgiven unto men ; but blasphemy against the third person of the Godhead shall not be forgiven untomen.” “Jesus (the second person of the Godhead) being full of the third person of the Godhead, returned from Jor- dan.” But little reflection is, I should suppose, neces- ary to enable any one to perceive the inconsistency of such paraphrases as the foregoing, and the reason- |vbleness of adopting the usual mode of scriptural in- ‘erpretation of the original texts, according to which he foregoing passages may be understood as follows: F He shall baptize you with the spirit of truth and varity.” “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with iis holy influence and power.” “ I cast out de- ils by the influence of God.” “ All manner of sin nd blasphemy even against the Christ, the first- om of every creature, shall be forgiven to Hen but blasphemy against the power of God shall a be forgiven unto men.” “Jesus being full L ( 90 ) of the influence of God returned from Jordan.” Still more dangerous to true religion would. it be to interpret, according to the Trinitarian mode, the passages which describe the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus on the occasion of his baptism. Lukeiii. 22, “And the Holy Ghost descended ina bodily shape like a dove upon him.” For if we believe that the Spirit, in the form of a dove, or in any other bodily shape, was really the third person of the Godhead, how can we justly charge with absurdity the Hindoo legends of the divinity having the form of a fish or of any other animal ? It ought to be remarked, with respect to the text above quoted, denouncing eternal wrath on those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, that the occasion on which the term was made use of by Christ was the accusation of the Jews, that his mi racles were the effects of an influence of a nature: directly opposite to that of God, namely, the power of Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. The Jews al leged that he was possessed of an unclean or diabo- lical spirit, ( Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit;” Mark iii. 30. “ They said, This fel low doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the. prince of the devils,” Matthew xii. 24.) Jesus affirms, that the Spirit which enabled him to do those won: derful works was a holy Spirit; and that whatever language they might hold with respect to himself, blas- ws ¢ SF) phemy against that power by which he did those miracles would not be forgiven. “ All manner of sins and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Were the words “all manner of blasphemy,” in the passage in question received as including blas- phemy against the Father, the text must be thus un- ‘derstood, “ All manner of blasphemy against man and the Father, and even blasphemy against the Son, ‘shall be forgiven; but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost must not be forgiven :’” and consequently the ‘interpretation would amount to an admission of the jsuperiority of the Son and the Holy Ghost to the (Father, an opinion which no sect of Christians has jhitherto formed. In the above quoted passage there- fore, the exception of the Holy Ghost must exclude \blasphemy against the Father, and the whole should be thusinterpreted :—AIl manner of blasphemy against men and angels, even against the first-born of every creature, shall be forgiven; but blasphemy against the power of God, by which Jesus declared himself fe have cast out devils, shall not be forgiven. For further illustration I quote here the whole passage be Matthew xii. 24 to 37, “ But when the Pharisees r ( 92 } heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out de- vils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, © Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to de- solation ; and every city orhouse divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is di- vided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand ? And if [by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out ? therefore they shall be your judges. But ifI cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of Ged is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? andthen he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with | me scattereth abroad. Wherefore Isay unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his frait. O generation of vipers, how can ye, be- ing evil, speak good things ? for out of the abundance | of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things : and an evil man out of the evil treasure bring- ( 93 ) eth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Mark iii. 29 and 30, “ But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal dam- nation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Is it not evident from the above authority of Jesus himself, that the term “ Holy Ghost” is synonymous _ to the prevailing influence of God ? and had not the power by which Jesus performed his miracles the / same origin, and was it not of the same nature as that by which the children of Israel performed _ theirs? “ If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out; therefore they shall be your judges.” It may not be without use to no- tice here, that frequent instances are related in the | scriptures of the influence of the Spirit of God, in leading righteous men to truth, before Jesus had -commenced the performance of his divine commis- | sion, and even before he had appeared in this world ; in the same manner as it afterwards operated in guiding his true followers to the way of God, sub- _ sequent to his ascent to heaven, in consequence of | his repeated intercession with the Father? This _will fully appear from the following passages, Luke -i.15, “And he (John the Baptist) shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” ( 94 ) 41, “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.” 67, “And his (John’s) father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, &c.” ii. 25, 26, “ And, behold, there was a man in Jerusa- lem, whose name was Simeon ; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel ; and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple.” Mark xii. 36, “David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” The Evangelist Matthew employs a similar ex- pression, xxii. 43, “How then doth David in spi- rit eall him Lord?” Luke iv. 1, “ And Jesus, being full of the Holy Ghost. returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” It must not therefore be supposed, that the manifestation of this holy attribute of God is peculiar to the Chris- tian dispensation. We find in the scriptures the term “ God” applied figuratively in a finite sense to Christ, and to some other superiors, as I have alrea- dy noticed in page 26:—a circumstance which may possibly have tended to confirm such as are render- ed from their early impressions partial to the doc- trine of the Trinity, in their prepossessed notions of — the deity of Jesus. But with respect to the Holy © — ( 95 ) Ghost, I must confess my inability to find a single passage in the whole scriptures, in which the Spirit is addressed as God, or as a person of God, so as to afford to believers of the Trinity an excuse for their profession of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. The only authorities they quote to this effect that I have met with are as follow: Acts v.3 and 4, “ Peter - said, Ananias, why hath Satan filledthine heart to lie tothe Holy Ghost? Thou hast not liedunto men, but unto God.” From which they conclude, He that lieth to the Holy Ghost, lieth to God. John xv. 26, “ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall tes- tify of me.” As to the first of these texts, I need only remark, that any sin or blasphemy against one of the attributes of God is of course reckoned a sin or blasphemy against God himself. But this admis- sion amounts neither to a recognition of the self- existence of the attribute, nor of its identity with God. With respect to the mission of the Spirit of truth as a proof of its being a separate existence, and not merely an expression for the influence of God, the passage in question if so taken would thus run; “ But when God is come, whom I (God) will send unto you from God, even God who proceedeth from God, &c.” Can there be an idea more poly- theistical than what flows from these words? yet those that maintain this interpretation, express their. detestation of polytheism. If with a view to soften. ( 96 ) the unreasonableness of this interpretation they think themselves justified in having recourse to the term “ mystery,” they cannot without injustice ac- cuse Hindoos, the believers of numerous Gods un- der one Godhead, of absurdity, when they plead mystery in defence of their polytheism; for under the plea of mystery every appearance of unreason- ableness may be easily removed. I find to my great surprize, that the plural form of expression in verse the 26th of the first chapter of Genesis, “ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” has been quoted by some Divines as tending to prove the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Ghost, and that of the Son with the deity of the Father of the universe, commonly called the doctrine of the Trinity. It could scarcely be believ- ed, if the fact were not too notorious, that such emi- nent scholars as some of those divines undoubtedly were could be liable to such a mistake, as to rely on this verse as a ground of argumentin support of the Trinity. It shews how easily prejudice in favour of an already acquired opinion gets the better of learning, and how successfully it darkens the sphere of truth. Were we even to disregard totally t he idiom of the Hebrew, Arabic, and of almost all Asiatic languages, in which the plural number is often used for the singular, to express the respect due to the person denoted by the noun; and to understand the term “ our image” “and our likeness,” found in the q°or’ ) verse as conveying a plural meaning, the quotation would still by no means answer their purpose; for the verse in question would in that case imply a plurality of Gods, without determining whether their number was three or three hundred, and of course without specifying their persons—No middle point in the unlimited series of number being deter- mined, it would be almost necessary for the purpose of obtaining some fixed number, as implied by those terms, to adopt either two, the lowest degree of plu- ality in the first personal pronoun both in Hebrew and Arabic, or to take the highest number of Gods with which human imagination has peopled the hea- _ vens. Inthe former case the verse cited might counte- nance the doctrine of the duality of the Godhead | entertained by Zirdusht and his followers, represent- ing the God of goodness, and the God of evil, to have jointly created man, composed of a mixed na- _ ture of good and evil propensities; in the latter it _ would be consistent with the Hindoo sytem of reli- gion: but there is nothing in the words that can be with any justice construed as pointing to Trinity. These are not the only difficulties attending the in- _ terpretation of those terms :—if they should be view- -ed in any other than a singular sense, they would involve contradiction with the very next verse, “So | God created man in his own image,” in which the — ‘singular number is distinctly used; and in Deut. ‘iv. 4, “ The Lord our God is one Lord;” and also with the 'spirit of the whole of the Old Testament. | M ( -88 4) To those who are tolerably versed in Hebrew and Arabic, (which is only a refined Hebrew) it is a well known fact, that in the Jewish and Mohum- mudan scriptures, as well as in common discourse, the plural form is often used in a singular sense when the superiority of the subject of discourse is intended to be kept in view : this is sufficiently appa- rent from the following quotations taken both from the Old Testament in Hebrew, and from the Qoran. Exodus xxi. 4, In the original Hebrew Scripture mwrsbim wisx con “If his masters (meaning his master) have given him a wife.” Verse 6th, Hebrew monbxn dx wots wean “Then his masters (that is, his master) shall bring him unto the judges.” Verse 29th, »bya3 sayy ow>w don RT na) yw NT “But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it has been testified to his owners” (that is, to his owner)—Jsazah vi. 8, Hebrew, 335 qb) omy mbwek op mx “To whom shall I send? and who will go for us?” (that is, for me.) So also in the Qoran, Uy) 9) 1 Jam ge 5 t “We are (meaning I am) nearer than the jugular vein.” jus sala & 1} «Surely we (meaning I) created every thing in proportion.” In these two texts of the Qoran, God is represented to have spo- ken in the plural number, although Mohummud: cannot be supposed to have employed a mode of ex- ‘pression, which ke could have supposed capable of being considered favourable to the-Trinity. |» «— ‘ ( 99 } But what are we to think of such reasoning as that which finds a confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the thrice repeated term “holy” in verse 3d, chapter 6th of Isaiah ; following this mode of argument the repetitions of the term “ Eli, Eii,” or, “ My God, my God,” by Jesus in his human na~- ture in Matthew xxvii. 46, equally establishes the duality of the Godhead So also the holy name of the supreme Deity being composed of four letters in the Hebrew m7; in Greek Sc; in Latin Deus; in Arabic aJ!; and in Sunscrit ga, clearly denotes the quadrality of the Godhead!!! But these and all similar modes of argument that have been _ resorted to, are worthy of notice only as they serve to exhibit the extraordinary force of prejudice and _ superstition. The most extraordinary circumstance is, that some _ should quote in support of the Trinity, the following _ sentence, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,” representing it as the 7th _ verse, chap. vth, of the first epistle of John. This is ! supposed to have been at first composed as a para- phrase upon what stands as verse 8th of the same chapter, (“and there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and _these three agree in one”), and met with approbation. It was however for a length of time known only in | oral circulation; but was afterwards placed in the mM 2 . . ( 100 ) margin of some editions, and at last introduced into the. text, most probably in the fifteenth century, as an original verse. From that time it has been the common. practice to insert this verse amongst those which are collected in support of the Trinitarian doe- trine. It may have served in this way to confirm and strengthen prejudice, though few biblical critics ever attached the smallest value to it) either way. This interpretation is so modern and so obvious, that se- veral Trinitarian Editors and Commentators of the Bible, such as Griesbach and Michaelis, (who never allowed their zeal for their sect to overcoma the pru- dence and candour_ with which they were endowed,) have omitted to insert it in theirlate works on the New Testament; knowing perhaps that such an. interpo- lation, so far from strengthening the doctrine they maintain, has excited great doubts as to the accura- cy of other passages generally relied upon for its support. We have already, I trust, seen distinctly that none of the lessons taught by Christ to his disciples teach us to. believe in him as God; but as most Trinitari- an authors assert that this doctrine was fully reveal- ed by his Apostles speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it may be worth while to examine whether it be included by them amongst the doc- trines of the Christian religion. This question may be immediately determined by referring to the histo- ry of the Acts of the Apostles ; for if the doctrine of ( jo ) the Trinity. had been considered by them as an es- sential part of what they were commanded to teach, we should certainly find it insisted upon in the dis- courses they addressed to their converts. But we shall look in vain for any expression amongst those reported by Luke, that indicates the profession of such a belief by the Apostles themselves; far less that they exacted an acknowledgment of its truth, from those whom they admitted by the rite of Bap- tism into the faith of Christianity. Acts ii. 22, ‘“ Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among _ you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves al- so know;” 32, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.” 36, ‘‘ Therefore let | all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, - both Lord and Christ.” iii. 22 and 23, “ For Moses | truly said unto the Fathers, a Prophet shall the _ Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, what- || soever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to | pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Pro- phet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” | iv. 12, “ Neither is there salvation in any other ; for _ there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ 26 and 27, | “ The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulera | | : t Se hi W. $6. ( 102 ) were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, &c.” v. 31, “Him has God exalted-with his right hand to bea Prince and a Saviour, forto give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” ~ J, “ And said, behold, I see the heavens open, and the Son of man standing on the right-hand of God.” viii. 37 and 38, “ And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and - the eunuch; and he baptized him.” x. 38, “ How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” 42, “ And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he who was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.” ch. xiii. 38, “ Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached un- to you the forgiveness of sins.” xvi. 3, “ Open- ing and alledging, that Christ must needs have suf- fered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” Thus we find the Apostles never hesitated to hazard their lives by declaring before the Jews that their master was a Prophet, the expected Messiah, the Son ° of the living God; which was equally offensive to their countrymen, as if they had called him God him- self; yet in none of the Sermons do we ever find them ( 103 ) representing him as the true God. In the same manner Jesus himself never assumed that character to himself, although he repeatedly avowed that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, whereby he knew that according to their law he would draw the penal- i ty of death upon himself. As to the nature of those | doctrines of Christianity deemed essential in the | earliest times, I shall content myself with making a _ few extracts from the ecclesiastical History of Mo- sheim, a celebrated author among Trinitarians, which will prove that the doctrine of the Trinity, so zea- lously maintained as fundamental by the generality of modern Christians, made not its appearance as an _ essential, or even secondary article of Christian faith ' until the commencement of the fourth century ; and then it was introduced after long and violent discus- sions by the majority of an assembly, who were sup- ported by the authority of a monarch. Mosheim, volume Ist, page 100, “ Nor in this first century was the distinction made between Christians of a more or less perfect order which took place after- wards; whoever acknowledged Christ as the Saviour of mankind, and made solemn profession of his con- fidence in him, was immediately baptized and receiv- ed into the Church.” Page 411, “Soonafter its com- mencement, even in the year 317, a new contention arose in Egypt upon a subject of much higher impor- tance, and with consequences of a yet more perni- cious nature; the subject of this fatal controversy, which kindled such deplorable division throughout ( 104 ) the Christian world, was the doctrine of three per- sons of the Godhead; a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and been left unde- fined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas. The Church indeed had frequently decided against the Sabellians and others, that there was a real dif-_ ference between the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost was distinet from them both; or as we commonly speak, that three distinct persons exist in the Deity; but the mutual relation of these per- sons to each other, and the nature of the distinction that subsists between them, are matters that hitherto were neither disputed nor explamed, with respect to which the Church had consequently observed a pro-_ found silence :—nothing was declared to the faith of Christians in this matter, nor were there any modes of expression prescribed as requisite to be used in speaking of the mystery. Henceit happened, that the Christian dectors entertained different sentiments upon thissubject without giving the leastoffence, ‘and discoursed variously concerning the distinction be- tween Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, each one following his respective opinion with the utmost li- berty.” On this quotation I beg leave to remark, that if in the first and purest ages of Christianity the followers of Christ entertained such different opini-— ons on the subject of the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without incurring the charge of heresy and heterodoxy, and without even break- ing the tie of Christian affection towards each other, it is a melancholy contrast that the same freedom of opinion on this subject is not now allowed, nor the same mutual forbearance maintained amongst those who call themselves Christians. Mosheim, page 412, “ In an assembly of Presbyters of Alex- andria, the Bishop of that city, whose name was Alexander, expressed his sentiments on this head with a high degree of freedom and confidence ; and maintained among other things, that the Son was not only of the same eminence and dignity, but also of the same essence with the Father: this assertion was opposed by Arius, one of the Presbyters, a man of a subtile turn,and remarkable for his elo- quence.” Page 414, “ The emperor Constantine, looking upon the subject of this controversy as a matter of small importance, and as little connected with the fundamental and essential doctrines of re- | ligion, contented himself at first with addressing a letter to the contending parties, in which he admo- | nished them to put an end to their disputes; but _ when the Prince saw that his admonitions were with- | out effect, and that troubles and commotions which || the passions of men too often mingle with religious _ disputes were spreading and encreasing daily through- /, out the empire, he assembled at length in the year | 320, the famous Council of Nice in Bithynia, wherein | the deputies of the Church Universal were summon- _ed to put an end to this controversy. In this gene- ral Council, after many keen debates and ‘violent N ( 106 ) efforts of the two parties, the doctrine of Arius was condemned; Christ declared consubstantial or of the same essence with the Father; the vanquish- ed Presbyter banished among the Illyrians, and _ his followers compelled to give their assent to the creed or confession of faith which was composed by this Council.” Jt must not escape the notice of my readers, that so late as the year 314, the doctrine of the Son being of the same nature with the Father was supposed to be a matter of small importance, and little connected with the fundamental and essen- tial doctrines of religion. The reason for the majority being in favour of the three persons of the Godhead at the Council of Nice, may be easily accounted for, as I noticed before. More than nine-tenths of the Christians of that age, ineluding the Emperor and Princes, were gentile con- verts, to whom the idea of a plurality of Gods was most familiar and acceptable, and to whose reason as well as practice the worship of a deity in the hu- man shape was perfectly consonant, as appears from the following quotation, as well as from the Roman and Grecian histories. Mosheim, page 25, ‘‘ The deities of almost all nations were either ancient heroes renowned for noble exploits and worthy deeds, or kings and generals who had founded empires, or, women become illustrious by remarkable actions or useful inventions ; the merit of these distinguish- ed and eminent persons, contemplated by their poste- ( 107 ) rity with an enthusiastic gratitude, was the reason of their being exalted to celestial honours.” We find also in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul declared to be God by the people of Melita, and beth Paul and Bar- nabas regarded as gods by the inhabitants of Lystra ; - andthe Saviour was ranked in the number of false _ gods even by professed heathens. Acts xxviii. 6, “ Howbeit they looked when he (Paul) should have swollen or fallen down dead suddenly; but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said he was a _ God.” Acts xiv. 11, “The godsare come down to us in the likeness of men.” Mosheim, page _ 25, “Many who were not willing to adopt the | whole of the doctrines of Christianity, were never- theless, as appears from undoubted records, so struck with the account of his life and actions, and so | charmed with the sublime purity of his Precepts, that they numbered him (Jesus) among the greatest heroes, nay, even among the gods themselves.” _ Page 46, “ So illustrious was the fame of Christ’s power grown after his resurrection from the dead, and the miraculous gifts shed from on high upon his Apostles, that the emperor Tiberiusis said to _ have proposed his being enrolled among the gods | of Rome, which the opposition of the Senate hinder- ed from taking effect.” If some of the heathens ‘from the nature of their superstitions could rank | Jesus among their false gods, it is no wonder if others, when nominally converted to Christianity, ( 108 ) should have placed him on an equality with the true God, and should have passed a decree, constituting him one of the persons of the Godhead. These facts coincide entirely with my own firm persuasion of the impossibility, that a doctrine so inconsistent with the evidence of the senses as that of three per- sons in one being, should ever gain the sincere as- sent of any one, into whose mind it has not been in- stilled in early education. Early impressions alone can induce a Christian to believe that three are one, and one is three ; just as by the same means a Hindoo is made to believe that millions are one, and one is millions ; and to imagine that an inanimate idol is a living substance, and capable of assuming various forms. As I have sought to attain the truths of Chris- tianity from the words of the author of thisreligion, and from the undisputed instructions of his holy Apostles, and not from a parent or tutor, I cannot help refusing my assenttoany doctrine which I do not find scriptural. Before concluding, I beg to revert to one or two arguments respecting the nature of Jesus Christ, which have been already partly touched upon. It is maintained that his nature was double, being di- vine as Son of God, and human as Sonof man—that in the former capacity he performed miracles and exercised authority over the wind and the sea, and as man was subject to and experienced human | feelings, joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain. Is it possible to consider a being in the human shape, — es ( 109 ) acting daily ina manner required by the nature of the human race, as the invisible God, above mortality and all the feelings of mortal beings, from a mere figu- rative application of the terms “Son of God” or “ God” to him, and from the circumstance of his performing wonderful works contrary to the usual course of na- ture ? If so, what can prevent one from esteeming Mo- ses and others, as possessed of both divine and human nature, since Moses likewise is called God distinctly, (Exodus vii. 1, “ I have made thee a God to Pharaoh,”) and he is also called man, (“ wherewith Moses, the _man of God, blessed Israel,” Deut. xxxiii. 1.); and consequently it may be alleged, that in his divine ca- pacity Moses performed miracles, and commanded the heavens and the earth, (“‘ Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak ; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth ;” Deut. xxxii. 1. “ For it (the word of Mo- ses) is not a vain thing for you, because it is your life,” 47,) and that in hishuman capacity he suffered death andother miseries. Neither Jesus nor Moses ever de- clared, “ I say so, and perform this as God ; andI say so, and perform that as man.” If we give so great a latitude to the modes of reasoning employed tojustify the idea of one being possessed of two sorts of con- sciousness, as God and man; two sorts of minds, divine and human ; and two sets of souls, eternal and perishable ; then we shall not only be at a loss to know what is rational and what is absurd, but shall find our senses and experience of little or no use to us. The mode of interpreting the scriptures which ( ies is universally adopted, is this, that when two terms | seemingly contradictory are applied to one person, then that which is most consistent with reason and | with the context should be taken in a literal, and the | other in a figurative sense. Thus God is declared to be immaterial, and yet to have hands, eyes, &c. The latter expressions taken literally being incon- sistent with reason, and with other passages of the scriptures, are understood as metaphorically imply- ing his power and knowledge, while the former is interpreted in its strict and literal sense: in like manner the term “Lord God,” &c. applied to any other than the Supreme Being, must be figuratively understood. Were any one, in defiance of this gene- ral mode of interpretation, to insist that the term “God,” applied to Jesus should be taken in its lite- ral sense, and that consequently Jesus should be ac- tually considered God in the human shape, he would not only acknowledge the same intimate connection of matter with God, that exists between matter and the human soul, but also would necessarily justify the application of such phrases as “ Mother of God” to the virgin Mary, and “ Brother of God” to James and others, which are highly derogatory to the cha- racter of the supreme author of the universe ; and it is the use of phrases similar to these which has ren- dered the religion of the Hindoos so grossly absurd and contemptible. To admit that all things, whether possible or impossible to our understanding, are pos- sible for God, is certainly favourable to the idea of a GMa) mixed nature of God and man ; but at the same time would be highly detrimental both to religion and society : for all sorts of positions and tales, however _ impossible they may be, might in that case be ad- vanced and supported on the same plea. I now conclude my reply with noticing in a brief manner the modes of illustration that Trinitarians _ adopt both in conversation and in writing in support _ of the unity of the Godhead, in consistency with the _ distinction of three persons. Ist, That as the soul, will, and perception, though they are three things, i yet are in fact one, so God the Father, God the Son, _and God the Holy Ghost, though distinct per- | sons, are to be esteemed as one. Admitting for a _moment the propriety of this analogy, it serves to _ destroy totally their position, as to the three exis- _ tences of the Godhead being distinct substances; for _ according to the established system of Theology the _ soul is believed to be the substance, and will and per- ceptions its properties, which have no distinct exis- | tence; in the same manner as weight and locality are _ the properties of matter, without having existence as | separate substances. If this analogy then were to _ hold good, the Father would be acknowledged as a _ separate existence like the soul, but the Son and the _ Holy Spirit must be considered his attributes, as will and perception are of the soul:—a doctrine which _ resembles that of the heretic Sabellius and the early Egyptian Christians. (. Was It is therefore necessary, that in endeavouring to | prove the reasonableness of the idea respecting the unity of three distinct substances of the Godhead, from comparison between them, and the soul and its will and perception, they should establish first thatthe soul, will, and perception are three substances, and that they are at the same time one; and then should draw such an analogy, shewing the possibility of the position which they assume. 2ndly, That as notwithstanding the distinct ex- istence of the sun, his rays of light and his rays of heat, they are considered as one; so God the | Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, though separate substances, are one. Were we. - to admit the separate existence of heat, a point still disputed amongst philosophers, it would serve as an analogy so far as these three distinet substan- ces, though different in nature, are connected toge- ther; but by no means would answer the purpose of illustrating their position, that these distinct persons are one in nature and essence: forthe sun is acknow- ledged to be a compact body; rays of light are fluid substances subject to absorption, and frequently found emanating from other bodies as well as the sun; and heat, an existence of which the most re- markable property is its power of expanding other substances, is frequently unaccompanied by the rays of the sun. But it is universally acknowledged, that whatever argument tends to prove a distinction be- i Cf se 9 tween substances, must necessarily overturn their unity in essence and existence; and therefore the uni- ty in nature and essence which they assert to exist in the three persons of the Godhead not being foundin the sun, light and heat, the analogy attempted to be drawn must be abandoned. Again, it is advanced, that as a single substance possesses various qualities, and consequently is viewed differently ; so the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are in fact one God; yet the Deity in his capacity of Creator of the World is called the Father, and in his capacity of Mediator is termed the Son, in which he is generally supposed inferior to the Father ; and in his office of sanctifica- tion is named the Holy Ghost, in which he is deemed inferior to both. I know not whether to consider such an argument as reasoning, or as a mockery of reason; since it justifies us in believing, that one and the same being in one of his capacities is superior to himself, and again in reference to another quality is inferior to himself; that he is in one case his own be- _ joved Son, and then in another capacity is at the dis- _ posal of himself according to the entreaty of his Son. ‘This mode of arguing after allserves to deny the Tri- nity, which represents the Godhead as consisting of three distinct persons, and not as one person possess- ing different attributes, which itis the object of Trini- tarians to prove. They allege the unitedstate of the _ soul and the body as analogous to the union of the Fa- ther and Son: but no one who believes in the separate existence of the soul, can fora moment suppose it to ( 114 ) be of the same essence as the body; so that unless they admit the immateriality of the Father alone, and assert the materiality of the Son in his pre-exis- tent state, this illustration also must be set aside. Some allege, that as the Son of Man designates human nature, so the Son of God expresses the nature of God. Were we to admit the term “ God” as a com- mon noun, and not a proper name, and Godhead as a genus like mankind, &e. and that Jesus was actually begotten of the Deity, this mode of reasoning would stand good; but Godhead must in this case be brought to a level with other genera, capable of performing animal functions, &e. Some represent God as a compound substance, — consisting of three parts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a representation m support of which they can offer no scriptural authority.—I would how- ever wish to know, whether these parts (Father, Son, and Spirit) are of the same nature and existence, or _ each possessed of a different nature or essence. In — the former case, there would be a total impossibility of composition; for composition absolutely requires articles or parts of different identity and essence; nothing being capable of compésition with itself. Besides, the idea of such a compound substance is inconsistent with that distinct personality of Father, — Son, and Spirit, which they maintain.—In the latter ease (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spi- C ane yy rit, being of different natures,) a composition of these three parts is not impossible; but it destroys the opinion which they entertain respecting the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being of the same nature and essence, and of course implies, that the Godhead is liable to divisibility. The argument so adduced by them would include in reality a denial of the epithet God to each part of the Godhead ; for no portion of an existence, either ideal or perceptible in a true sense, can be ealled the existence itself; as it is one of the first axioms of abstract truth, that a part is less than the whole: but we find in the Scriptures the Father con- stantly called God in the strict and full signification of the term.—John xvii. 3,‘ This is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” 1 Cor. xv. 24, “ ‘Then cometh the end, when he shall have deli- vered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” 1 Cor. viii. 6, “ To us there is but one God, the Fa- ther.” Ephesians iv. 5, 6, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Another argument which has great weight with that sect is, that unless Jesus is God. and man, he cannot be considered as qualified to perform the office of mediator between God and man; because it is only. by this compound. character that he inter- eas Ath, Lia Cdpir ( 116) -eedes for guilty creatures with their offended God.— This mode of reasoning is most evidently opposed to common sense, as well as to the Scriptures; though their zeal in support of the Trinity has net permit- ted them to see it. I say, opposed to common sense ; because we observe, that when any one feels angry with and inclined to punish one of a herd of cattle which may have trespassed on his grounds, or when a rider wishes to chastise his horse on account of its viciousness, it is his friend or neighbour gene- rally who intercedes in its behalf, and is successful in procuring mercy to the offending animal, in his sim- ple nature, without assuming in additien that of the creature in whose behalf he intercedes—I say, opposed to scripture ; because we find in the sacred writings, that Abraham, Moses, and other Prophets stood me- diators and interceded successfully in behalf of an offending people with their offended God; but none of them possessed the double nature of God and man. —Numb. xi. 1, 2, “ When the people complained it displeased the Lord ; and the Lord heard it, and his anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. And the people cried unto Moses ; and when Moses prayed unto the Lord, the fire was quenched.”—xiv 19, 20, Moses prayed to the Lord, “ Pardon, I bescech thee, the: iniquity of this people, according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. And the Lord said, I have — a Cur ) pardoned them according to thy word.”—xxi. 7, * Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee: pray unto the Lord that he take away the serpents from us: and Moses prayed for the people.” .xxxii. 50. “ And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin, and now | will go up unto the Lord, peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sins.” — Gen. xviii. 32, “ And he (Abraham) said, O iet not the Lord be angry, and I wil! speak yet but this once—Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.” I find several others performing the office of mediator and intercessor in common with Jesus, as I noticed before; and indeed this seems to have been an office com- mon to all Prophets: but none of them is supposed to have been clothed with Godhead and manhood in union.—Jeremiah xxvii. 18, “ But if they be Pro- phets, and if the word of the Lord be with them, let them now make intercession to the Lord of Hosts, &e.” Deuteronomy v. 5, ‘1 (Moses) stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord.” I regret very much that a sect gene- rally so enlightened should on the one hand have supposed the divine and human natures to be so diametrically opposed to each other, that it is mo- rally impossible for God even to accept intercession from a mere human being in behalf of the human race, and on the other hand should have advanced " ( 118 ) that the Deity joined to his own nature that of man, and was made flesh, possessing all the members and exercising all the functions of man—propesitions — which are morally inconsistent with each other. To avoid the supposed dishonor attached to the appointment of a mediator less’ than divine, the Deity is declared by them to have assumed the hu- man shape, and to have subjected himself to the feelings and inclinations natural to the human spe- cies; which is not only inconsistent with the immu- table nature of God, but highly derogatory to the honor and glory which we are taught to ascribe to him. ) Other arguments of the same nature are frequently advanced, but they are all together much fewer in number and far less convincing than those which are commonly brought forward by Hindoos to sup-_ port their polytheism. Since then in evineine the truth and excellence of the Precepts of Jesus, there is no need of the aid of metaphysical arguments, and — since as a last resource they do not depend for their — support on the ground of mystery, the Compiler has — in the discharge of his duty towards his Countrymen properly introduced them as a Guide to Peace and Happiness. Ee APPENDIX. —=>——_ No. I. On the Quotations from the Old Testament con~ tained in the New. Ir cannot have escaped the notice of attentive readers of the Scriptures, that the bare quotations in the New Testa- ment from the Old, when unaccompanied with their re- spective contexts, are liable to be misunderstood. ‘Those who are not well versed in the sacred writings, finding in those references such phrases as apparently corroborate their already acquired opinions, not only lay stress upon them, in support of the sentiments generally adopted. but even lead others very often, though unintentionally, into great errors. Thus Matthew ii. 15. “ Out of Egypt have I called my Son.” The Evangelist refers to verse Ist chapter xi. of Hosea; which, though really, applied to. Israel, represented there as the Sou of God, is used by the Apostle in reference to the Saviour, in consideration of a near resemblance between their circumstances in this in- stance :—both Israel and Jesus were carried into Egypt and recalled from thence, and both were denominated in the Seriptures the “ Son of God.” The passage of Hosea thus runs from chapter xi. verse Ist to the 3rd, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my Sou out of Egypt... As they called them, so uo i from them: 1% they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burnt incense to gravelt images. I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them.” In which Israel, who is represented as a child of God, is declared to have sacrificed to Baalim, and to have burnt incense to graven images—circumstanuces which cannot justly be ascribed to the Saviour. With a view therefore to remove the possibility of such errors, and to convince my readers that all the references in the New Testament with their contexts manifest the unity of God and natural inferiority of the Messiah to the Father of the universe, I have endeavoured to arrange them methodically, beginning with such quotations as were made by Jesus himself, agreeably to the proposal of the Reve- rend Editor. Quotations by Jesus himself exactly agreeing with the Hebrew. Matthew iv. 4, ‘“‘ Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God;” the same in Luke iv. 4, compared with Deutero= nomy vill. 3, “ And he humbled. thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.” Muithew iv. 7, “ Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God ;”—compared with Deuteronomy vi. 16, 17, “ Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah. Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of ( 121) the Lord your) God, and his testimonies, and his ‘statutes, which he hath commanded thee.” ~ Matthew ix. 13, “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice’’—compared with Hosea vi. 5, 6, “ Therefore have I hewed them by the Prophets; Ihave slain them by the words of my ‘mouth: and thy judgments are as the light: that goeth forth. For I desired mercy, and not aia ; and the ‘knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Matthew xix. 19. -xxii, 39, ‘* Honour: thy father aud thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- self’——compared with Exodus xx. 12, “ Honour thy father aud mother, that thy days may ‘be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee’—and Leviticus xix. 18, “ Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people ; but thou shalt love thy neigh- *bour as thyself: I am the Lord.” Matthew xxi. 42, ‘The stone which the builders re- jected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes ;’— the same in Mark xii. 10, Luke xx. 17, compared with | \ Psalms ‘exviii. 22, 23, “1 (says David) will praise thee ; for thou hast heard me, and art’ become my salvation, |.The stone which the builders refused is) become the head-stone of «the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.” To decide whether this “passage is principally applied to David, and in the way of accommodation to Jésus, or originally to Jesus himself, is entirely left to the discretion of my readers ; but it is evident in either case, that it is God that has raised the stone so rejected. ; iad ( $22 }) Matthew xxii. 44, “ The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy foot-_ stool’ —the same in Mark xii. 36, Luke xx, 42, compar- ed with Psalms ex. 1, 2, ‘“The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thowat my right hand, until I’make thine enemies thy | footstuol. »The ‘Lord shall send the rod of thy strength — out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” This passage is simply applied to the Messiah, manifest- ing that the victory gained by him over his enemies was entirely owing to the influence of God. John x. 35, “ Ye» are gods’—compared: with Psalm ixxxii. 1, 6, 7,“ God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High: but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the _princes”—wherein Jesus shews from this quotation, that the term God is figuratively applicable in the Scriptures to creatures of a superior nature. Quotations made by Jesus himself, nearly agreeing with the Hebrew. Matthéw iv. 10, “ Thou shalt worship the Lord a God, and him only thou shalt serve’——-compared with Deuteronomy vi. 13, “ Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.” Matthew xiii. 14, ‘“ By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not per- ceive’—compared with Jsaiah vi. 9, and its context, J heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I (Isaiah), Here am I,send me. And he said, Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, ( 23 ,) but perceive not.” This censure has original reference to the conduct of the people to whom Isaiah was sent, but - it is applied by Jesus in an accommodated sense to that of the Jews of his time. Matthew xix. 5, “ For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to -his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh”—compared with Genesis ii. 23, “ And Adam said; This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman ; because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave untohis wife ; and they shall be one flesh.” Matthew xix. 18, 19, ‘“ Thou. shalt do no mur- der, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neigh- bour as thyself’—compared with Exodus xx. 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, “ Honour thy father and thy mother ; that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not com- mit adultery. Thou shalt not “steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Matthew xxii. 32, “I am the God of Abraham, and the Godof Isaac,andthe God of Jacob”—compared with Exo- dus iii. 6, “‘ Moreover he said, lam the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.” Matthew xxii. 37, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all. thy mind;” the same in Mark xii. 30, Luke x. 27, compared with Deu- _ teronomy vi. 5, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God ( -124 ») with all thine heart, and ‘with all ‘thy soul, and with all re might.” . Matthew xxvi. 31, “Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night : for it is written, I will smite the Sheplierd, and the sheep of the flock shall he scattered abroad”—compared with Zechariah xiii. 7, “ Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow*, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be eopihints ; and Iwill turn mine hand upon the little ones.’ Verse 7, either was originally applied to seis fmzmaN), the last king of the Jews, whose subjects were scattered after he had been smitten with the sword, and in an sccommodated sense is applied by Jesus to himself, whose disciples were in like manner dispersed, while he was suffering afflictions from his enemies—or is directly applica- ble to Jesus ; but in both cases his total subordination and submission ‘to the Father of the universe is too obvious to be disputed. John vi. 45, © It is written in the Prophets, And nef shall be all tanght of God.—Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto — me”—compared with Isaiah liv. 13, “ And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.” John xiii. 18, “1 speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that — eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me”"— . . Ore ak * The word POY found in the original Hebrew Scripture. signifies one that lives near another ; therefore the word “ fellow” in the English translation is not altogether correct, as justly observed by Archbishop Newcome. ; > eee cs > ( 195 ) compared with Psalm xii. 9, “ Mine own familiar friend, in whom [I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me,” is immediately applicable to David and his friend Ahithophel, who betrayed him ; and second- arily, to Jesus, and Judas, his traitorous apostle. John xv. 25, “ But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their Jaw, They hated me without a cause,’—compared with Psalm cix. 2, 3, * They have spoken against me with a lying tongue. They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.” Verse 3d was origi+ nally applied to David and his enemies, and in an accom- modated sense to Jesus and the Jews of his day. Quotation made hy Jesus himself, agreeing with the Hebrew in sense, but not in words. Matthew xxi. 16, “ Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast. perfected praise’—compared with Psalms viii. 2, and its preceding verse, ‘“‘ Out. of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.” Quotation taken from combined passages of Scripture. Matthew xxi. 13, “ And: said unto them, It is written, My house shail ‘be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves’—compared with Isaiah lvi.. 17, ‘¢ For mine house shall be called the house of prayer for all people.” vii. 11, “ Is this house which is called by my name become a den of robbers in your eyes 2” ( 126 ) Riotastons differing from the Hebrew, but agreeing with the Septuagint. Matthew xv. 7, 8, and 9, “ Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips ; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”—com- pared with Isaiah xxix. 13, which in the Septuagint cor- responds exactly with the Gospel, but which in verse 9. differs from the original Hebrew, thus translated in the common version—“ And their fear toward me is taught by the precepts of men.” Quotations in which there is reason to suspect a different reading in Hebrew, or that the Apostles understood the words in a sense different from that expressed in our lexicons. Matthew xi. 10, “ This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before ¢hee”—compared with Malachi iii. 1, “ Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.” Matthew xxvi. 31, “1 will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad’”—compared with Zechariah vii. 8, Smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” Luke iv.8,“ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”—compared with Deuteronomy vi. 13, ‘* Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him,” Quotations slightly varying from the Septuagint. Luke iv. 18, 19, “ The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised; to preach the acceptable year of the Lord”—compared with Isaiah Ixi, 1, 2, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek: he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” Now | beg the attention of my readers to these quota- _tions ascribed to Jesus himself, and appeal to them, whether he assumed in any of these references the cha- racter of the Deity, or even equality with him. 1 am cer- tain that they will find nothing of the kind; Jesus de- clared himself in these instances entirely subordinate to the Almighty God, and subject to his, authority, and fre- quently compared himself to David or some of the other Prophets. cy No, Il. On the references made to the Old Testament mn support of the Deity of Jesus. Trinitantan Divines quote Join i. 14, “ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt aniong us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth,” as a reference to Isaiah ix. 6, “For unto us a_ child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name ~ shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace,”—though the ‘evangelist John made no allusion to this passage of Jsaiah ‘in the verse in question. The passage of Jsaiah thus referred to was applied to Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, figuratively de- signated as the son of the virgin, the daughter of Zion, to wit Jerusalem, foretold by the Prophet as the deliverer of the city from the hands of its enemies, though its utter de- truction was then threatened by the kings of Syria and Israel. The words “ a virgin” according to the English translation are “ the virgin” both in the original Hebrew and in the Greek of the Gospel of Matthew, as well as in the Septu- agint. But unless Ahaz was aware of the allusion of the Prophet, the use of the definite article in this passage must be quite inexplicable ; and no one will contend for a mo- ment, that it was given to that wicked king to understand that the mother of Christ was the virgin alluded to; what then could Ahaz have comprehended by the expression “the virgin 2” On referring to 2d Kings xix. 21, we ¢ a3) find the same Prophet make use of the very expression, where he informs the king Hezekiah of the denunciation of God against Sennacherib, the blasphemous king of Assy- ria, who was at that time besieging Jesusalem. « This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning him 3; The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn.”—It is impossible to conceive that these words, expressly spoken of the king of Assyria, bear any allusion to the virgin, the mother of Christ ; and it illustrates clearly the otherwise obscure expression of the Prophet addressed to Ahaz, when he foretold to him the happy reign of his successor Hezekiah. In Isaiah »32, ‘‘ He (the king of Assyria) shall shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Je- rusalem.” The epithet “The daughter of Zion,” which in the last passage was used as synonimous with “ the virgin,” here signifies Jerusalem itself, in which sense it was commonly used in the figurative language of the Prophet, and no doubt well understood by Ahaz; for we find the same words in many other passages used to signify either a city or the people of a city. Isai- ah xxili. 12, “And he said, Thou shalt nu more rejoice, O thou oppressed virgin, daughter of Zion.” Chap- ter xlvii. 1, “Come down, and sit in the dust, O vir-. gin daughter of Babylon.’ —Jeremiah xiv. 17, “Therefore thou shalt say this word unto them: Let mine eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease 3 for the virgin daughter of my people is broken with a great breach.’—xviil. 13, “ Therefore thus saith the Lord; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things; the virgin of Israel hath donea very horri- Q ( 130 ) ble thing.”—xxxi. 4, “ Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.”—13, “Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, &c,’—21, “ Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the high way, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.” —Lam. i. 15, “ The Lord hath trodden the virgin, the daughter of Judah, as in a wine-press.”—ii. 13, “ What thing shall I take to witness for thee ? what thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem ? what thing shall I liken to thee, O virgin daughter of Zion ? for thy breach is great like the sea; who can heal thee 2” Amos v. 2, “ The virgin of Israel is fallen, she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up.” To shew that the passages in question, as well as all that is foretold in this and the succeeding chapters, refer to the reign of Hezekiah, nothing more than a comparison of them with the records of that reign is requisite.—I shall therefore lay before my readers, all those verses in these chapters that are commonly referred to by Trinita- rians as alluding to the coming of Christ, with their con- texts, together with such parts of the history of the reign of Hezekiah as appear to me +o be clearly indicated by those passages, Isaiah vii. 1, “ And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Re- maliah, king of Israel, went up toward J erusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. 2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with ( 131 ) Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. 3 Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the ful- ler’s field ; 4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet ; fear not, neither be fainthearted, for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Sy- ria, and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, 6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal : 7 Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. 8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. 9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. 10 Moreover, the Lord spake again un- to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God ; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David, Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also ? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For _ before the child shall know to refuse thé evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken | of both her kings. 17 The Lord shall bring upon thee, and de a a ame (i 1a) upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.” Chapter viii. 5, “ The Lord spake also unto me again ; saying, 6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son; 7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: 8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over,—he shall reach even to the neck ; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.” Chapter ix. 1, “ Nevertheless, the dimuess shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he light- ly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations, 2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as. in the day of Midian, 9 For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoul- der: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Coun- ( 133 ) sellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end* upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” Chapter x. 5. “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. 6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. 7 Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so, but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few. 8 For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings? 9 Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Ha- math as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus? + 10 As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem and of Samaria; 11 Shall I not, as 1 have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols? 12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that, when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, | will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.”—16 “ Therefore shall * Those that are at all versed in scriptural language will attach no weight to the terms “ no end” and “ for ever” found in y. 7 ; for the former often signifies plenteousness, and the latter long but not eternal duration. Vide Eccl. iv. 16, “© There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them.” Isaiah ii. 7, ‘“* Neitheris there any end of their trea- sure, neither is there any end of their chariot.” Nahum ii. 9, “ There is none end of their store.” 33, “ And there is none end of their corpses.” Ps, exly. 2,9, “ I will praise thy name for ever and ever.” Deut. xy. 17, “ And he shall be thy servant for ever.” + Compare ver. 9, 10, 11, with the historical relation of the vain boastings of the Assyrian narrated in 2 Kings, chap. xviii. ver, 33, 34, 35. ( 134 ) the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones lean- ness ;. and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning ofa fire, 17 And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and briers in one day.”—“‘ 24 There- fore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. 25 For yet a very little while, and the indignation shalk cease, and mine anger, in their destruction.” 27 ** And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing.” 2d Kings xviii. 1, “ Now it came to pass, in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign, 2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem: his mo- ther’s name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. 4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the Lord God of Israel ; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6 For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses. 7 And the Lord was | * Compare with 2d Kings ch. xvi. 7, “ So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-Pileser King of Assyria, saying, 1 am thy servant and thy son, &c.” and ch. xviil. 7, as above. (135) with him: and he prospered whithersoever he went forth : and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not. 8 He smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.”—17 “ And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, and Rabsaris, and Rab-shakeh, from Lachish to king Hezekiah, with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field.’—28 “ Then Rab-shakeh stood, and cried with aloud voice in the Jews’ language, and spake, saying, Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria: 29 Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deli- ver you out of his hand: 30 Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying, The Lord will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. 31 Hearken not unto Hezekiah : for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me, and then eat ye eve- _ ry man of his own vine, and every one of his fig-tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern : 32 Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land; a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil-olive and of honey, that ye may live, and not die ; and hearken not unto Hezekiah, when he persuadeth you, say- ing, The Lord will deliver us. 33 Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria ? 34 Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad ? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and _Ivah ? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand? 35 Who are they among all the gods of the countries that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the Lord Se Sb Se, ey or ee Se a) | ( 136 ) Chap. xix. 15, “ And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth ; thou hast made heaven and earth. 16 Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear : open, Lord, thine eyes, and see: and hear the words of Sennacherib, which hathsent him to reproach the living God. 19 Now therefore, O Lord our God, I beseech thee save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou © art the Lord God, even thou only, 20 Then Isaiah the son of — Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, That which thou hast prayed to me against Senna- cherib king of Assyria I have heard. 21 Thisis the word that — the Lord hath spokenconcerning him ; The virgin, thedaugh-_ ter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; — the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. . 22 ~ Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed ? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes — on high? even against the Holy One of Israel. 23 By thy messengers thou hast reproached the Lord, and hast said, With the multitude of my chariots I am come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon, and will cut down the tall cedar trees thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof: and I will enter into the lodgings of his borders, and into the forest of his Carmel.’’—27 “ But I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against me. 28 Because thy rage against me and thy tumult is come up into mine ears, therefore I will put my | hook in thy nuse, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.” 32 “ There- fore thus saith the Lord concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank ( Ei -) against it. 33 By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into this city, saith the Lord. 34 For! will defend this city, to save it, for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake. 35 And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. 37 And it came to pass, as he was worship- ping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they es- caped into the land of Armenia: and Esar-haddon his son reigned in his stead.” 2d Chron. xxx. 24, “For Hezekiah king of Judah did give to the congregation a thousand bullocks, and seven thousand sheep; and the princes gave to the con- gregation a thousand bullocks, and ten thousand sheep : and agreat number of priests sanctified themselves. 25 And all the congregation of Judah, with the priests and the Le- vites, and all the congregation that came out of Israel, and the strangers that came out of the land of Israel, and that dwelt. in Judah, rejoiced. 26 So there was great joy in Jerusalem ; for since the time of Solomon, the son of Da- vid king of Israel, there was not the like in Jerusalem. 27 Then the priesis the Levites arose and blessed the people: and their voice was heard, and their prayer came up to his holy dwelling-place, even unto heaven.” _ Chap. xxxi. 20, “ And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and truth before the Lord his God. 21 And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the s ( 138° ) Jaw, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart, and prospered.” Chap. xxxii. 23, “And many brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah: so that he was magnified in the sight of all nations from thence- forth. 33 And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they bu- ried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death, And Manasseh his son reigned in his stead.” If, as is declared by Trinitarians, the child promised in chap. vii. 14, be the same that is alluded to in ix. 6, and x. 17, it is quite evident from the context, that he was to be the deliverer of the Jews from the hands of the king of Assyria, and was to be distinguished by the excellence of his administration and the respect in which he was to be sf held by all nations. Making allowance for the hyperbolical style of Eastern nations, nothing can more aptly apply as prophecy than these passages do to thereign of Hezekiah, as described in the above extracts from Kings and Chro- nicles. But what, it may be asked, had the birth of Christ to do with the destruction of the king of Assyria? or how could it be said that before he “ knew to refuse the evil and choose the good,” the land of Syria and of Israel should be deserted of their respective kings Rezin and Pekah, who were gathered to their fathers many years before his birth ? This illustrious son of Ahaz was not the only king among the select nation of God, that was honoured with such names as Hezekiah or “ God my strength,” and “ Em- manuel” or “ God with us;” and also with such epithets as ‘* Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlast- ing Father, and the Prince of Peace.’ We find several other ( 139 ) chiefs of that tribe that used to ‘walk in the way of God, dignified in Scripture with epithets of a similar import. Genesis xxxii. 28) “ And he said, Thy name shall be cal- led no more Jacob, but Israel (Prince of God): for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” Psalm \xxxix. 18, “ For the Lord is our de- fence; and THE HOLY ONE of Israel is our king. 19 Then thou spakest in vision to thy Holy One, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty : I have exalted one chosen out of the people. 20 I have found David my ser- vant ; with my holy oil have I anointed him: 27 Alsol will make him MY FIRSTBORN, higher than the kings of the earth.” As to the word “a virgin” found in the English trans- lation, I request my readers to advert to the original He- brew mn>yn “ the virgin,” as well as to the Greek both of the Septuagint and the Gospel of Matthew, 4 wugSzvos “¢ the virgin,’ leaving it to them to judge, whether a transla- tion which so entirely perverts the meaning preserved thoughout, bymen whom we cannot suspect of ignorance of the original language, must not have proceeded from a previous determination to apply the term “ virgin” as found in the Prophet to the mother of Christ, in order that the high titles applied to Hezekiah might in the most unqua- lified manner be understood of Jesus. The Evangelist Matthew referred in his Gospel to ch. vii. 14. of Isaiah, merely for the purpose of accommodation ; the Son of Ahaz and the Saviour resembling each other, in each being the means at different periods, though in differ- ent senses, of establishing the throne of the house of David. In the same manner he referred to Hosea xi. 1, in ii. 15. of his Gospel, and in many other instances. How inconsistent ( 140 ) is it that asect, which maintains the omniscience and omni-=- potence of Jesus, should apply to him a passage, by which he is made subject to such a degree of ignorance, as not to be able at one period to distinguish between good and evil. (Isaiah vii. 16, “ For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, &c.’”’) Admitting that these quotations in Jsazah were originally applicable to Jesus, they cannot assist in proving the Deity of the Messiah; just as they fall short of proving the divinity of Hezekiah when applied to him:—for we find in the sacred writings the name of God, and even the term of Jehovah, the pecu- liar name of God, applied as an appellation to others, without establishing any argument for asserting the Deity of those to whom such names are given. Jeremiah xxxiii, 16, “ In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” In the English version, the word Jehovah is rendered “Lord,” in this and in other passages.—Hvodus xvii. 15, < And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jeho- vah-nissi, or “JEHOVAH MY BANNER.’” It is fortunate that some sect has not hitherto arisen, maintaining the Deity of Jerusalem, or of the altar of Moses, from the au- thority of the passages just mentioned. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 8, 9, reference is made to Psalm xly. 6, 7, “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c. Thou lovest righteousness, and hat- - est wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee, &c.” I have frequently noticed that the term “ God” in an inferior sense is often applied in the scriptures to the Messiah and other distinguished persons ; but it deserves particularly to be noticed in this instance, that ( 141 ) the Messiah, in whatever sense he is declared God, is in the very same sense described in v. 6. (“God thy God’) as having a God superior to him, and by whom he was ap- pointed to the office of Messiah. Supposed application of the term “ Jehovah” to Jesus in references made to the Old Testament. Luke i. 16, 17, “ And many of the children of Israel shall he (John the Baptist) turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient tothe wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord”—compared with Isaiah xi. 3, “ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the de- sert a highway for our God”—and also in Malachi iii. 1, « Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts.” From this, it is Concluded by Trinitarians, that because the Prophet John is described as the forerunner of Jehovah,and in the evangelist as the fore- runner of Jesus, therefore Jesus must be Jehovah. In reply to this, it may be simply observed, that we find in the Prophet distinct and separate mention of Jehovah and of the Messiah as the messenger of the covenant ; John therefore ought to be considered as the forerunner of both, in the same manner as a commander sent in advance to occupy a strong post in the country of the enemy, may be said to be preparing the way for the battles of his king, ( 142 ) or of the general whom the king places at the head of his army. They also refer to Isaiah vi. 5, “ For mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts’—comparing it with John xii. 41, “ These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.” The passage in the evangelist is more correctly explained by referring to John viii. 56, “ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day’—which cannot be understood of ocular vision, but prophetic an- ticipation ; whereas the glory seen in the vision of Isaiah was that of God himself in the delivery of the commands given to the Prophet on that occasion. Corinthians i. 30, “ But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, &e.” is compared with Jeremiah xxiii. 6, “ He shall be call- ed Jehovah our righteousness.” In reply to which ] only refer my reader again to the passage in Jeremiah XXxiil. 16, in which Jerusalem also is called ‘‘ Jehovah our righte- ousness,” and to the phrase “ is made unto us of God” found in the passage in question, aud expressing the inferiority of Jesus to God. Also 2d Cor. v. 21,“ That we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” where St. Paul says, that all Christians may be made the righteousness of God. r Mr. Brown, a celebrated Trinitarian Commentator, re- tains the common version of Jeremiah xxiii. 6, and ap- plies it to Jesus, whom he supposes to be “ Jehovah our righteousness.” But in xxxiii. 16, where the construction in the original Hebrew is precisely the same, he alters the version, and thus renders it in the margin, “ he who shall call her is Jehovah our righteousness ;” instead ofapplying the phrase “ Jehovah our righteousness” to Jerusalem, in ( 143 ) the same manner as he had applied it to Jesus in the former passage.—I therefore deem it necessary to give the original Hebrew of both texts, and a verbal translation of them.—The reader will judge how strongly the judgment of the learned Commentator was biassed in support of a favourite doctrine. Jeremiah xxiii. 6, TAT yw VS VPs MP wap wwe yew AN nwa? Tw DNWw “In his days shall be saved Judah, and Israel shall dwell in safety, and this hisname which (man) shall call him, Jeho- vah our righteousness.” Jer. xxxiii. 16, pwn Dan D3 my > Sap we man nys> mewn oem TTP uupay. “ In those days shall be saved Judah, and Jeru- salemshall dwellin safety, and this (name) which (man) shall call her, Jehovah our righteousness. ”’ In altering the common translation of the latter pas- sage, Mr. Brown first disregards the stop after 45 N”p? that is “shall call her;’’ which, bySeparating the two parts of the sentence, prevents Jehovah from being employed as the agent of the verb “shall call.” 2ndly, He entirely neglects the established mode of construction, by leaving =>, or “ this,” untranslated, and by omitting to point out the name by which Jerusalem should be called. 3dly, He totally overlooks the idiom of the Hebrew, in which verbs are often employed unaccompanied with their agent, when no specific agent is intended, as appears from the following passages :-— Genesis xxv. 26, Wy SPys MAX WT YAS NEV TD MN Spy yaw xapy And after that came his brother out, and bis hand took hold on Esau’s heel, and (man) called bis name Jacob.” 2d Samuel ii, 16, YBN) YI WNID WR W}INM SUX OMS mpon Nv apd wap yan? 1989 WI TS pysaa «ss And they caught every one his fellow by the ( 144 ) head, and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together : wherefore (man) called that place Hel- kath Hazurem which is in Gibeon.”’ Genesis xvi. 14, 3w3 ond SND NDS Np t> by “Wherefore (man) call- ed the well Beer-lahai-roi.” They again adduce Isaiah xlv. 23,“ Unto me (God) every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear”’—conipared with Romans xiv. 10,12,“ But why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Between the Prophet and the Apostle there is a perfect agreement in substance, since both declare that it is to God that every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess, through him béfore whose judgment-seat we shall all stand :—for at the same time both Jesus and his Apostles inform us, that we must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, because the Father has committed the office of final jedgment to him.—From this passage, they say, it appears that Jesus swore by himself, and that thereby he is proved to be God, according to the rule, that it is God only that can swear by himself. But how can they escape the con- text, which expressly informs us, that “ the Lord ” (Jehovah), and not Jesus, swore in this manner? We must not however overlook what the Apostle says in his epistle to the Philip- pians, ch. ii. 9, 10,1], where he declares, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongueshall confess ; but neither must we forget, that Jesus is declared to have been exalted :to these honors by God, and that the only confession required is that he is Lord, which office ( 145 ) confession of his dignity is to the glory of God the Father. 9, “ Wherefore God also hath highly eralted him, and given him a name which is above every name ; 10, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, 11, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Some have adopted a most extraordinary way of esta- blishing the deity of Jesus. Any epithet or act, however common it may be, ascribed to God in the sacred writings, and also to Christ in the New Testament, is adduced by them as a proof of his deity; and I observe with the ui- most surprize, that the prejudice of many Christians in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity induces them to lay stress upon such sophisms. For instance, Isaiah xliii. 3, « For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour”—compared with 2d Peter iii. 18, “ Our Lord and’ Saviour Jesus Christ.” The conclusion they draw from these passages is, that unless Jesus were God, he could not be a Saviour: but how futile this reasoning is will clearly appear from the following passages ; Nehemiah ix. 27, “ Thou gavest them sayiours, who saved them.” “ Qbad. 27, “ And saviours shall come up on mount Zion.” 2d Kings xiii. 5, “ And the Lord gave Israel a saviour, so they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as befuretime.” Isaiah xix. 19, 20, “ In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the op- pressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, T ( 146 >) and he shall deliver them,” If this argument possesses any force, then it would lead us to acknowledge the deity not only of Jesus, but that of those different indiyidua!s to whom the term “ Saviours” or “ Saviour’ is applied in the above citations, The plirase in Isaiah, “ Besides me there is no Saviour,” is easily accounted for by consider- ing, that all those who have been instrumental in effecting the deliverance of their fellow-creatures from evils of what- ever nature were dependent themselves upon God, and only instruments in his hands; and thus all appearance of inconsistence is removed. Again, Psalm xxiii. 1, “ Jehovah is my Shepherd”— compared with John x. 16, “ And other sheep Ihave, which are not of his fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shep- herd.” In the former text David declared God to be his © shepherd or protector; in the latter Jesus represents himself as the one shepherd of the one fold of Christians, some of whom were already attached to him, and others were after- wards to become converts: but Trinitarian writers thus — conclude from these passages—if Christ be not one with Jehovah, he could not be called a Shepherd, and thus there would be two shepherds: but a little refleetion on the fol- lowing passages will convince every unbiassed person, that Moses is called a shepherd in like manner, and his followers a flock; and that the term “Shepherd” is applied to others also, without conveying the idea of their unity with Jehovah, Isaiah \xiii. 11, “ Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock ?” Ezekiel xxxiv. 23, 24, ‘‘ And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; « 344 ) he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the - Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them. I the Lord have spoken it.” If they insist (though without any ground) upon interpreting the name Davidas put for Jesus, they must still attribute his shepherdship over his flock to divine commission, and must relinquish the idea of unity between God the employer and the Messiah hisservant. Jeremiah xxiii. 4, “ I will set up shepherds over them, which shall feed them: and they shall fea no more, nor be dismay- ed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord.” Psalm \xxviii, 56, “ Theytempted and provoked the most high God”—compared with Cor. x. 9, “ Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted.”—They thus conclude: the former passage declares the most high God to have been tempted by rebellious Israelites, and in the latter Jesus is re- presented to have been the person tempted by some of them —consequently Jesus is the most high God. How far can- not prejudice lead astray men of sense! Is it not an insult to reason, to infer the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of his being in common with God tempted by Israel and others? Are we not all, in common with Jesus, liable to be tempted both by men and by Satan ? Hebrews iv, 15, “* For we have not an high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as w2 are, yet without sin.” Genesis xxii. 1, “ And it came to pass after these things, that God didtempt Abraham,” Can the liability to temptation common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, and to all mankind be of any avail to prove the divinity and unity of these respective subjects of temp- tation ? . We find Moses in common with God is spoken against by the rebellious Israelites. Mumbers xxi. 5, “ And the ( 148 ) people (Israel) spoke against God, and against Moses”— Are we to conclude upon this ground, that God as well as Moses isdeclared to have been spoken against by Israel, that Moses therefore is God himself? In the same text quoted by them, we find the most high God provoked also—(they tempted and provoked the most high God)—so we find Moses and David provoked at different times, Mum. xxi. 1, “ And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked Da- vid;” and Psalm evi. 32, 33, ‘It went ill with Moses for their sakes: because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.” Can any one from the circumstance of Moses and David having been the sub- jects of provocation, in common with God, be justified in attempting to prove the deity of either of them ? Psalm liv. 5, “ Thy maker is thine husband, the Lord of hosts is his name’”—compared with John iii, 29, “ He that bath the bride is the bridegroom, &c.” v. 23, “ For the hus- band is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church, &c.” From these they infer, thatas the Church is one bride, so on the other one hand there is one husband, who is termed in one place God, and in another place Christ. My readers will be pleased to examine the language employed in these two instances: in the one, God is represented as the husband of all his creatures, and in the other Christ is declar- ed to be the husband or the head of his followers; there is therefore an inequality of authority evidently ascribed to God and to Jesus. Moreover, Christ himself shews the relation that existed between him and his Church, and himself and God, in John xv. 1, “ I am the true vine, and my Fa- ther is the husbandman’—*“I am the vine, ye are the branches.”’—Would it not be highly unreasonable to set at defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus between God, him- ¢ 149 ) self, and his Church, and to attempt a conclusion directly contrary to his authority, and unsupported by revelation ? Rev. xxii, 13, “ I am Alphaand Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last”-—compared with Isaiah xliv. 6, “ Thug saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and 1 am the last ; and beside me there is no God.” From a comparison of these verses they conclude, that there is no God besides him who is the first and the last; but Jesus is the first and the last; therefore besides Jesus there is no other God. I must embrace this opportunity, of laying before my readers the context of the verse in Revelation, which will, I presume, shew to every unbiassed mind how the verse in question has been misapplied ; since the verse cited in defence of the deity of Jesus, when consi- dered in relation to the passages that precede and follow it, most clearly declares his inferiority and his distinct nature from the Father. Rev. xxii. 6, “ And he (the angel) said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy Prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. 7 Be- hold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. 8 And I John saw these things and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who shew- ed me these things, 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for 1 am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. 10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the say- ings of the prophecy of this book : for the time is at hand. 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 15 Iam Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they thatdo Ais com- mandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolators, and whosoever loveth and mak- eth a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” If they ascribe verse 13, (‘1am Alpha and Omega, &c.”’) to Jesus, and not to the angel mentioned in the above passage, they must also unavoidably ascribe to Jesus the passage coming immediately before or after it, including of course verse the 9th, ‘‘ Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for Iam thy fellow-servant, &c.” for there is but one agent described by the pronoun “ He” in the whole train of the verses above quoted, who is pointed out clearly by the repetition of the phrase, “ Behold I come quickly” in verses 7th and 12th. In this case the passage, although it speaks of Jesus as Alpha and Omega, &c. yet must be considered as denying him the divine nature, and ranking him among the chosen servants of God; (‘For I am thy fellow-servant.”) If they ascribe all the verses of chap. xxii. as far as verse the 16th, to the angel, they cannot justify themselves in founding their conclusion with regard to the Deity of Jesus upon the force of verse the 13th, “ Iam Alpha and Omega, &c.’’ which in the latter case can bear no relation to Christ, since their SyS- tem requires them to apply it to an inferior angel. I beg ( Wl ) the attention of my. readers to five particular cireum- stances in this instance. Ist, That the angel whom the Lord sent, as intimated im verse the 6th, was intended to shew his servants in general things that would shortly happen; and the angel sent by Jesus, as found in verse 16th, was to testify to John and other disciples the things relating to the churches. 2dly, Jesus declares in verse 16th and in the subsequent verses that he is the offspring of David, and that it is God that has the power of punishing any one who either takes away from or adds any thing to his revelation. 3dly, That the passage in Revelation xxii. 13 is not. parallel to that contained in the prophecy of Isaiah, xliv. 6, since the. phrase ‘“ Besides me there is no God,” which is found in the latter, and upon which the whole controversy turns, is not contained in the former. 4thly, That when the angel rejected the worship of John address- ed to himself, he ordered him to worship God without men- tioning the name either jointly or separately of thelamb, by which Jesus is distinguished throughout the Revelation :— “ Worship God,” ver. 9th. 5thly, In the very next verse, after the speaker, whether Jesus or an angel, describes him- self as Alpha and Omega, he uses the expression, “ blessed are they, that do Ais commandments,” clearly indicating the existence of another being to whose commandments obedience is required. It is worth noticing here, that the terms “ Alpha and Omega, beginning and end,” are in a finite sense justly ap- plicable to Jesus as the first of all created existences, and the last of those who will be required to resign the authori- ty with which he is invested by the Father. “See Colossi- ans i. 15, “The first-born of every creature.” | Corinthians ( 152 ) xv. 28, “Then shall the Son also ees be subject unto him that put all things under him.” Isaiah x\, 10, ‘* Behold, the Lord God will come with a strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his re- ward is with him, and his work before him”—is compared with Revelation xxii, 12, “I come quickly ; and my reward is with me.” From the circumstance of the common appli- cation of the phrase “ his reward is with him’’ to God and to Jesus, they infer the deity of the latter; in an- swer to which I beg to refer my readers to the foregoing paragraphs illustrating verse 11th, which immediately pre- cedes the verse in question of the Revelation, and also to John v. 30, 22, “As Thear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hathsent me. The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son”—and to Mat- thew xvi. 27, “For the Son of manshallcome inthe glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” Do not these passages point out evidently, that the power of exercising judgment and of distributing rewards has been given to Jesus by the Al- mighty, and that Jesus possesses this authority in behalf of the Father of the universe ? . Ephesians iv. 8, “When he (Christ) ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men”— compared with Psalm xviii. 18, “ Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.’”’? The Jews are of opinion that David in this verse spoke of Moses, who when he as- cended to Mount Sinai received gifts, i. e. the divine com- mandments) for men, even for the rebellious Israelites ; in this case the Apostle Paul in his epistle, must have applied the verse in an accommodated sense to Jesus. The verse in the Psalm may be directly applied to Jesus, who, on his ascension, received gifts of pardon even for those who had rebelled against him. Mr. Brown, a celebrated Trinitarian Commentator, and several others, consider the 18th verse in this Psalm, and verse 8th in this chapter of Ephesians, as immediately applicable to Jesus asthe Messiah. But ano- ther writer, Mr. Jones, with a view to establish the deity of Christ bya comparison of Ephesians iv. 8, with Psalm \xviii. 18, omits carefully the latter part of the verse, (“Thou hast received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them,”) which is altogether inapplicable to God, and quotes only the first part of the verse, (“ thou hast ascended on high, thouhast led captivity captive ;””) and thence draws this conclusion—“ The Scrip- ture here (in the Epistle referred to) expressly affirms the person who ascends, &c. to be the Lord God.” From a view of the whole verse, the sense must, according to this mode of reasoning, be as follows—“ The person whoascend- edon high, and who received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among them, is the Lord God”—an inter- pretation, which as implying that the Lord God ascended and received gifts froma Being of course superior to himself, in order that he might dwell among men, is equally absurd and unscriptural. Zechariah xii. 10, as found in the English version, “ In that day they shall look upon me whom they have pierced”—compared with John xix. 37, “ They shall look on him whom they pierced ;”—from which comparison he has thus concluded—* As it stands in the Prophet, the Lord v ( 154 ) Jehovah was to be pierced ; so that unless the man Christ who hung upon the cross was also the Lord Jehovah, the Evangelist is found to be a false witness, in applying’ to him a prophecy that could not possibly be fulfilled in him.” In order to shew the source of Mr. Jones’s error, I beg to lay before my readers the verse in Hebrew, and a transla- tion thereof from the Arabic Bible, as well asa correct translation into English. DAM IN nM abwry swy Oy a m2 Sy sns5w sm Sy sepa yoy 72D) MPI AWN Mm De WDM “257 by sam Poy ADM pahiy gl uy Ran Coke gg! Crns chs unl 552 Che he lam 9 92> 5419 OM 5 CMS “ And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of yrace and of sup- plication: and they shall look coward me on account of him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his own son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.” This translation is strongly confirmed by the Septuagint, whose words I subjoin with a literal rendering— Kai émCaddovra: eos we, avO’ dv xatwexnoayro “ And they shall look towards me, on account of those whom they pierced.” In the Prophet the Lord speaks of Israel at the approach of their restoration, when they will look up to God for mercy on account of their cruelty to the Messiah, whom they pierced, and for whom they will mourn and 4 155) lament. Hence the prophecy in question has been fulfilled in Jesus, without representing the Lord (Jehovah) as the object pierced ; and consequently no false testimony is chargeable upon John the Evangelist, who, by changing ” found in the Hebrew and Septuagint into “him,” we may suppose had in view the general import rather than the particular expressions of the prophecy, pointing out that they looked to the Messiah also, whom they had pierced. Without referring to the Hebrew phrase, which shews beyond doubt the in- the object of the verse from “ me accuracy of the English translation of the verse, common sense is, I presume, sufficient to shew, that since in the last two clauses in the verse under consideration the Lord God speaks of the Messiah in the third person—(“ for him, they (i. e. the Israelites) will mourn and lament”) he must be supposed to have spoken of the same third person as pierced by them unjustly, and thus to have pointed out the cause of their lamentation. If Jehovah had been pierced, he would have been mentioned throughout in the first person, also as the object of lamentation and bitterness. Ist Pet. ii. 6, ‘‘ Wherefore also it iscontained in the Scrip- ture, Behold, I lay in Zion achief corner-stone, elect, pre- cious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confound- ed. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious : but unto them who are disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of thé cor- er, 8 And astone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedi- ent; whereunto also they were appointed ;”—compared with Tsaiah xxviii. 16, “ Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Be- hold, J lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation ; he that believ- ( 156 ) eth shall not make haste ;” and Isaiah viii, 13, “Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. 14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel; for a gin and for a snare to the inhabi- tants of Jerusalem.” These passages shew, that the Lord God placed the Messiah as a corner-stone for the temple, and that who- ever stumbles at that stone so exalted by the Almighty, stumbles at or disobeys him who has thus placed it. But Mr. Jones omits the words found in Ist Pet. ii,6, and Isaiah xxviii. 16, “ I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, precious,” &c. which shew the created nature of the Messiah, and after quoting a part of verse 7th and 8th of 1 Pet. chap. ii. (“ The stone which the builder dis- allowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,”) and only verse 13th and part of the 14th of chapter viii. of Isaiah, he has thus concluded—*“ This stone of stumbling and rock of offence, as it appears from the latter text, (the text in Peter,) is no other than Christ, the same stone whieh the builders rejected. Therefore Christ is the Lord of hosts himself.’—-Here the Apostle Peter, in conformity with the Prophet, represents God as the founder of the corner stone, and Jesus as the same corner stone, which, though it be disallowed by the Jews, yet is made by the same founder the head of the corner; but the Jews from their disobedience stumbled directly at the stone so exalted; rendering it a stone of stumbling and rock of offence ; and hereby they stumbled secondarily at the founder of this stone, and offended the Lord God; who though he was the rock of defence of Israel, (rock of refuge, Psalm ( 157 ) xciv. 24,) became a stone of stumbling and rock of offence. veyzotr Thus in Luke x. 16, Jesus declares to his disciples, «“ He that despiseth you, despiseth me ; and he that de- spiseth me, despiseth him that sent me;” intimating by these words, that contempt for the holy doctrines which Christ commissioned his disciples to teach, argued contempt for him by whom Christ himself was sent ; but no one will thence infer the deity of those disciples. In verses 6th and7th in question, and in verse Ath of the same chapter of Peter, (« To whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious”) Jesus is distinctly declared to be “a stone of stumbling,” “a ~ living stone chosen of God;” the indefinite article “ a” here denoting that he is only one of many such stones. It is surprizing that Mr. Jones could overlook these phrases, and conclude upon the identity of Jesus with God from metaphorical language, which represents God as “a stumbling stone” of Israel, and Jesus a stumbling stone of those who never believed him. That there is nothing peculiar in Jesus being called a stone or a shepherd, see Genesis xlix. 24, where in a metaphorical sense Joseph is called “ the shepherd and the stone of Israel.” 2. The Hebrew language, in common with other Asia- tic tongues, frequently indulges in metaphor; and conse- quently the Old Testament, written in that language, abounds with expressions which cannot be taken in their literal sense. This indeed Jesus himself points out in John x. 34, 35, 36, in which he justifies the assump- tion of the title of Sonof God, to denote that he was sanctified and sent of the Father, by shewing that in the scriptures the name even of God was sometimes me- ( 158 ) taphorically applied to men of power or. exalted rank, Hence we find epithets which in their strict sense in their most common application are peculiar to God, ap- plied to inferior beings, 2s I have already noticed, But the Scripture avoids affording the least pretext of misunderstanding the real nature of such objects, by various adjuncts and epithets of obvious meaning, quite inapplicable to the Deity. It is melancholy however to observe, how frequently men overlook the idiom of the language of Scripture, and (apparently misled by the force of preconceived notions) set aside every expression that modifies those that suit their peculiar ideas. Were we to admit common phrases applied both to God and to Jesus as a proof of the divinity of the latter, we must upon the same ground be led to acknowledge the Deity of Moses, of David, and of other Prophets, who are in common with God the subjects of peculiar phrases. Moses in Deut. xxx. 15, declares, ‘‘ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.” So Jehovah declares in Jeremiah xxi. 8, “ Behold, I set before you the way of life, and the way of death.” In conformity to this mode of argument adopted by Trinitarian writers, we should thus conclude from these passages—unless Moses were one with Jehovah, he could not in his own name employ the same authoritative phrase which is used by Jehovah. In the same manner the term worship is equally applied to God and David in Chronicles xxix. 20, “And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessedthe Lord God of their fathers, — and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king.”—-Whence, according to their mode of argu- ment, every one must find himself justified in drawing the ( 159 ) following conclusion—God is the only object of worship __put the term worship is in the Bible applied to David— David must therefore be acknowledged as God. I have now noticed all the arguments founded on scrip- ture that 1 have heard of as advanced in support of the doc~- trine of the Trinity, except such as appeared to me so fu- tile as to be unworthy of remark ; andin the course of my examination have plainly stated the grounds on which I conceive them to be inadmissible. Perhaps my opinions may subject me to the severe censure of those who dissent from me, and some will be ready to discover particular motives for my presuming to differ from the great majority of Christian teachers of the present day in my view of Chris- tianity, with the doctrines of which I have become but re- cently acquainted.—Personal interest can hardly be alleged as likely to have actuated me, and therefore the love of dis- tinction or notoriety may perhaps be resorted to, to account for conduct which they wish it to be believed honest con- vietion could never direct.—In reply to such an accusation I can only protest in the most solemn manner, that even in the belief that I have been successful in combating the doc- trine of Trinitarians, I cannot assume to myself the smallest merit :—for what credit can be gained in proving that one is not three, and that the same being cannot be at once man and God ; or in opposing those who maintain, that all who do not admit doctrines so incomprehensible must be there- fore subjected by the All-merciful to eternal punishment ?— It is too true to bedenied, that we are led by the force of the senses to believe many things that we cannot fully under- stand. But where the evidence of sense does not compel us, how can we believe what is not only beyond our compre- hension, but contrary to it and to the common course of na- ¢ 160 ) ture, and directly against revelation ; which declares posi- tively the unity of God, as well as his incomprehensibility ; but no where ascribes to him any number of persons, or any portionof magnitude ? Job xxxvi. 26, “ Behold God is great, and we know him not.” xxxvii, 23, “ Touching the Almighty, we cannot find himout.” Psalm exlv. 3, ** His greatness is unsearchable.” Neither are my attempts owing to a strong hope of removing early impressions from the breasts of those, whose education instilled certain ideas into their minds from the moment they became capable of re- ceiving them; for notwithstanding great and long conti- nued exertions on my part tv do away Hindoo polytheism, though pakpably gross and absurd, my success has been very partial. This experience therefore, it may be suggested, ought to have been sufficient to discourage me from any other attempt of the kind ; but it is my reverence for Chris- tianity, and for the author of this religion, that has induced me to endeavour to vindicate it from the charge of poly- theism as far as my limited capacity and knowledge extend. It is indeed mortifying to my feelings to find a religion, that from its sublime doctrines and pure morality should be respected above all other systems, reduced almost to a level with Hindoo theology, merely by human creeds and prejudices; and from this cause brought to a comparison with the paganism of ancient Greece; which while it inelud- eda plurality of Gods, yet maintained that 30s govt eig, or “Godisone,” and that their numerous divine persons were all comprehended in that one Deity. Having derived my own opinions on this subject en- tirely from the Scriptures themselves, | may perhaps be excused for the confidence with which I maintain them against those of so great a majority, who appeal to the ( 161 ) same authority for theirs; in as much as I attribute the different views, not to any inferiority of judgement com- pared with my own limited ability, but to the powerful effects of early religious impressions ; for when these are deep, reason is seldom allowed its natural scope in exa- mining them to the bottom. Were it a practice among Christians to study first the books of the Old Testament as found arranged in order, and to acquire a knowledge of the true force of scriptural phrases and expressions with- out attending to interpretations given by any sect—and then to study the New Testament, comparing the one with the other; Christianity would not any longer be liable to be encroached upon by human opinions. Aa I have often observed that English divines, when argu- ing with those that think freely on religion, quote the ~ names of Locke and Newton as defenders of Christianity ; but they totally forget that the Christianity which those illustrious persons professed did not contain. the doctrine of the Trinity, which our divines esteem as the funda- mental principle of this religion. For the conviction of the public as to the accuracy of this assertion, I beg to be al; lowed to extract here a few lines of their respective works, referring my readers to their publications upon re- ligion for more complete information. Locke’s Works, vol. 7, page 421,“ But that neither he nor others may mistake my book, this is that in short which it says—Ist, That there is a faith that makes men Christi- ans—2dly, That this faith is the believing “Jesus of Naza- | reth to be the Messiah” —3rdly, That the believing Jesus to _be the Messiah, includes in it a receiving him for our Lord and King, promised and sent from God ; and so lays upon all his subjects an absolute and indispensible necessity of w ( 162 ) , assenting to all that they can attain of the knowledge that he taught, and of sincere obedience to all that he com- manded.” Sir I. Newton’s Observations upon the Prophecies, page 262. “ The Beasts and Elders therefore represent the Christians of all nations; and the worship of these Christians in their churches is here represented under the form of worshipping God and the Lamb in the Temple. God for his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb for his benefaction in redeeming us with his blood :— God as sitting upon the throne and living for eyer, and the Lamb exalted above all by the merits of his death.” It cannot be alleged that these personages, in imitation of several Grecian Philosophers, published these sentiments only in conformity to the vulgar opinion, and to the esta- ‘blished religion of their country; for both the vulgar opi- nion and the religion of the government of England in their days were directly opposite to the opinions which these celebrated men entertained. The mention of the name of Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest mathematicians (if not the greatest) that ever existed, has brought into my recollection, a mathematical argument which I some time ago heard a divine adduce in support of the Trinity, and which I feel inclined to con- sider here, though I am afraid some of my readers may — censure me for repeating an argument of this kind, It is as follows: that as three lines compose one triangle, so three persons compose one Deity. It is astonishing that a mind so conversant with mathematical truth as was that of Sir Isaac Newton, did not discover this argument in favor of the possible existence of a Trinity, brought to light by Trinitarians, considering that it must have lain so much ( 163 ) in his way. If it did occur to him, -its force may possibly have given way to some such considerations as the following.—This analogy between the Godhead and a triangle, in the first instance, denies to God, equally with a line, any real existence ; for extension of all kinds, abstracted from position or relative situation, exists only in idea. Secondly, It destroys the unity which they attempt to establish between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for the three sides of a triangle are conceived of as se- parate existences. Thirdly, It denies to each of the three persons of God, the epithet “ God,” inasmuch as each side cannot be designated a triangle ; though the Father of the universe is invariably called God in the strict sense of the term. Fourthly, It will afford to that sect among Hindoos who suppose God to consist of four persons or seize, an opportunity of using the same mode of arguing, to shew the reasonableness of their sentiments, by comparing the compound Deity with the four sides of a quadrilateral fi- gure. Fifthly, This manner of arguing may be esteemed better adapted to support the polytheism of the majority of Hindoos, who believe in numerous persons under one God- head ; for instead of comparing the Godhead with a trian- gle, a figure containing the fewest sides, and thereby prov- ing the three persons of the Godhead, they might compare God with a polygon, more suitable to the dignified rank of . the Deity, and thus establish the consistency with reason of the belief, that the Godhead may be composed of numerous. persons. Sixthly, This mode of illustration would, in fact, equally suit the atheist as the polytheist. For as the Trinity is represented by the three sides of a triangle, so the eternal revolution of nature without any divine person may be compared to the circle, which is considered as having no ( 164 ) ~ sides nor angles ; or Seventhly, as some great mathema- ticians consider the circle as a polygon, having an infi- nite number of sides, the illustration of the Trinitarian doc- trine by the form of the triangle will by analogy justify those sects, who maintain the existence of an infinite num- ber of persons in the Godhead, in referring for an illus- tration of their opinions to the circular, or rather perhaps to the globular figure, in which is to be found an_ infinity of circles, formed each of an infinite number of sides. As I was concluding this Appendix, a friend to the doc- trine of the Trinity kindly lent me Serle’s “ Hore soli- tari.” I confine here my attention only to four or five arguments, which the author has adduced in the begin- ning of his work, and that for several reasons, Ist, Because a deliberate attention to the nature of the first-mentioned arguments may furnish the reader with a general idea of the rest, and justify me in neglecting them, 2ndly, Because such of the others as seem to me at all worthy of notice have been already considered and replied, to ; and 3rdly, Because I am unwilling to protract further discus- sion, which has already grown to a length far beyond my original intention, At page 10. Mr. Serle alleges, that “God says by Moses in the book of Genesis, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and then just afterwards, the Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Here are three persons in one power; the beginning, God, and the Spi- rit.” If a bare mention of the word “ beginning” and “ spirit,” (or properly speaking “ wind,”)-in the two first verses of Genesis, justifies the numbering of them as two persons of God, how can we conscientiously omit the “‘ wa- ter” mentioned in the same verse as coexistent with “ spirit,” ( 165 ) making it the fourth person, and darkness, which is men- tioned before Spirit, as a fifth person of God: and if under any pretence we are justified in classing “ beginning,” an abstract relation, as a person of God, how can we deny the same dignity to the “ end,” which is equally an abstract relation? Nay, the very words of chap. i. 8, of Revelations might be quoted to prove one of the persons of God to be the “ ending:’”— “ I am Alpha and Omega, the BEGINNING and the ENDING, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” We have then God, the Beginning, the Spirit, and the Ending, four persons at least whom we must admit into the Godhead, if Mr. Serle’s opinion have any foundation. Page 12. “ They (the ancient Chaldee Jews and Caba- lists) expressed their idea of the Trinity by this particular type (638) where the three jods denote Jah, Jah, Jah, or that each of three persons (according to our Athanasian creed) is by himself Jah or Lord :—the point + (kametz) as common to each, implies the divine nature in which the three persons equally existed; and the circle, inclosing all, was intended to exhibit the perfect unity, eternity, and conjunction of the whole Trinity.” This type, if it existed at any time, can bear various interpretations, Theistical, Polytheistical, or Atheistical; but in Hebrew and Chal- dee, the sign which is generally used to denote the Deity. has two jods only ; a reference to the Targums of Jona- than and Onkelos, written in the Chaldee language, and to other Targums in Hebrew and Chaldee, will establish the fact beyond doubt. This practice, which according to Mr. Serle’s mode of arguing, establishes the duality of God, is entirely overlooked by him. x ( 166 ) In the same page again he says, that “in a very ancient book of the Jews, the first person, or Hypostasis, is de- scribed as "> Kather, the crown, or admirable and profound intelligence; the second person m15n Chochma, wisdom, or the intelligence illuminating the creation, and the second glory; and the third person 393 Binah or the sanctify- ing intelligence, the worker of faith and the father of it.” He immediately after this assertion notices in page 13, “they believed, taught, and adored three primordial exist- ences in the Godhead, which they called sometimes nD middoth or properties, and sometimes MyDD sephiroth or numerations.” The force of truth here impels the author to contradict himself directly ; since he at one time as- serts that the Jews believed them to be the three persons of God, and again forgetting what he said, he affirms that the Jews called them properties, or numeration of proper- ties. The fact is, that when the intercourse between the Jews and Greeks was great, the former, in imitation of some of the Jatter, entertained the idea that the supreme Deity used ten superior intelligences or qualities in the creation of the world; namely, sn5 Crown—p5n Wisdom—33 Understanding ——553 Greatness——5)33 Mightiness— maxon Beauty—ny3 Everlasting —\4 Glory—p» Foun- dation—y7)55y Kingdom.* But a Godhead consisting of ten persons not suiting Mr. Serle’s hypothesis, he omits the seven last, and mentions only the three first, which he denominates a ‘proof of the trinity. 4 In page 14. Mr. Serle represents “ R. Simeon and the famous Jonathan treating upon the Trisagion, or thrice holy, in the 6th chapter of Isaiah,” as saying, “ that the first * This opinion is still to be found in the conversation as well as writings of the learned amongst Eastern theologians, Holy implies the Father, the second Holy the Son, and the third Holy the Holy Ghost.” I therefore give the com- mentary of Jonathan*, which I have been so fortunate as to procure, in order to shew how zeal in behalf of the trinity has sometimes led men to forget the claims of care and prudence. Jonathan’s targum on the term “ Holy’ thrice repeated in Isaiah vi. 3. is as follows: 9hwa wp prnss Say sys by wep mpnsow ma Ax>y sono mndy dys mbdyd weap “ Holy in the most high hea- vens, the place of his glory—Holy upon the earth, the work of his power—Holy for ever and ever and ever.” Again in page 14. he says, that “The Jews before Christ had a title for the Godhead consisting of twelve letters, which Maimonides, the most learned of all their writers, owns to have been a compounded name, or name (as was common among the Rabbins) composed of the initial let- ters of other names. Galatinusfrom R. Hakkadosh (who lived about A, D. 150, or rather from Porchetus Salvaticus, or Raymundus Martini) believes that these twelve letters were wpm myn) 73,38; i. e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” There is no impossibility in the existence of a name of God consisting of twelve letters, as is stated to have been | the case on the authority of Maimonides, because we find different names of God, consisting of various numbers of letters. But Mr. Serle, on the authority of Galatinus, _ a Christian writer, represents these twelve letters as ex- | pressing the names ‘of Father, Son, and Ho'y Spirit. I therefore make afew remarks on thishead. Ist, Mr. Serle * The copy which is now in my hands was printed in London by ‘Thomas Roycroft in the vear 1656. It contains, besides the targnum of Jonathan, the original Hebrew text, together with the Septnagint, Syriac, and Arabic _ translations, each accompanied with a Latin interpretation, ¥y ( 168) himself expresses his doubts respecting the source from_ which Galatinus had obtained his information, “ whether from R. Hakkadosh, from Porchetus Salvaticus, or from ; ftaymundus Martini.” 2ndly, The construction of this” sentence of tvelve letters, is conformable to the European style of writing, but is quite foreign to Hebrew idiom, which requires a conjunction expressed before 73 or Son; but the omission of this shews that it must have been in- vented by one more accustomed to the idiom of European languages, than to that of the Hebrew, 3rdly, Maimonides, the original authority of Mr. Serle, owns that these twelve letters were the initials of other names ; whereas Mr. Serle in the explanation of them represents them as composing in themselves three complete names, Father, Son; and Ho- ly Spirit, instead of giving a name for each of the twelve letters, — I am not aware how many arguments and illustrations of similar weight and importance to those already discussed may still remain, that have not been brought to my no- tice ; but I trust the inquiry has proceeded sufficiently far to justify me in still adhering to the unity of God as the doctrine taught alike in the Old and in the New Testa-. ments, I now conclude this Appendix, with repeating my prayer, that a day may soon arrive, when religion shall not be a cause of difference between man and man, and when every one will regard the Precepts of Jesus as the sole Guide to Peace and Happiness. a —___ ( 169 ) P. S. Dr. Prideaux, in the fourth volume of his “ Connec- _ tion,” (which has very lately come into my hands,) takes a different view of Isaiah ch. ix. verses 6 and 7, from that which has been offered in the preceding pages. After quoting the words of the prophet according to the Eng- lish version, he says, “ Christians all hold that this is spoken of the Messiah; and Jonathan, in the Targum which is truly his, doth on that place say the same.” Hereby he gives out that this prophecy, including the epithets “ Won- derful, Counsellor; the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the prince of peace,” is applied by Jonathan, as by Christians, to the Messiah :—TI therefore give here the ex- planation given by Jonathan to verses 6 and 7, which will sufficiently shew the error Dr. Prideaux has committed. nod SHAN AS Nb PON VAT AN TT MSD ROSIN hap L|Ip yo Taw MPAN NOS by RAvUN D*Sp) moby “Dy NDbowo NIWA SoDdyd Ep NDI NNN asp Ly son> NDby MUST NATUN MTDp> IIT ID Fy saya snd) om sipaed sm rsdo Sy ait oo PNT ISYAN PNsy MT NS Noy Ty yop NMI ‘The prophet says, to the house of David a child is born, to us a son is given, and he will take upon himself the preservation of the law; from the presence of the eauser of wonderful counsels, the great God enduring for ever, his name will be called the anointed (in Heb. Messiah), in whose days peace shall be multiplied upon us.” “ Great- ness shall be multiplied to those who obey the law, ‘and to those who keep peace, there will be no end to the throne of David and of his government: for establishing and for building it with judgment and with justice now and for ever.” Here Jonathan, in direct opposition to Christians, de- nies to the son so born the epithets “ wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, and everlasting Father ;” and applies to him only the title of “ the prince of peace” (nearly synonymous with Messiah,) on account of his preserving peaceduring his reign, as was promised of the Messiah. (2 Kings xx. 19, * Ts it not good (says Hezekiah) if peace and truth be in my days?” 2 Chronicles xxxii. 26. “ The wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah.”) This applica- tion of the term anointed (or Messiah) is made to Hezekiah in the same manner as to other eminentkings, oftencalled Mes- siah in the sacred writings: —1 Samuel xii. 3. “ Behold here lam! witness against me before the Lord, and his anointed (or his Messiah) the king.” 2 Samuel xxiii. 1. “ David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the Messiah of the God of Jacob, &c.” xxii. 51.“ He is the tower of salvation for his King, and sheweth mercy to his Messiah, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.” 1 Sa- muel ii. 10. “ The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his King, and. exalt the horn of his Messiah.” Psalm xx. 6. “ Now know I that the Lord saveth his Messiah.” Isaiah xlv. 1. “ Thus saith the Lord to his Messiah, to Cyrus,” The reign of Hezekiah Was so accompanied with peace and success that some Jewish commentators entertained the opinion, that Heze- kiah was really the last Messiah promised by God. R. Hillel, 9apw Sxqwd mwa ond px 55m :a5 spe rapin 9 imdoN- “ There is no Messiah for the Israelites, for they enjoyed. it (i. e, they had him) at the time of Hezekiah.” if Trinitarians still insist, in defiance of the above au- thorities, and under pretence of the word “ anointed” or @ Uae ) “ Messiah” found in the Targum of Jonathan, that his inter- pretation should be understood of the expected Messiah, then as far as depends upon the interpretation given by him of verses 6 and 7, they must be compelled to relin- . quish the idea that he expected a divine deliverer. More- ’ over, all other celebrated Jewish writers, some of whom are more ancient than Jonathan, apply the passage in question to Hezekiah, some of them differing however from him in the application of the epithets contained in verse 6. Talmud Sanhedrim, 11 Ch. “ God said, Let, Hezekiah, who has five names, take vengeance upon the king of Assyria, who has taken upon himself five names also.” R. Sholomo follows the annotation made by Shammai. “For a child is born, &. Though Ahaz was. wicked, his son, who was born to him to be a king in his stead, shall be righteous, the government of God and his yoke shall be on his shoulder, because he shall obey the law and keep the commandments thereof, and shall incline his shoulder to the burthen of God.—And he calls his name, &c. God, who is the wonderful counsellor, and the mighty and ever- lasting Father, called his name the prince of peace, for peace and truth shall be in his days*.” The reader will not suppose the application of the terms “ wonderful counsellor, mighty God, everlasting Fa- ther, and prince of peace” to Hezekiah to be unscriptural, * It is worth noticing, that “ to be called” and “ to be” do not invaria- bly signify the same thing ; since the former does not always imply that the thing is in reality what it is called, but the use of it is justified when the thing is merely taken notice of in that view. See Lukei. 36, * This is the sixth month with her who was called (that is, reputed) barren,” Isaiah lxi. 3. ‘That they might be called (or accounted) trees of righteousness.” This is more especially the case when the phrase * to be called” has for its subject not a person, but the name of a person. See Deuteronomy xxv. 10. if And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his shoe lonsed.” Genesis x)viii. 16,‘ Let my name be named on them,” when he refers to page 139 of this work, and considers the foliowing passages, in which the same epithets are used for human beings, and even for inanimate objécts.—2 ‘Chronicles ii, 9, “The house which I am about to build — shall be wonderful great.”’ Micah iv. 9, “ Is there no king in thee ? is thy counsellor perished?” Genesis xxiii. 6, “ Hear us: thou art a mighty prince amongst us.” Judges ix. 13, “ Should I leave my wine which’ cheereth God and man,” that is; master and servant. 2 Thess. ii. 4, “« Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.” Gen, xlix. 26, “ To the utmost bound of the everlasting bills.’ 1 Samuel iv. 8, “ Who shall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty gods?” which Cruden interprets of the Jewish ark. Isaiah xii. 11—28, “ Therefore I have profaned the princes of the sanctuary.” I wonder how those who found their opinion respecting the Trinity on terms applied in common to God and crea- tures, can possibly overlook the plain meaning of the term « Son” or.“ Only-begotten,” continually applied to the Saviour throughout the whole of the New Testament; for should we understand the ‘term God, in its strict sense, — as denoting the First Cause, (that is, a being not born nor begotten.) we must necessarily confess that the idea of God is as incompatible with the idea of the “Son” or “ only-begotten,” as entity is with non-entity; and there- fore that to apply both terms to the same being will amount to the grossest solecism in language. « As to their assertion, that there are found in the Scrip- tures two sets of terms and phrases, one declaring the hu- manity of Jesus and another his deity, and that he must therefore be acknowledged to have possessed a twofold nature, human and divine, I have fully noticed it in pp. 24, 109. 140. pointing out such passaces as contain two sets of — pi’) terms and phrases applied also to Moses and even to the chiefs of Israel and to others ; and that, if it is insist- ed upon, that each word in the sacred writings should be taken inits strict sense, Moses and others, equally with the Saviour, must be considered as gods, and the religion of the Jews and Christians will appear as polytheistical as that _of heathens. Although there is the strictest consistency between all the passages in the sacred books, Trinitarians with a view to support their opinion charge them first with inconsistency, and then attempt to reconcile the alleged contradiction by introducing the doctrine of the union of two natures, divine and human, in one person, forgetting that at the same time the greatest incongruity exists between the na- ture of God and man, according to both revelation and common sense. If Christianity inculeated a doctrine which represents God as consisting of three persons, and appearing some- times in the human form, at other times in a bodily shape like a dove, no Hindoo in my humble opinion who searches after truth can conscientiously profess it in preference to Hindooism ; for that which rerfders the modern Hindoo system of religion absurd and detestable, is that it repre- sents the divine nature though one (4a @z1), as consisting of many persons, capable of assuming different forms. for the discharge of different offices. I am however most firmly convinced, that Christianity is entirely free from every trace of polytheism whether gross or refined. I therefore enjoy the approbation of my conscience in publishing the precepts of this*religion as the source of peace and hap- piness. FINIS. ee ae . “vemos ni #920 thy Oy. ota tai eel 1 dbaet ny sroebtyot (a ily Bagetit de ne bates adda aie Mf NF ella piy est at Re. Heiss & RIF oh la nolgitate otf? hue yale 4 28 Soi otaia ., tadpaocldeitiogdayfed as: sesqegny otter’ me ws 7 “6 lod qotartle roo bass obniaggdeie « ; iva atariot halk if ‘ft dood: bate Dal cloiwmtesit rooaeD Di ¢ ven recta P . er Y _ _ i * teibaitia SHS a5tip ve Fixer oe {sais ‘otra Loy ote oft Tan pies: rs ven “ ’ ey re. my im tiie gels dian fi D1 he Lgl ‘ i ls podriioub'es ) t éé : te ne 2k yi: een pri int ion’ s both i i S04 isteinide gus bon Enews ‘ti Downe sqader Mod's af ta binant ac f ‘esitouige di Ot *ekktiec bre oul 8 ‘tt gi i pact f f hates ts Hrs nA Th ei 1g 3 bay th AG +(i. =p) ni y Bo i“ A oe ant ypiis fy ' nee sgraierol Diwet! toe tere ‘No - WSH eahe Af aah Hits af ve tirajriitD 9 a ie wit i nai vey ener 1th pee ee ee a in, LAS FINAL APPEAL TO CHS CHRISTIAN PUBhIG, IN DEFENCE OF THE ‘* PRECEPTS OF JESUS.” BY RAMMOHUN Roy. bi ae Calcutta: PRINTED AT THE UNITARIAN PRESS, DHURMTOLLAH, 4 ws 1823. i i a 4 eye pele c tH eae gel if oy * re bile oe PE PET : *) OY ALILOG 0! ¥ BTS 493 ,re se Lt WOWEC Bo } ‘ —_—— All the preceding works of the author on the subject of Christianity were printed at the Bup- tist Mission Press, Calcutta ; but the acting proprietor of that press having, since the pur- lication of “the Second Appeal, declined, al- though in the politest manner possible, printing any other work that the author might publish on the same subject, he was under the necessity of purchasing a few types for his own use, and of depending principally upon native superinten- dance for the completion of the greater part of this work. This must form an apology to the public for the imperfections that may appear in its typographical execution. ERRATA. Page, Line. for. . read. 8 14 scared sacred, 34 23 hs his. 38 23 destroy destroy thein. 39 5 CXIII CXLI, 44 9 Vv Il, 48 9 obssrved observed. 54 25 comparsion comparisons 66 25 XL1L XLII 21. 69 12 60 30. — 25 13 23, ma ial 70 24 1 2. — 25 blood for him blood be shed for him. 75 2 which is which it is, 78 13 enemity enmity. 93 «(15 hh, 13. we Page. Line. 97 il 99 12 107 29 112 18 —_ 19 115 5 122 12 124 1 125 14 126 4 132 26 135 5 138 4 143 2 —_ 11 del. — 18 145 14 163 23 1642 La) ti Yog 166 22 163 19 166 17 167 q 170 20. del. —note 1 73 °«19 174 16 175 13 177 10 180 14 _ 21 Sl 12 184 1 —_— 2 187-13 192 1 198 28 203 20 for. 13 indentify horrows allussion — at loss eightth myest begining Vv begining Psalm 3—5 Manes and holy chosed a. 8 apostle is 49 19 XIL act 15 Zion could. Shiloah me Hosia know—heated Peeka XI whether so ever noticed cion emherors he prophet servant read, 16. identify. barrows, allusion. at a loss. eighth, mayest. beginning. L beginning. Psalm [ll 3—5. names. and an holy. chose. 7. apostles, was, 19. 49. XI. art. 16. Zidon. Shiloh. myself. Hosea, knew—healed. Pekah, IX. whithersoever, noticed in icon. emperors. even to. Bert ag be. prophets. servants. Puige. 207 208 209 216 218 220 229 235 236 238 240 246 253 255 Line. 22 del, del. del, for meraly kingdom on his thigh gloriously scriptures not shall warred whether that of. a servant see said as. ag page the beginning desciples a carrys comprehention was God ) (4) EVyEVETO the seek corrobate TAVVELTA coroborated XXXIL 32 15 he terally tyrrany read. merely, kingdoms, _ on his vesture and on his thigh, glorions. scripture, not me. shalt. roared, whither. of a servant, see me. had said. as head over. page 122. the Amen—the begianing, disciples. carries. comprehension. was with God. a. EVEVETO. geek the. corroborate. TAVUVEL TA. corroborated. V 31. 14. Besa literally. tyranpy. Sieg alee i ame lh, AES Sali fia oth ee atilt “Pao : pe 7 a eli ye eh! # WS ik + 5° 5 ' Rohe bwracee nr es. yer i a A chi dl , . : : R : i ty dis ang ¢ nar ye) j ae 7 ae ee S Mie a) EE ae Bast YM Ras ot rt eae ier heaves ies mart t Rigi Gy: Mei Dect i? yoiaa - ety * ayeet ab : get eee R ; yy } ap LA Vey ws ROY i. u ‘s lay 7 see » iis Fie i 1 OV Piet sy SE) PON Sear ay vk Chale wo >? aa uM sah ‘ " # 1 i ns ef e% ’ - ~ Eee) ; Y a 2 J y ! et ee tet { . : a , 2 bat pr leer 2 pe ne £ f : ; ‘« «hy 2) PREFACE. Norwirnstaxpine the apprehension of exciting displeasure in the breasts of many worthy men, I feel myself obliged to lay before the public at large this my selfdefence, intitled «A Fina AppraL to the Christian Public.” 1 however confidently hope that the liberal among them will be convinced, by a reference to the first part of this Essay and to my two former Appeals, that the necessity of self- vindication against the charge of being an “ injurer of the cause of truth,’ has com- pelled me, as a warm friend of that canse, to bring forward my reasons for opposing the opinions maintained by so large a body of men hizhly celebrated for learning and piety; a consideration which, I trust, will induce them to regard my present labours with an eye of indulgence. 1 am well aware that this difference of sen- timent has already occasioned much cool- ness towards me in the demeanour of some whose friendship I hold very dear; and that this protracted controversy has not only pre-" vented me from rendering my humble services A [uj to my countrymen, by various publications, which I had projected in the native languages, but has also diverted my attention from all other literary pursuits for three years past. Notwithstanding these sacrifices, I feel well sa- tis fied with my presentengagements, and cannot wish that I had pursued a different course ; since whatever may be the opinion of the world, my own conscience fully approves of my past endeavours to defend what I esteem the cause of truth. In my present vindication of the unity of the Deity, as revealed throngh the writings of the Old and New Testaments, [ appeal not only to those who sincerely believe in the Books of Revelation, and make them the standard of their faith and practice, and who must there-. fore deeply feel the great importance of the Divine oracles being truly interpreted; but I also appeal to those who, although indiffer- ent about religion, yet devote their minds to the investigation and discovery of truth, and who will therefore not think it unworthy of their attention to ascertain what are the gen- nine doctrines of Christianity, as taught by Christ and his Apostles, and how much it has been corrupted by the subsequent intermixture of the polytheistical ideas that were familiar i i to its Greek and Roman converts, and which - have continued to disfigure it in succeeding ages. 1 extend my appeal yet further ; I so- licit the patient attention of such individuals as are rather unfavourable to the doctrines of Christianity as generally promulgated, from finding them at variance with common sense, —that they may examine and judge whether its doctrines are really such as they are under- stood to be by the popular opinion, which now prevails. 1 feel assured that if religious controversy be carried on, with that temper and language which are considered by wise and pious men, as most consistent with the solemn and sacred nature of religion, and more especially with the mild spirit of Christianity, the truths of it cannot, for any length of time, be kept concealed, under the imposing yeil of high-sounding expressions, calculated to astonish the imagination and rouse the passions of the people, and thereby keep alive and strengthen the preconceived notions, with which such language has in their minds been, from infancy, associated. But I regret that the method which has hitherto been observed in inquiry after religious truth, by means of large publications, necessarily issued at con- [ iv J siderable intervals of time, is not, for several reasons, so well adapted to the speedy attain- ment of the proposed object, as I, and other frieuds of true religion, could wish.— These reasons are as follows:— f Ist. Many readers have not sufficient leisure or perseverance to go through a voluminous Iissay, that they may meke up their minds aud come to a setiled opinion on the sub- ject. 2ndly. Those who have time at their com- mand and interest themselves in religious re« searches, finding the real point under discus- sion mixed up with i:jurious insinuations and personalities, soon feel discouraged from pro- ceeding further, long before they can come to a determination. 3rdly. The multiplicity of arguments and various interpretations of numerous scriptu- ral passages, that bear often no immediate relation to the> subject or to each other, introduced in succession, distract and dishear- ten such readers as are not acustomed to Biblical studies, and interrupt their farther progress. f, Cow] As Christianity is happily not a subject resting on vague metaphysical speculations, but is founded upon the authority of books written in languages, which are understood aud explained according to known and stand- ing rules, I therefore propose, with a view to the more speedy and certain attainment of ree lizious truth, to establish a monthly periodical publication, commeucing from the month of April next, to be devoted to Biblical criticism, and to subject unitarian as well as trinitarian doctrines to the test of fair argument, if those of the latter persuasion will consent thus to sub- mit the scriptural grounds on which their tenets concernivg the Triuity are built, For the sake of method and convenience, [ propose that, beginning with the Book of Gene- sis and taking all the passages in that portion of Scripture, which are thought to counte- nance the doctrine of the Trinity, we should examine them one by one and publish our observations upon them; and that next month we proceed in the same Manner with the Book of Exodus, and so on with all the Books of the Oid and New Testaments, in their regular order. (i. v¥ J If any one of the Missionary Gentlemen, for himself and in behalf of his fellow labourers, choose to profit by the opportunity thus afford- ed them of defending and diffusing the doc- trines they have undertaken to preach, I re- quest that an Essay ou the Book of Genesis of the kind above intimated may be sent me by the middle of the month, and if confined withir reasouable limits not exceeding a do- zen or sixteen pages, | hereby engage to cause it to be printed and circulated at my own charge, should the Missionary Gentlemen refuse to bestow any part of the funds, in- tended for the spread of Christianity, towards this object ; and also that a reply (not exceed- ing the same number of pages) to the arguments adduced, shall be published along withit by the © beginning of the ensuing month, That this new mode of controversy by short monthly publica tions may be attended with all the advantages which I, in common with other searchers after truth, expect, and of which it is capable, it will be absolutely necessary that nothing be intro~ duced ofa personal nature or calculated to hurt the feelings of individuals—that we a- void all offensive expressions and such argu- ments as have no immediate connection with the subject and can only serve to retard the progress of discovery; and that we never allow [ ‘sii | ourselves fora moment to forget that we are engaged in a solemn religious disputation. As religion consists in a code of duties which the creature believes he owes to his creator and as “ God has no respect for per- sons; but in every nation he that fears him and works righteousness is accepted with him,” it must be considered presumptuous and unjust for one man to attempt to interfere with the religious observances of others, for which he well knows, he is not held respon- sible by any law either human or divine. Notwithstanding, if mankind are brought into existence and by nature formed to enjoy the comforts of society and the pleasures of an im- proved mind, they may be justified in oppos- ing any system, religious, domestic, or political, which is inimical to the happiness of society or calculated to debase the human in- tellect; bearing always in mind that we are children of ONE Father “ who is above all, and through ail, and in us ail,” Solte January 30, 1823. EYEE a i uate at FJ Me ae ee ay ¢ : A Budey. CHAPTER I. ti Paces Taanxs to the Reverend Editor for his labourS...eeocssseeres00 Author's vindication of himself, from the charge of presumption 2 Necessity has driven the Author to these publications .-.- ,-..+- ibid Quotation of a part of “ The Introduction to the Precepts of Je- sus,” in pioof of CHT Se eee See geey Ree cover stearate stole. jaa Author’s precaution in the Second Appeal ....------- a tkek «hoe ke Quotation of some parts of the First Appeal ....+....++++ -+-+- 7 The assertion of the Editor as to his ignorance of the Author’s belief ....--+-+e+-++- ah ae aimaeh sake Daiove sithaaiainiwis ons spisivie tie Author’s public avowal of his Faith sob D teers clos sink vieleheis.: | ia ‘Author’s vindication of himself from the charge of vanity ....-- ibid Unbiassed common sense suffices to find the unscripturality of the Trinity .-.-++++++-- ssa alc yates, chal Si Fisr senate sy, a sratays/ayeher a Experiment proposed ..--..+--- panels ss EE Were el se) Sr atetleibogase): aera ibid The Editor’s ridiculing of the suggestion offered as to the study of the Bible ...---.---ceeecereesecss re dae. cs poreuaiel eletshe ee Aue The reason assigned for his disapproval of the suggestion ...... 8 Impossibility of a belief in the Trinity and Hindoo Polytheism, unless inculcated in youth....+----- eiebiaht lara’ Shave sp oveayar ol ope 3 1M No liberal parent can take advantage of the confiding credulity of his children .....-.- OY Oe cue che c aetna or epee ee The duties of liberal parents ...+.es+eeeee see cr ersrecseeeess 9 The force of early acquired prejudices ...+--+- se+ seer serecs 10 fraditional instructions inculcated in childhood one of the causes of prevailing errors in Christianity -.--.-+2 --- + f eceaeaian. ne The Editor’s ironical remarus on (re success of the Author in scrip- tural suudies noticed ......+++++ «+ Fee at i aie asics ais cael Lae The reason assigned by the Editor, for his omission of several ar- guments in the Second Appeal, MGTIGE MN ck eine sae sh igatece sce The Editor’s position of the insufliciency of the Precepts of Jesus to procure men salvation, noticed ....-+. --+++++5 ++ aencceee 14 The irregular mode of arguing adopted by the Editor ...------- 15 The sufficiency of the Precepts of Jesus for salvation proved.... 16 Mark X11. 29. ‘* Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord” re- ferred {0 s2--.0cecccns sees: Sas HRC AP PIE cote ate ae Matt. V11. 24. * Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,” refer- red to ....-- Benicgenpocer DRE AA EB rys teen Gale) eaten s Ses -» ibid John XV. 10. “If ye keep my Commandments,” &c. and v. 14 re- ferred to....- ea aie ciaialaie afateetelslais aie a eee ens aaa eo Matt. XXV. 31 et.seq. referred to ...--+-+eeereees -2* celiac 9 JORG The argument adduced by the Editor to depreciate the weight of the passage “ This do and thou shalt live” examined .....- »+». ibid nh. Pace The Editor’s question “Did Jesus regard the tania as sinless ?” auswered ... RE > bio hei lle paeals bcm. e.n is) ¥ wie, p= vie > Rk ave kt Oh Cen Gen. 1V, 4. * The sacrifice offered by Abel, and ‘approved of God, * in preference to his brother Cain’s, examined ........ .....-. 29 John VIII. 56 noticed 22.5... eS hee ee SBR - seees- ibid Heb. KI 26 Vaticed, cua, san tes. sw cee see rece sips Pr s8 ee Heb. X1.4 referred to .....--.,.---+0 ocak eae eee ot teWe te RM How far sacrifices are divine institutions.... ...... .......... TRE Micab VI. 7 and 8, Hosea VI. 6, Isaiah 1. 1) referredto ...2. 32 Psalm L 8 referred to nie ip a savie 2 selene mete ae a's a,alkie bet os ee The Israelites punished finitely for sins committed against the in- finite God........ Re ee ne: Prey 40, uit.c Sable laalg 16 ale 'e I. Chro. XX{, Li and 15, Judges XIE. 1 referred to .---.++«- ibid Infinite reward for a good act performed for the propitiation of the infinite God........ Dy ee teak teceel chwdlileists > «aimee cade The phrases ‘ everlasting fire” and ‘ everlasting punishmen ta explained........ «jae hats ee as ape ibid Gen. XVII. 8, XLIX. 26, Hab. ILD. 6 referred t0 ..- eee cane 98 CHAPTER IIt. Inquiry into the doctrine of the Trinity .... 260 seeceeereeesee OF The term Trinity not found in the scriptures ------+.+--+-- ota. thd Gen. XLVIII. 16, “The angel which redeemed the’? XXXI. 13, “Tam the God of Bethel,” Exod. 111. 2, ~* In a flame of fire,” examined ......------ een venta olniets eieiaiei aaa .ck aid Jud. IL. i, “1 brought you cut of Egypt.” Gen. XXIT. 12,0 © “Thou hast not withheld thy son,” examined ....+ sesesss fee8 Ysaiah LXIII. 9, Ruth IV. 14, Nehe V. 8 referred to ....-.-... 93 ‘An allusion to a three-fold nature of Christ’... 2.) pact Kee Psalm XCVII. 7, Jud. XIII. 21 and 22, Job I. 6, ‘* The sons of God,” &c. referred to..--..6.+--++: obits Sem Bee =< at Jud. XIIL. 13, 11. Sam. XXIV. 16 referred tO ...6 -eeeeeeree OT Isa. X. 4,7, KXIX. 1,—~referred to “+202. «-2-+---="> baci a ye Mic. IV. 13. V. | referred to...--+-+ +> ee Ct Seo eee aie aT. 14. Thus shalt thou say Lam that Lam,” John VIEL. 24, * If ye believe not that I am.” v. 53, examined.........- ibid Matt. XXIV. 5. ‘* Lam Christ” and John IV. 25,26 referred to 100 John If. 19 and 21 referred to ....-- os eels See Se Pee i 4 Ps, LK XXIX. 27 referred to. 22. +-+0se-- Bits PPS ME patel a Chro. XIV. 8, and XVIII. 1,8 veferred €0'. «ccs Abent Cue giee nme ag | Chro. XX. 2, and § referred to ...-.- porn - sib Je.p nig oe II. Kings V. 26, 27, Exod XXIII. 21 referred to ...+-eee-2 me 108 Prophets performing miracles, sometimes without oral addresses to God’...26.64. uth we eacaee Getbuaeh ee enna John X{1. 41 and 42 referred to ....----++++>- wees © OS The phrase “ ‘To trust in him” examined .--. +--+ Prov. XXXI. 11, and Isaiah XIV. 32 referred to .-++- «+--+ ibid Jere. XVII. 5explained .... ...eeees seeere ees LT ect cals ot ee Psalm XXIV. * The earth is Jehovah's” &c. compared with John — 1.3, examined .......ccccceweecseeestecesccssenserenses® 110 —_ v ; Pacz Heb. I. 2, Ephe. 111. $ referred to; I. Cor. X, 25 and 26.“ What- soever is sold.” &c. compared with Psalm XX1V.1, examined 111, } 12 Heb, 1. 2, John Vil. 35 referredto .... 6.00 e+e eee ee nee Ngan | I. Cor. X. 22, * De we provoke the Lord,” &c examined .. .... ibid 1. Kings XIX. 10 referred IG 2k os, cen me sec cn es nee a aha a Psalm XXIV. 8 compared with Eph. IV. 8, examined’ .... .... ibi Senin LX VIL. 19 referred to..-.... Lh pepper ga Ae e a ee Lucke’s note quoted -. ....--) veel fe ee eens 2 erat ibid Psalm XXXVI. 6, O Jehovah thou preservest,” &c, compared with Cel. 1. 17. Heb. I. 3, examined ......---.-+-+-+--+ ++: 17 John XVII. 2, V. 30, and John SIV. 24, “* The word which ye hear,” &c. Matt. XXVIII. 18, referred to... -.-------.--5- 119 Pealm XLY. 6, as quoted in Heb. 1. 8, “ Thy throne O God,” &c. examined ...2.....--.. epcint, Fed Rt et Cee Pest el Bid bo! Phe Editor's substitution of the term ** Jehovah” for ** God,” noti- “4 te aeiocdorag Se ek ES Aree cx: 4 oa ee EDI, Direct application of Psalm XLV. to Solomon, illustrated ...... 121 Psalm CITE. 25, 27 referred to ..-- eee oo ee oe tt ee eee eee ene ee- 122 Heb I. 10, 12, ‘* Thou Lord in the beginning,” &c. examined .... ibid Dent. XXXII. 10, Isaiah KXLIX. 16, Psalm XLVI. 3, referred 124 dy 6052) A Or ee Be gaara cee nee mend qua ate Mart. XXII. 45 referred to...... PARE. Pperic Sree 2 oa The Editor’s substitution of the term * Jehovah” for ** Lord,” no- dices se ais aa = #5 « pF ae EE, oie ey i ne 125 The Editor's endeavour to weaken the force of the evidence res- pecting the changeable nature of Christ .... .. a ift ok aee ee snlenneae, aaeeeen Va Deut. X. 17, John KX. 17, Psalm KXLY. 8 referred to ape st Aang os - SECTION SECOND. On the Prophets...-.... ccccsscvce ois -alsiae ee cia anh ok aie 154 Proverbs VIII. 1 “ Doth sat wisdom cry, &c.” 22, 24, 30 exa- MINE... 2. oe Seco ecu ec beltncunccee sens ap nib teennnn 155 Psain CXXX 7, LXXXV. 10,Numbers XVI. 46 referred to 157 XI. John IV. 8, John I. 1, I. Cor. I. V. 24, 30,191. Cor. V 21, Deut. XXVIII. 37, Zech. VIII. 13, Gen. KIL, 2, Zech. 1. Ds Referred tO... oes acisin uns ¢'= ur Saas = pie Seeinee kG Jsaiah VI. 1, 10, compared with Johu XII. 41, examined rales bey ibid The context of verse the 41, referved 0.0) Cosco bee ee ame Romans X11. 7, 8, Isaiah LXIUD. 17, referred t0..-. ..5. .-..° 160 Werse the 41. compared with John Vill, 96)... Geeices teeth ‘161 Deut. XXVIII. 28, XXIX. 4, 1, King XVIII. 37, referred to 163 Isaiah Chapter VIL. 1 behold a virgin shall couceive” com- . pared with Mathew ch. I. 22, 23, eXamined Ele ese onus 1 > ee The term “ shall conceive” donsloran oe o'r o> eA oe ak ee 163 Genesis XVI. 11,4, 5, Jer. XXXI. 8,2, Samuel XJ. 5, and Isaiah XXVI. 17, Gen. XXXVIII. 24, referred to.... -. .. ibid” Exodus X XI. 22, IL. KingsVIII. 12, amos. I. 13, referred to.... 166 Tsaiah VIL. 15, referred lOcin sve p » wists pale mt -0 nig iatere 6 et cake RETR Micah IY. 10, Isaiah XXIII. 12. referred 5 Soatecd olaeie 's Sie os et Lp The inconsistency between Christ’s being possessed of all power in his human Capacity, and his not knowing good frem evil ia that very Capacity....+-2-see+sce00 toe) S-Di suc nae opie en Sudke Td. 45.50) referred 400% io. '5 aioe 5 osjcce nas «) $22 o The coutext of Isaiah VIL. 14, compared with II, Kings XVI 5, ‘petseg, referredto. oc) \. win cei. + c+ 9° dae | ieee ibid Mathew’s reference to Isaiah VII. 14, in his Gospel compared.. 173 Dr. Campbell’s authority quoted...-........--.-+ asicnan eee mena Hosea XT. J, 3; NOWCED s:e'ois wee == <8 - wee ss bie Een ig UE | Jsaiah 1X. 6, * For unto us a Child is born” xd akin yes 173. The context of ike verse in question compared IJ. Kings XV. 29, &c. XVIII. 7, &c. referred to... .+.25 seceecsseteuse bey <<: The decision left to the public: «6-425. yshb vs sles 188 * j ‘ = ’ Pagh Difference between © €5 be’? and“ to be called” noticed Rt Pe | The ‘phrases “‘no end” and “‘ for ever” or ** everl: vsting”™ ex ~~ plained... ~~ 2 cece ea - = eee cece wesc rennet nee s cen ween - iuid Verses 1, 2, of ch ix. of Isaish applied in an accommedated ~_ sense to Jesus. . ee eee eeeee es coer eee-ee a er ee Mathew 1.23, ~* And they shall call bis name Immanuel” ex- . plained...- 12. -2y 22-2 errr eee eee maak See oa an See = ise €@bristian emperors addressed by the styles ** your divinity” yeur ~~ * Godship’---...-.-.-- Set ae on ne a oy aia ! m LEXXIX. 19, examined by a reference to it’s conext.... i! XXVIII. 16, compared with Isa. VIII. 13.1. Peter Ei. | Jand §, “ The ,stone whick the bui iders” Ec. examined:....-.. 18T proof fork Christ s changeable BAROT Scene «0 oo = 188 . XL 3_** Voice of | him,” &c, and Malacti ILI. 1, examined. ibid Reference to Mark 1. 2andS .....2-. »- .-20----- +o panne oes - 139 The veise in question in the original Hebrew ----.--- BS a4 -® 130 Lake I. 69, John 1. 99, 30, referred to ...-- as eochin, «<5, oa ae 191 Isaiah XL. 10, “ee ared with Rev. XXII. 12, examined.-..---- ibid Acts XVIj. 3), John VIII. 28, XVII. 1 and 2, Heb. L Sand 9, shewing that "Jesus whether as man, son of man, or son of God, was infcrier to the Mo-t High. seleereal (Pees Peete esc © =) Ae Isaiah XLIV. 6, Siverers with Rey. [. 8, and MATT. 13, examin- nn en ng. again nln ee ae eee “Renn ae Joshua V. 14. Numb. x11 §1_ Daniel II. 46. referred to..-... 197 Rey, 117. 14, Colo TI. 15, I. Corin. XV. 24, referred to.......-. 199 Prophets anid peer represented as the searchers of hearts.... 200 Rev ch XXFI_5. explained ......----.--- Pan ae mpesing.034 oan Rev. ch. XXII. EATER motice ds. « -4)nco-nd ae Venns ann ¢an-cnn ee Phrases in'Rev I. },and XXII. 6, comvared.......--..------- 205 Jesus calls himself a Servant of Ged, addresses Christigns as his MC as 8G ee Oe en SS on woo oo b vee so ns or a 206 Several questions put io chew the inferiority of the Lamb ....-.... 207 A query in rep)y to one of the many igsinvations | of the Editer.. 209 Isaiah RLV. 23. ** unt*“me every knee shall bow” Aca with Rom. KITV. 10, 12, eeamiicdl:. |<. cas: . 5 eenes . te ae Jol [11. 29, Ep ¥ Y.23. compared with Isai LIV- | examined 213 Jeremiah XXXUEil. 16. examined.--.-....---.---+--+----+--- 216 BE Gor. X18, referred. iol i550 02.20262 2222. ep ake ae eS QT The simple term “ Jeb yah” exclusively applied to CS peered 218 eee RANMHED . 232520 eso 5 ee oo een nolo mien -- 290 The Ediror’s position thai Jesus * exercised absolute dominion— in no name beside his own,”” examined........--.-..----+---s Pad d FoR ESS eee: Caer Beer eres ibid Jeremiah ch. X. 11, examined......... Bs eee ct CR oS Ke ao, Soe Heb. LY. 13, exami Saeme seks) ~-neret ty OL eke “25 6 934 The reason for the different expressions ased by God to the Prince of Tyrus, and to Jesus, explained ...-.......--------+-+-+---- 995 ££ Cor. IV. aS Te shakes Gee oh to -- 296 That others besides Jesus were endued with the power of knowing the state of the heart shewn.... ---. ..-.--- - 200m) se The perishable nature of Jesus and his Kingdom, “explained «date oe The epithet “* Most holy”? applied even to inanimate things.... 299 The Editor’s remarks on Hosea XI. 1, noticed.....-.- ----. aaa) 20D MiesaNAl. 5. Cxaminket ooo. ce je- saccade tao. aya eee ibid Acts If. 21, examined........ Si oon Ste on ths aA 4 oe a1 | E Cor. . 2, examined aepe toro eer Cre de Saige a=, Se Lock’s paraphrase on I. Cor. I. 2, and his note on Roman X. 13 2. J = eee caer Paws we oaahach mina cme ae aa ca Ws es eae fe ibid Vill. Pace “Amos IV. 13, outed cangecncsegrertietitnnssnsereenanan 3 Zechariah III 4 and II. 8, noticed wees ease neem C808 COSteens i CH APTER IV. On the Editor’s replies to the arguments contained in ele. 2d of the Second Appeal. Christ’s posses-ing all power asa mediator noticed..-..... moem beeen eve se wwe cece ee sawee ee cle mpiaebininm The alleged compound nature of Jesus noticed-...++.. ss..+++- 249 The terms “ for ever” ad “ everlasting” explained........-«+- 251 Gen. XVII. 8, Jer. VII. 7, Daniel VII. 18. referred to.....-.. ibid Philip. 11. 6,** who being in the form of God” &e. examined... 252° The term “ first born” explained. . RE a pt og Exodus 1V. 22, XXX1.9, Psalm LKXXIX. 27, referred to.... 258 Romans VIII. 29, I. John IV. 7, referred to........ -+-e+0.-- ibid Tastances w herein Jesus himself and h’ Apostles spoke ofhimas BU CTEMRUNC SS wjarcicap, sie s aa asuRse Be 3 SIN s. See JSesus’s alleged two natures again noticed....2..- ssss+-+- +--- 261 The phrase ‘from the beginning noticed ......-----.- oh wisth fgets MLO Tie Editor’s introducing the two fold nature of Christ.... ...... ibid. Inconsisten. y of God’s emptying himself of his glory and offering “up supplications for the same to himself.....-22 see s-eeeees John XVII. 92. referred t0........5-02 weceen e's Tables ciple © mnie 5 263 Wicalk V2) examine annie -(-\s s'bleie se pee «jes ap, Sees aa! te SDE The force of the words “ son” and “own son” noticed... 1.0.0. 268 Psalm LUX VII. 6, 1. Vimo. I, 2, referred to..c.20. suueommese ake - The phrase ‘‘ only begotten” noticed..... NES. asta stale, giepeals Vee John X. 30, ‘‘ I and my father are one” examined... ......... 273 One's calliag God his father can not amount to his unity in nature with the deity Sith pinieec.bo ae oie Mee iol eee o ses ceresacees Gen, II. 14, Ezekiel XXXVIL. 19, I. Cor. X. 17, referred to... . ibid Such phrases as ‘* he in God and God in him” * God dwelleth in him and he in God” noticed.....-.....s0e2+e--seneessene- 278 John X. 36, containing a disavowal of deity by Christ ‘explained 280 John X examined by it’s context ... -.-..--+eeeeee Ay Soe $2 Jesus having died under the charge of making himself the Son of God, hfived...- 0... 1258. .... +++ oc se ee 285 Hebrews ‘ thy, throne O God” originally’ applied to Solomon APA WDIREE - cine wle a's cusses» s/ysap pele sieleisiersinnnle wots idee 1 Oe 28 The phrase “for ever” again noticed....+....+++ sihiaib saat eae John XX. 17, ascribed to Jesus in his human nature......2....+ 289. According to the Editor one part of the same sentence spoken by Jesus in his divine, and another in his human capacity .....--- ibid John XX. 18. “ my Lord and my God” examined. ee a ee ee John I. 1, “ in the beginning was the word, &c.”’ examined.....- 291 Hindoo poi v'heism compared with that maintained by the Fditor.. 30% Jobn XVI. 30, “now are we sure that thou knowest all things” EXAmined weiss cow’ sete lois! Ae A ‘o5 $00@gR5 30 Paul © God onr Saviour,” I. Peter ** the’ righteousness of God : Jude *‘to the only wise, &c.” ee by the Editor noticed... 303 ike Paces Perishable nature of. fictitious Gods, noticed. .....cescs08e202% S04 ‘Answers to the Editor’s queries... ...0..-sccceececoerersess> Ibid 'The will of Ged the Father sometimes found at variance with that of the son in Mathew XX VI 39, and Mark XIV. 36,....-0+- 308 CHAPTER YV. Remarks on the replies to the arguments found in chapter third of the Second Appeal...... seecsvecc- sevecsrete ose The Editor’s first position as to the ubiquity of Jesus discussed.. 309 Jobn IIS. 13, no man hath ascended up, &c. examined........ ibid Translation of this verse by Dr. Campbell quoted.............- 322 Parkhurst’s Authority quoted.......-+-eseeec eee tetes ercaee GRE Matthew XVIII. 20; “‘ for where two or three gathered.” &c. PRAT CM ocue Gifu late « dhibin 3-20 IRs Ves ars 500 09 OE ES The Editor’s queries answered.......+.--++. aw clo ol eee The Editor’s second position as to Jesus’s ascribing to himself a knowledge, and an incomprehensibility of nature, equal to God, NRE ete eae a ele at ol Ve wistere = a) c'alalelsibie'=le!a:6 ieee vanes Matthew XI. 27, “ no man knoweth the son,” &c. examined..... ibid G. John IIL. 1, referred to.........- sottnaia ess waiecnotereeee nee The improved version, quoted,....-0ececereeerecertersctteeee 329 The Editor’s third position as to Christ’s exercising in an indepen- dent manner, the power of forgiving sin, discussed.....----- .. ibid Mark II. 5, Matthew IX. 12, examined ..........ecee+e+e+se~ 330 Matthew IX. 8, referred to ........202- Mn clea oacia s coradsieiate . ibid Acts XXXII. 32, XIII. $8, referred to......--.. pea ea 18 AA 332 The Editor's fourth position respecting Almighty power being claimed by Jesus, discussed.....--+.22s-secoeeeeeeee Ape cnc 333 Mohnc¥19;, 26, explained! :.24. .soauee sania dese cic as ice IIE. The work of judging men is not peculiar to Jesus.....---e.+002 Sol John V 23, separately examined. ........ LR CUADE rc CCN 338 Gal. LV. 15, Matthew X. 25, XIX. 19, Gen. III. 22, referred to 339 Matthew XX. 14, noticed......... ieee aisle Sear a es «-- 340 a epMON 3, Referred tO.) S eee. tsa citiel 24 = usccaenceise ae Sal The Editor’s fifth position as to all judgement being committed to Jesus, discussed............ Be Tyee tects a Siva crater ote ibid an BRUL! tom referred tO: Haken noe Waee seed aaa eae eee 342 The Editor’s sixth position as to Jesus’s accepting worship due Ut CECO SUL SCO CE Ec AEE ee ES a ed sab SRE 3 a8 Ibid poner Mexmay worship? defined. . ..c6 oje--<62 dec wise sloees Seas 3 Se 343 The ancient Prophets receiving worship in the same sense that Je- BMS NECETVEW RG 106 05) :h/0'> ara.v ie vor Sratettl stele Sg eee cars MDs parels aaee 344 Invocation by Stephen, explained ...... 4S), See ae oN 345 Christ’s offering worship, prayers and thanks to God, mentioned.. 346 The Father, his Christ, andthe apostles acquitted of the charge of encouraging Wdolatry. so vase Ja DE ERR Ee NEAT eet Bs Pea ibid The Editor’s seventh position as to the deity of the Son, and per- sonality of the Holy Ghost from: the institution «f baptism, CACM Erect chalet oics cee 8 oa ee MIE i rn ry lig 4 : Exodus XLV. 30, Chro. XX. 20, Luke III. 16, referred to...... 350 The terms ** Son” and “* Servant” equally manifest inferiority,.... 352° The Editor’s queries answered........00eeeeeeeee oh Siotaghee a aay CHAPTER VI. On the Holy Spirit and other Subjects.....2++++++++ walew cls eects GO Brief notice of the Holy Spirit by the Editor, noticed 2... o+++ ibid- (4 . Ke : Pack Acts X. 38, Luke TIT. 16, referred to..+¢secersee eocnessensas 356 Such expressions as “ The Holy Spirit will teach you,” &c, noticed 357 Acts V.3, EXAMINE. sc ceacocesessssccee ses seccseusesiens ee en DIG Matt. ch, X. 40, I. Cor. VIIL. 12, referred to.....++ weensenn += 358 Acts XK. 20, examined....-.-+secerses socesrnvessscsareais: ce ibid Jsiaiah XLVIII. 16, with it’s context, examined.......e++e+--. 359 II. Gor. KIMI. 14, examined... «++++---«++- oy, ..'0 0 aiaiotntaleiaaiaiel 363 Zech. XIL. 10, ‘* And I will pour upon the House of David,” &c. examined...-+ FT a's vee a'm clove © clelmiatle olnla «qian eine Parkhurst’s ‘Authority, quoted... 2) SS, eee. oe renee Exodus J. 1, Gen. XLIV. 4, IV. ], Deut. VIL. 8, referred to... 367 Zech. KILL. 7, ‘* Awake, O Sword, against my Shepherd”, exa- mined....eee-etererrreres cece cere dee iat aiap nema. 2 Stee Romans IX. 5, “ God blessed for ever,” examined.... .+-++-++- ibid L. Cor. VIII. 6, Ephes. I. 17, IV. 5 and 6, referred to.....-.--- 370 L. John V. 20, “ This is the true God,” examined.. ...-++.-2-+- S71 The practice of the primitive Christians, noticed ....-...-.....- ibid Mosheim’s Autherity, noticed.-.----++-- oe ONE nalts voted Mere John XX: 31, quoted.... .---++++* solne Uie'e'lelemes aid diaiemelaale hl ge Authority of Locke and Newton, NOLICE s [ace vleyns’ wo atawina vine ADIC The term “ Antichrist,” examined...+eeesrerssscercsenecceess 37T The Doctrine of Polytheism is similar to that of a plurality of PETHONG... cece; cee s-cacesconsssiseeseucn so: TMi iias 8 The Author’s expression of thanks to God for enjoying Civil and Religious Liberty scccverscccrgaceeseninesvescccuseseesss® FINAL APPEAL. - =< fe CHAPTER T. Int; oductory remarks. Neary a month having elapsed after the publication of the fourth number of the quar- terly series of the ** Friend of India” before it happened to reach me, and other avocations and objects having subsequently engaced my attention, I have not till lately had leisure to examine the laborious essay on the doctrines of the Trinity and Atonement at the conclusion of that Magazine offered in refutation of my se- cond appeal to the Christian public. For the able and condensed view of the arguments in support of those doctrines which that publica- tion presents I have to offer the reviewer my best thanks, thongh the benefit I have derived from their perusal is limited to a corroboration of my former sentiments. I must at the same time beg permission to notice a few unjust insinuations in some parts of his essay; but in so doing I trust no painful emotions, neither of that salutary kind alluded to by the Editor, . B [ 2? ] nor of any other will make their appearance in my remarks. The Revd. Editor charges me with the arro- gance of taking upon myself “ to teach doc- trines directly opposed to those held by the mass of real Christians in every age.” To vindicate myfelf from the presumption with which I am here charged, and to shew by what necessity | have been driven to the publication of opisious unacceptable to many esteemed characters, 1 beg to call the attention of the public to the language of the introduction to the “ Precepts of Jesus” compiled by me and which was my first publication connected with Christianity. They may observe therein that so far from teaching any “ opposite doctrines’ or‘ rejecting the prevailing opinion held by the great body of Christians,” I took every pre- ° caution against giving the least offence to the prejudices of any one, and consequently limited my labour to what I supposed best calculated for the improvement of those whose received opi- nions are widely different from those of Chris- tians. My words are “I decline entering into any discussion on those points (the dogmas of Christianity) and confine my attention at present to the task of laying before my fellow crea- tures the words of Christ, with a translation [3 ] from the English into Sungscrit and the lan- guage of Bengal. I feel persuaded that by separating from the other matters contained in the new Testament the moral precepts found in that book, these will be likely to produce the desirable effects of. improving the hearts and minds of men of different persuasions and de- grees of understanding.” (Introduction page3). The Precepts of Jesus which I was desirous of teaching were not I hoped “ opp*sed to the doctrines held by the mass of real Christians,” nor did my language in the introduction imply the “ rejection of those truths which the great body of the learned and pious have concurred in deeming fully contained in the sacred scrip- tures” Notwithstanding all this precaution how- ever | could not evade the reproach and cen- sure of the Editor who not only expressed in “the Friend of India” No. 20 his extreme dis- approbation of the compilation m a manner ~ caleulated more to provoke than lead to search after truth, but also indulged himself in calling me an injurer of the cause of truth. Disap- pointed as I was, 1 tock refuge in the hberal protection of the public by appealing to them ‘against the unexpected attacks of the Edt- tor. In thatappeal I carefully avoided evter- [a ing into any discussion as to the doctrines held up as the fundamental principles of Christia- nity by the Editor. he language of my first appeal is this “° Humble as he (the compiler) is he has therefore adopted those measures which he thought most jadicious to spreadthe truth in an acceptable manner; but I am sorry to observe that he (the compiler) has unfortu- nately and unexpectedly met with opposition from those whom he considered the last per- sons likely to oppose him on this subject” Page 22. «* Whether or not he (the compiler) haserred in his judgement, that point must be determin- ed by those who will candidly peruse and con- sider the arguments already advanced on this subject bearing in mind the lesson particularly taught by the saviour himself of adapting his instructions to the suscepubility and capacity. of his hearers, Joho XVI 12 “ I have yet ma- ny things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now” Page 24, ‘ What benefit or peace of mind can we bestow upon a Mussulman who is an entire stranger to the Christian word, by communicating to him, without preparatory instruction, all. the peculiar dogmas of Chris- tianity” (Page 24). ‘* The compiler obviously having in view at least one object in common with the Reviewer and Editor, that of procur- ing respect for the precepts of Christ might ‘ f 5 ] have reasonably expected more charity from professed teachers of his doctrine’ (Page 5) Jn reviewing the first appeal the Revd. Editor fully introduced the doctrines of the Godhead of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and of the Atone- ment, as the only foundation of Christia- nity; whereby he compelled me, as a profess- ed believer of one God, to deny for the first time publickly those doctrives; and now he takes occasion to accuse me of presumption in teaching doctrines which he has himself compelled me to avow. The Editor assigns as a reason for entering on this controversy that after a review of the «Precepts of Jesus and the first appeal” ha “felt some doubt whether their author fully believed the deity of Christ” and consequently he “ adduced a few passages from the scriptures to confirm this doctrine.” He then adds that this second appeal to the Christian public con- firms all that he before only feared. (Page 1) 1 could have scarcely credited this assertion of the Reviewer’s unacquajntance with my re- ligious opinions, if the allegation had come from any other quarter ; for both in my conversation and correspondence with as many Missionary gentlemen old and young as | have had the honour to know, I have never hesitated, when C ae required, to offer my seutiments candidly, as to the uuscripturality and unreasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity. On one occasion particularly when on a visit to one ofthe Kevd. colleagues of the Editor at Serampore long before the time of these publications, I discus- sed the subject with that gentleman at his invitation; and then fully manifested my disbe- lief of this doctrine, taking the liberty of ex- amining successively all the arguments he from friendly motives urged upon mein support of it. Notwithstanding these circumstances, f am inclined to believe from my confidence in the character of the Editor, that either those Missionary gentlemen that were acquainted with my religious sentiments have happened to omit the mention of them to him, or he has forgotten what they had communicated on this subject, when he entered on the review of my publications on Christianity. In Page 503 the Editor insinuates that vani- ty has led me to presume that ‘ freedom from the powerful effects of early religious impres- sions” has enabled me to discover the truths of Scripture in its most important doctrines more fally in three or four years than others have done by most unremitting study in thirty or forty.” The doctriae of the Trivity ap- NT SOE, EE 1h Pt aera i 4 pears tome so obviously unscriptural that [ am preity sure, from my own experience and that of others, that no one possessed of merely common sevse will fail to find its unscriptura- lity after a methodical study of the Old and New Testaments, unless previously impressed in the early part of his life with creeds ‘and forms of speech preparing the way to that doc- trine. No pride therefore can be supposed for a moment to have arisen from commonly at- tainable success. The Editor might be fully convinced of this fact, were he to engage a few independent and diligent natives to study ‘attentively both the Old and New Testaments in their original languages, and then to offer their sentiments as to the doctrine of the Trinity being scriptural or a mere human invention. To hold up to ridicule my suggestions io the second appeal to study first the books of the Old Testament unbiassed by ecclesiastic Opinions imbibed in early life, aud then to study the New Testament, the Revd. Edi- tor states that “could it be relied on iw deed” my compendions method ‘“ would de- Serve notice with a view to Christian educa- tion; as” on my plan,-‘* the most certain way of enabling any one to discover in a superior man- ner the truths and doctrines of Christianity is [ 8 ] to leave him till the age of thirty or forty — without any religious impression.” (Page 503) } do not in the least wonder at his disap- probation of my suggestion ; as the Editor, in common with other professors of traditional opinions, is sure of supporters of his favorite doctine so long as it is inculeated on the minds of youths and even infants ; who, being once thoroughly impressed with the name of the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, long before they can think for themselves, must be always inclined, even after their rea- son his become matured, to interpret the scared books, even those texts which are evi- dently inconsistent with this doctrine, in a manner favourable to their prepossessed opi- nion, whether their study be continued for three, or thirty, or twice thirty years. Could [lindooism continue after the present genera- tion, or bear the studious examination of a sin- ele year, if the belief of their idols being en- dned with animation were not carefuily im- pressed on the young before they come to years of understanding / «Let me here suggest that in my humble opi- nioo no truly liberal and wise parent can ever take advantage of the unsuspecting and con- fiding credulity of his children to impress ————— = te them with an implicit belief in any set of ab- struse doctrines, and intolerance of all other opinions, the truth or reasonableness of which they are incapable of estimating. Still less would he urge by threats the danger of present and eternal punishment for withholding a blind- ‘assent to. opinions they are unable to compre- hend. Parents are bound by every moral tie to vive their children such an education as may be suflicieut to render them capable of exercis- jug their reasou as rational and social beings, ° and of forming their opinion on religious points without illwiil towards others, froma thorough Investigation of the Scriptures and of the evidence and arguments adduced by tea- chers of different persuasions. Judgments thus formed have a real claim to res- pect from those who have not the means of judging for themselves. But of what conse- quence is it, in a question of truth or error, to know how the matter at issue has been consi- dered, even fora hundred generations, by those who have bijndly adop'ed the creed of theic fathers? Surely the ufbiassed judgment of a person who has proceeded to the study of the Sacred Scriptures with an anxious desire to discover the truth they contain, even if his re- searches were to be continued but for a single twelvemonth, ought as far as authority*goes D ame! [ 0 ] in such matters, to outweigh the opinions of any number who have either not thought at all for themselves or have studied after preju- dice had laid hold of their minds. What fair euquiry respecting the doc rine of the Triuity can be expected from one who has been on - the bosom of his mother constantly tiugh? to ask the blessing of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and to hear the | very name of Unit rian with horvor? fave the doctrines of the Vedant ever succeeded in sup- pressing polytheism amongst the generality of Hindoos brought mp with the notion of the Godhead of the sun, of fire, and of water, and of the separate and independent existence of the allegorical representations of the attributes of God? Were the sublime works written by the learned among the Greekseverablet» shake the early acquired superstitions notions and polytheistical faith of the generality of their countrymen? Nay even whea Christian converts became aumerous, did not those who were ~prought up in the ancient superstition intro- duce some vestiges of their idolatry info their new. persuasion? In fact nothing ean .~maere surely impede the progress of truth than!preja- dice instilled into minds blank to receive im- pressions, and the more unreasonable are the docttines of a religion, the greater pains ate vor... * “ (41 ] taken by the supporters of them to plant them in the readily susceptible minds of youth. et The Editor has filled a complete page in proviug that besides early impresyed prejudices there are also other causes of érror in judg ment—an attempt which might have been de- spensed with; for, I never limited the sources of mistake in examining religious matters to early impression alone. I a:tributed only the prevailing errors in Christianity to traditional justructions inculcated in childhovd as the language of my second appeal will shew. “ aviue derived my own opinions on this subject entirely from the scriptures themselves, I may perhaps be excused for the confidence with which L. maintain them against those of so great a majority, who appeal to the same authority for their’s; in as much as I attribute their different views, not to any inferiority of jadgment compared with my own limited abi- lity, but to the powerful effects of early religious impressions ; for when these are deep, reason is seldom allowed its natural scope ia examiniag them to the bottom” (Page 160) lf the Editor doubtthe accuracy of this refiark, he mightsvon satisfy himself of its justice, were he to listen to the suggestion offered in the preceding para> greph with a view to ascertain whether the — [ 2] doctrine of the Trinity rests for its belief on Scriptural. authorities or on early religious in- pressions. The Editor mentions ironically (in Page 3) tha. my success in scriptural studies was such “as to prove that the most learned and pious in every age of the church have been so comple- tely mistaken as to transform the pure religion of Jesus into the most horrible idolatry.” In answer to this, | only beg to askthe Revd. Edi- tor to let me kuow first what a Protestant in the fifteenth century could have answered, if he had been thus questioned by a Roman Catholic «Js your success in examining the truths of scripture such as to prove that the mostlearn- ed and pious in every age of the church have been so completely mistaken as to transform the pure religion of Jesus into the most horri- ble idolatry by introdaciug the worship of Mary the mother of God, and institutingimages in churches, as well as by acknowledging the Pope as the head of thechureh vested with the power of forgiving sins?” Would not his answer be this “ My success is indeed so as to prove these doctrines to be unscriptural. As to your inferences they are no more divine than mine and thongh I do not doubt the piety and learn- ing of many Christians of your church in every pes age, I am persuaded that many corruptions, In troduced into the Christian religion by the Ro- man heathens converted in the fourth and fifth centuries, have been nanded down through suc- cessive generations by impressions made in the early part of life, and have taken such root ta the minds of men that piety and learning have fallen short of eradicating prejudices nourished by church and state, as well as by the vulgar superstition and enthusiasm.” Were this reply justifiable, [ also might be allowed to offer the following answer: ‘“ [find not the doctrine of the Trinity in the scriptures; I cannot receive any human creed for divine truth ; but without charging the supporters of this doc- trine with impiety or frand humbly attri- bute their misinterpretatiou of the scriptures to “ early religious impressions.” The Editor assigns as a reason for his omission of several arguments adduced in the Second Appeal that ‘* we have before us awork of a hundred and seventy-three pages, to an examination of which we can scarcely devote half that number: and while to leave a single page unnoticed, might by .some be deemed equivalent to leaving it unanswered, the mere transcription of the passages to be answered, were it dune ineveryinstauce, would ik ts ‘ae oe occupy nearly all the room we can give the reply itself. Weshali therefore adduce such evi- cence for these doctrines, as if sound, will ren- der every thing urged azainst them nugatory though not particularly noticed.” To enable the public to compare the extent of the second appeal with that of the review, | beg to ob- serve that the former contains 173. widely privted and the latter 128 closely printed pages, and thatif any one will take the trouble of comparing the number of words per page in the two Essays he will soon satisfy himself that the one is as long as the other. I will afterwards notice in the course of the present reply whe- ther or not “ the evidence of these doctrines” adduced by the Editor in the Review has still left a great many arguments in the Appeal quite unanswered. In his attempt to prove the insufficiency of the precepts of Jesus to procure men peace and happiness, the Revd. iditor advanced the following position “ that the most excellent precepts, the most perfect law can never lead to happiness and peace unless by causing men to take refuge in the doctrine of the cross” (No. 1Q iarterly Series of the Friend of India page 1]1), without adducing any arguments having reference to the positiuz. I therefore a ee a ee oa [ 35 1 bronght to his recdllection (in my First and Se- coud Appea's) such authorities of the gracious author of Christianity as I conceived estab- lished the sufficiency of these precepts for leading tocomfort, and solicited the Editor “to point out in order to establish his po- sition, even a single passage pronounced by Jesus, erjoiming refuge in the doctrine of the cross as all-sifficient or indispensable for sal- vation.” (page 9 of the Second Appeal) The Editor instead of endeavouring to demone strate the truth of his assertion as to the in- sufficiency of the precepts to conduct men to happiness, or shewing a single passage of the nature applied for, introducesa great number of other passages of scripture which he thinks well calculated to prove that the death of Jesus was an atonement for the sins of man- kind. Iregret that the Eaitor should have adopted such an irregular mode of arguing in solemn religious discussion; and I sull more regret to find that some readers should overs look the want of connection between the po- sition advanced and the authorities adduced by the Editor. Were we both to adopt such a mode ef controversy as to cite passages ap- parently favourable to our respective opinions without adhering to the main ground, the bumber of his Reviews and of my Appeais an, Le would increase at Jeast in proportion to the number of the years of our lives; for verses and quotations of scripture, if unconnected with their context and interpreted without regard to the idiom of the languages in which they were written, may, as experience has shewn, be ad- duced to support any doctrine whatever; and the Editor may always find a majority of readers of the same religious sentiments with himself, satisfied with any thing that he may offer either in behalf of the Trinity or in sup- port of the atonement. ; Whether Jesus died actually as a sacrifice for the sins of men, or merely in the fulfilment of the duties of his office as the Messiah, as it was predicted, is merely a matter of opinion, the truth of which can only be ascertained from a. diligent examination of the terms used and doctrines set forth in the evangelical writings. This however has no relation to a_ proof or disproof of the sufficiency of his pre- cepts for salvation. In order to come toa conclusion as to the value of-the precepts of Jesus being either really effectual or merely nominal, { deem it necessary to repeat a few passages already quoted in my Appeals, to ask the Editor whether they demand explicit belief or are unworthy of credit, and in case he ey, | admit the former alternative, I should beg to ask him whether they confirm the opinion that the precepts preached by Jesus are sufficient to lead men to eternal peace and happiness, or are asetof seniences delivered by him conform- ably to the principles of his hearers, similar to other codes of mora! law written by the anci- ent philosophers of Greece, Evypt, and India. The passages in question are as fullow./ “Mark XII. 29. Jesus answered him, The first of ali the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like unto it,namely, Thou shalt love thy neizhbour as thy- self. There is none other commandments greater tnan these.” Is there another commandmevut absolutely enjoining refuge in the doctrine of the cross so as to shew that these two com- mandments -are insufficient for salvation and comparatively insignificant ? Matthew VII. 24. ** Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine (alludine to the precepts contained in Ch. V, VI, aud Vil) and doththem, I will hken him unto a-wise man who sky or a= =." [ is | built his house upon a rock &c.” Are not these sayings declared by Jesus to afford a stable founcatiou on which may be raised the indes- tructible edifice of eternal life? John XY. 10. “if ve keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love.” 14 * Ye are my fricnds if ve do whatsoever I command you.” [ there- fore again ask the Revd. Editor to shew a commandment of Jesus directing refage in the doctrine of the cross in the same explicit way as he has enjoined love to God and to neigh- bours, and obedience to his precepts as suffici- ~ ent means for attaining eternal happiness. Did not Jesus in MatthewXX V.S1. et seq. by means: of a parable in the description of the day of jadgement, declare that acts of charity and be- neficence toward fellow creatnres will be acceo- ted as the manifestation of love towards God, and be the sufficient cause of eternal life? . With a view to depreciate the weight of the following explicit promise of Jesus, “* Do this and thou shalt live,” the Editor interprets (509) that “ Jesus taking him (the lawyer) ou his own principles, as though he had been what he vain- ly imagined himself a sinless man who needed no saviour, directed Lim to the whole of the divine law adding, This do and thou shalt live,” though be kuew that it was utterly impos- [ 19 [ sible for that lawyer to observe his instractions. The Euitor however quite forgot that by his attempt to underva'ue the.precepts of Jesus. he was actually degrading the dignity of the au- thor of them; for according to his interpreta- tion it appears that as the lawyer tempted Jesus by putting to him a question which he thought the saviour could not answer; so Jesus, in re- turn, tempted him by directing him to do what he knew to be impossible for man to perform, though this very teacher forbids others to shew revenge evento enemies. Did Jesus take also the seribe “npon his own principles” by in- structing him in these two command ments,*—a man who was never inclined tu tempt Jesus, but ‘ baving heard him reasoning, and perceiv- jag that he had answered well, asked him which -4s the first commandment of ait}; and’ when he heard the reply of Jesus he said “ well, mas- ter thou hast said the truth,’,-—A man whom Jesus declared to be at least out of danger of _ hell from his acknowledgement of the truth of his precepts as the means of salvation telling him “ thou art not far from the kingdom of hea~ ven?” Did Jesus onthe mount take also his dis- ciples “upon their own principle” as. though they had been what they vainly imagined, them- selves sinless men who needed no isaviour, * Mark Xil 29, + Mark XiJ, 28-34, [ 20 ] in directing them to his precepts, the ob- servance of which he kuew utterly imoossi- ble; and in holding out promises* of eter- nal salvation as the necessary consequence of their obedience to those sayings.— Were we to follow the mode of interpretation adopted in this instance by the Editor, the Bi- ble would serve only to suit onr conve- nience, and would not be esteemed any longer as a guide to mankind; for according to the same mode of interpretition wonld it not be justifiable to explain Matthew XXVIII. 19._ ‘‘oo ye therefore and teach ali nations bapti- zinz them” &c. that Jesus took his apostles “upon their own princiole” as firmly persuad- ed to believe in the sanctification attainable by the baptism introduced by John the Baptist, al- though he was aware that immersion In water could produce no effect in changing the state of the heart? In reply to his question “ did Jesus who knew the hearts of all, regard this lawyer as perfectly sinless, an exception to all mankind” (page 9) I must say that the context seems to me to shew that neither Jesus considered the lawyer to be asinless perfect man (as 18 evl- dent from his directing him to the scriptures * Mathew WII, 24 and 25. fm ) for a guideto salvation (‘ Do this and thou shalt live’; and ‘*‘ Go and do thou likewise.”) Nor did the lawyer vainly imagine himseif a sinless man who needed no saviour, though he endeavoured to put the claim of Jesus to that title to the proof in these words ‘ Master what shall I do to iuherit eternal life?” Although I declared (in the Second Appeal page 6) that by the term “law” in the verse “Jf righteousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain”: all the commandments found in the books of Moses are understood; vet the Revd. Editor charges me with an unintelligible expression, and intimates his inability to ascer- tain whether I meant by law the ceremonial or the moral part of the books of Moses (page 507). 1 therefore beg to explain the verse more fully that the Revd. Ecitor may have an opportu- nity of commenting upon it at large. St. Paul, knowing the efficacy of the perfection introdu- - ced by Jesus into the law given by Moses, de- clares that had the system of the Mosaical law been sufficient to produce light among the Jews and Geutiles, without being perfected by Jesus, this attempt made by Christ to perfect it wonld have been superfluous, and his death, which was the consequence of his candid ins structions, would have been to no purpose. G foge2] ‘The Editor notices frequently my expression of the neglect of duty on the part of man to the Creator and to his fellow creatures, nevertheless he fills up more than two pages in proving this point. He has not however attempted to counteract the force of the passages | quoted in both of my Appeals, shewing that the guilt eccasioned by the want of due obedience to the precepts in question may be pardoned through repentance prescribed by the author of those precepts as the sure and only remedy for human failure. | therefore beg to ask ihe isditor to give a plain explanation of the’ following passages selected from my Appeals, that the reader may be able to judge wheiher or not repentance can procure us the blessings of pardon for our coustant omissions jn the discharge of the duties laid down in the precepts of Jesus. Luke V. 32. ‘ I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repen- tance.” Does not Jesus here declare a chief object of his mission to be the calling of sinners to repentance? Luke XXIV. 47. “ That repen- tance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations.’ Did not Jesus by this commandment to his disciples declare the remission of sins as an immediate and ne- cessary. consequence of repentance? In Luke XU. 3. “dixcept you repent you shall all . f 23 ] likewise perish,” the indispensibility of repen- tance for the forgiveness of sins 1s explicitly declared.—Is not also the mercy of God jliustrated by the example of a father forgiving the transzressions of his son through his sin- cere repentance alone, in the parable of the prodigal son? Those who place confidence in the diviue mission of Jesus, or even in his veracity, will not hesitate, I trust, for a mo- ment to admit that Jesus has directed us to sin cere repentance as the only means of procuring pardon, knowing the inability of men to give entire obedience to his precepts; and that Jesus would have recommended the lawyer, whom he directed to righteonsness, to have recourse to repentance “had he goue and sincerely at- tempted” to obey his precepts, ‘* watching his own heart to discern those constant neglects of the duty he owed to the Creator and to his fellow creatures,” and then applied to Jesus for the remedy of his discerned imperfectiuns. I find abnndant passages in the Old Testa- ment also representing other sources than sa- crifice as sufficientmeans of procuring pardon forsin. Psaim LI. 17. “ The sacrifices of God area broken spirit, a broken and coutrite heart, © God, thou wilt not despise.” Ezekiel XVIII. 30. ‘* Repent and retuco yourselves from all your [ 24 ] transgressions, 89 iniquity shall not be your ruin.” Proverb XVI. 6. * By inerey and truth iniquity is purged, and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.” Isaiah 1, 18. ‘* Come now and let us reason together saith the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crim- son they shall be as wool.” To shew the inefficacy of repentance to pro- cure pardon the Editor appeals to human jas- tice, which, as he says, “‘ inquires not about the repentance of the robber and murderer; bat respecting his guilt. The law indeed knows no repentance. (506) [therefore wish to know whe- ther or not human justice suffers an innocent man to be killed to atone for the guilt of theft or murder committed by another. It is at all events more consistent with justice that a judge. who has the privilege of shewing mercy should forgive the crimes of those that truly feel the pain and distress of mind inseparable from sin- cere repentance, than that he should put an in- - nocent man to death or destroy his own life to atone for the guilt of softteof his condemned culprits. ‘in’my Second Appeal; but as theEditor has in = to Qu Meme CHAPTER II. Inquiry into the doctrine of the atonement. In his first Review, the Editor began with what he considered * the most abstrase and yet the most important of Christian doctrines, the deity of Jesus Christ” and then proceeded to substantiate the doctrine of his atonement; [ therefore followed this course of arrangement troduced the doctrine of the atonement of Jesas firstiu the present Review, I will also arrange my reply accordingly. The Editor quotes first Genesis IIT. 15. Iwil| put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed aud her seed ; it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.” From this passage he attempts to deduce the atone- ment of Jesus for the sins of men, demanding “what could a reptile feel relative to the fate of its offspring through future ages? of what indivi- dual serpents did the seed of the woman break the head so as for it to bruise his heel ?”—« Je. Hi y %* [ 26] sus then,” he affirms “is the seed of the woman who suffered from the malice of Satan, while he on the cross, destroyed his power by aton- jug for sin and reconciling man to God.” (page 517) | admit that a reptile as far as human ex- perience goes is incapable of feeling ‘‘re- lative to the fate of its offspring . through future ages;” buat I wish to know if a mere reptile could not have the power of couversation so as to persuade a wo0- man to adhere to its advice; whether the ass of Balaam could be possessed of the power of seeing exclusively the angel of God and con- versing with its own master Balaam ? and whe- ther ravens could diligently supply the wants of Elijah by briugiag him bread and flesh moru- ing and evening? Are not these occurrences equally difficult to reconcile to “‘ common sense” as the case of the serpent is according to the Editor? Yet we find these stated in the sacred books, and we are taught to believe them as they stand. Can we justly attempt to represent the ass and those ravens also as either angelical or demoniacal spirits, Inthe same way as the reptile is represented by the Editorto have been no other than Satan? We might in that case be permitted to give still greater latitude to metaphor, so as to take all the facts found in the Bible as merely allegorical representations; but Se ae [ 27 ] would not the cousequence of such interpreta- tions be most dangerous to the ceuse of truth? The verse in question with its context thus runs, «* And the Lord God said unto the serpent ; because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above* all cattle and above every beast of the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee aud the woman and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Do not the phrases “thou art cursed above all cattle” and ‘* above every beast of the field,’’ shew clearly that the serpent thus addressed was really no spirit in borrowed form, but the animal so denominated? Does not the cir- cumstance of the serpent being condemned to move upon its belly and to eat dust all the days of its life, evidently imply that the serpent thus _cursed was of the same class that we now see subject to that very malediction to the present day? The sins of fathers are declared in the scriptures to have been visited by God on their posterity; would it not be therefore more cou- sistent with scriptural authorities to attribute the misery of serpents to the heinous conduct of their first origin, than to Satan, of whom no Te 2aia Composed of two words ]2 aud b> le. out of all, L 2 J mention is made throughout the chapter in question? But in fact has the power of Satan over the seed of the woman been destroyed? The con-’ Sequences of the sin which our first parents committed by the ill advice of the reptile, and which they implanted in the nature of their posterity, have been that women bring forth children in sorrow, and are ruled by their husbands, and that the earth briags forth thorns also, and thistles to men who eat the herb of the field with labour and return at last to’ dust (Genesis IIT. 16—19) If Jesus actually atoned for sin aud delivered’men from its cou- sequences; how can those men and women who believe in his atonement be still, equally with others, liable to the evil effects of the sins already remitted by the vicarious sacii- fice of Jesus? If notwithstanding all the above stated facts and arguments the Editor still insists that Satan should be understood by the reptile mentioned in the verse, and Jesus by theseed of thewoman, yet his interpretation can not apply in the least to the doctrine of the atonement. It would imply only that as Satan opposed the power of Jesus to procure salvation for all men as he —— _—— ll, iy [ 29 ] intended, so Jesus diminished his power, ‘and disappointed him by leading many to salvation through his divine precepts. } know not how to answer the question of the Editor ‘ of what individual serpent did the seed of the woman break the head so as for it to bruise his heel?” unless by referring him to the re- ciprocal injuries which man and serpents inflict on each other. The Editor refers to the circumstance of the sacrifice offered by Abel and approved of God in preference to his brother Cain’s, (Genesis IV. 4) esteeming it as an illustration of the vicari- ous sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sin(page 518). But lam unable to find out what relation there could exist between the acceptauce of the offering of Abel by Jehovah, and the death of Jesus, whether sacrificial or not. The Edi- tor, however, founds his assertion that Abel having looked forward to the atonement of Jesus, his offerings were accepted by God, upon thecircumstance of Abraham’s seeing the day of Christ by prophetic anucipation (John VIII. 56.); and of Moses having esteemea the reproach of Christ greater riches than the trea- [ ow 3 sures in Egypt, (Heb. XI. * 26) they all having been “of the same eatalocue.” T therefore should hope to’be informed whether there be any authority justifiying this inference. On the contrary we find verse fourth of the same chapter of Genesis points out that Abel having been accustomed to do well in obedience to the will of God, contrary to the practice of his brother, righteous Jehovah accepted his offer- ing and rejected that of Cain: to which Paulthus alludes, ‘* By faith Abel offered a more excel- lent sacrifice than Cain”(Hebrew XI.4.); with- out leaving us doubtful as to the sevse in which that apostle used the word “ faith” in the above verse. “By faith Abel offered unto God &c.” “* By faith Enoch was translated that he shonld not see death &c.” ‘* But without faith it- is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that /e és and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him.” Here St. Paul gives us to understand that the * (Improved version of the new Testament) Gr, ‘** the reproach of Christ,” or,** of the anointed.’’ The Israelites are called Christs, or a- nointed, i, e. achosen and favoured people, Psalm CV. 15. Heb. ILL 13. ‘* The meaning is,” says Dr. Sykes in loc., ‘* that Moses looked upon the contempt and indignity which be underwent on account of his profess- ing himself a Jew, as much preferable to all the riches and honours of Egypt.’’ See also Whitby in loc. Dr. Neweome’s version is, *‘ such reproach us Christ endured,” which is also the interpretation of Photius, Crellius, and Mr. Lindsey, Sequel, page 278. ‘ Es “ faith” which procured forAbel, Enoch, Noah, and all the other Patriarchs, the grace of God, was their belief in the ewistence of God and in his being their rewarder, and not in any sacri- fice personal or vicarious. What could pros ° phetic anticipation by Abraham of the divine commission of Jesus have to do with Abel’s conduct in rendering his sacrifices acceptable to God, that any one can esteem the one as the necessary consequence of the other? Moses having called himself a Jew gave pre- ference tothe term “ anointed” or “ Israelite’, a term of reproach among the Egyptians in those days, over all the riches and honour of Egypt which he might have obtained. by declaring himself an Egyptian instead of a Jew; or Moses esteemed (according to the English version) in his prophetic power the reproach to which Christ would be made liable by the Jews in the. fulfilment of his divine commission, greater riches than all the grandeur of Egyptian unbeli- evers. But neither explanation con support the idea that Abel, or any other Patriarch, had in view the sacrificial death of Jesus in render- ing their offering acceptable tu God. It is true as the Editor observes that sacri- fives are divine institntions as a manifestation of obedience to God through the oblation of Age [ 32 ] any thing that may be dear to man, whether common as an animal, or dearly valuable as ones own son. But they are not represented in any of the sacred books as means having intrinsically the power of procuring men par- don and eternal salvation. They seem, in fact, intended for men unaccustomed to the worship of God in truth and spirit. The following passages suffice to illustrate this beyond doubt: Micah VI. 7 aud 8. ** Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall F give my first bora for my transgression; the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? He hath shewed thee O man what is good, and what doth the Lord re- guire of thee but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly. with thy God?” Here Jehovah whi.e shewing his displeasure at mere. avimal sacrifices, enjoins just actions and hu- mility in lieu of them as worthy to be accept- ed by God, without substituting homan sacti- fices in their stead. Hosea VI. 6. © For I desired mercy and not sacrifice and the kuow- ledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Isaiah 1—11. “To what purpose is the mulutude. of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts and | delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats” [ 33 |] «Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes ; - cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord . though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow &c.” Does not Jehovah here substitute good works alone for sacrifices as real means of taking away sins ? Psalm L. 8. “1 will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continuaily before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house nor he-goais out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine and the cattle upon a thousand. hiils. I know all the fowls of the meuntains and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry | would not tell thee; for the world is mine and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanks- giving; and pay thy vows unto the most high ; and call upon me in the day of trouble I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorify me.” Jehovah who pretests against the idea of the flesh of bulls being supposed bis food and the blood of goats his drivk can not be supposed Is [ 34 ] to have had delicht in human blood, the blood of his beloved son. Samuel XV. 22. “ And Samue! said, Hath the Lord as ereat delight ia burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Proverb X XI. 8. ‘*To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” Ecclesiastes V. 1. ‘* Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God; and be more ready to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools. For they consider not that they do evi.” It is now left for us to ascertain in what sense we should take such phrases as ‘ This man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins.” “ Christ hath once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” ‘ Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate” * 1 am the living bread,” ‘ 1f any man eat of this” &c. Whether do these passages imply that Jesus though he preferred mercy to sacrifice (Mathew IX. 13. XJ. 7.)did actually sacrifice himselfand offer hs own blood to God as an atonement for the sins of others, or do they mean ‘that Jesus knowing already that the fulfilment of his divine com- mission would endanger his life, never hesitated to execute it and suffered his blood to be shed Se in saving men from sin through his divine pre- cepts and pure example, which were both-op- posed to thereligious system adopted by his co= temporary Jews? Were we to follow the former mode of interpretation and take all these phrases in their strictly literal sense, we must be persu- aded-to believe that God not beinz contented with the blood of balis and goats and other animal sacrifices offered to him by the Israe- lites, insistei upon the offer of the blood and life of his son as the condition of his forgiving the sins of meu; and that Jesus accordingly offered his blood to propitiate God, and also proposed to men actually to eat his flesh!- Would not the doctrines of Christianity in this case representing God as delighted with hu- man victims and directing men to cannibalism appear monstrous to every civilised being? No one unless biassed by prejudices can jus- ufy such inconsistency as to interpret literally some of the above-mentioned phrases in sup- port of the doctrine of the atonement, and ex- plain the last quoted figuratively, as they are all confessedly alike subversive of every rati- onal idea of the nature of the divine justice and mercy. To avoid sucha stigma upon the pure religi- on of Jesus, it is incumbent I think upon us to [) 36°) follow the latter mode of interpretation, and to understand trom the passages referred to, that Jesus, the spiritual Lord and King of Jews and Gentiles, in fulfilment of the duties of his mis- sion, exposed his own life for the benefit of his subjects, purged their sins by his doc- trines, aud persevered in executing the com- ‘mands of God even to the undergoing of bodi- ly suffering in the miserable death of the cross 5 a self devotion or sacrifice of which no Jewish high priest had ever offered an example. Ought not this beliefin the unbounded bene- ficeuce of Jesus to excite superior gratituce, love, and reverence towards our Saviour and Kivg than the idea that he, as God above mortal. afflictions, borrowed human nature for a season, and offered this fictitious Man as a sacrifice for the remission of sin, while he himself was no - More afflicted with that sacrificial death than with the sufferings of other human individuals. If there be in this latter case any gratitude felt for the afflictions which attached to the death of the cross, it should be manifested to that temporary man Jesus, aud not to Jesus the Christ, whom the Editor and other Trini- tarians esteem as God above pain and death. ee ee oe 2 ta ba RS 7 ame If it be urged that it is inconsistent with common justice to pardon sin that requires the capital punishment of death without an atone- ment for it, it may be replied that the per- fection of divine justice, as well as other attributes of God, should not be measured by what are found in, and adopted by, the human race, Is it consistent with our common notions of justice to visit the sins of fathers on their descendants as God ascribed to himself? (Exo- dus XX. 5.) Is it consistent with our common notions of justice to afflict men with infinite pu- nishment for their finite guilt as Jesus declares in Matthew XVIII. 8.2 Even in the present case would it be consisteut with common notions of justice to afflict an innocent man with the death of ihe cross for sins committed by others even supposing the innocent man should voluntarily offer his life in behalf of those others? We can have no idea of the perfection of divine justice, mercy, and wrath unless from what Is revealed to us: and as we find in the sacred books that sins have been pardoned in Consequence of the intercession of righteous men without any sacrificial atonement, we shonld therefore be. contented with those au- thorities and should not entertain doubt as to pardon being bestowed upon those who have had the advantage of the intercession of Jes L [ 38 ] sus, exalted as he was by God over all pro- phets and righteous men that ever lived. —~ Number XLV. 19—20. Moses prayed to the Lord ‘ Pardon | beseech thee the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy and as thou hast forgiven this peo- ple from Egypt even until now; and the ‘Lord said I have pardoned according to thy word.” 2 Chrono XXX. 18. 19. and 20. « For amultitude of the people, even many of Ephraim and Mauuasseh, Issachar and Zebu- lun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkeued to Hezekiah, and healed the people.” Psalm CVI. 23. “ therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his cho- sen stuod before him in the breach to turn a- way his wrath, lest he should destroy.” Did pot Jehovah here forgive the sins of Israel from the intercession of Moses without having — the least reference to the offer of animal or human blood? Psalin XXXII. 6. * Lacknow- jedged my siu unto thee and mine iniquity have [ 39 J I not hid; I said I will confess my transeressi- ons unto the man and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.’ Were not sius forgiven in this instance also through confession and hu- mility without blood offerings? Psalm CXIIP, 2. Let my prayer be set forth before thee as jucense; and the lifting up of my hands as the e- vening sacrifice” Isaiah LV. 7. “« Let the wick- ed forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him: and to our God, for he will abandantly pardon.” Jeremiah VI}. 21. 23. “ Thus saith the Lord of hosts the God of Israel, Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices and eut flesh for 1 spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt; concerning burnt offerings or sacri- fices. But thisthing commanded I them say- ing obey my voice aud I will be your God and ve shall be my people &c.” Here we find prayers and obedience preferred to animal sacrifices as means of pardon and no reference di- rect or figurative to propitiatioa to be made by human blood: Such an attempt therefore as to represent human blood or that of God in human form iu lieu of animal blood as an judispensable atonement for sins, is, I thiuk, Buscriptural. a. [ Wea The Editor quotes (page 519.) Heb. X, “Tt is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins; sacri- fice and offeriug thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me; in burnt of- ferings aud sacrifices thou hast had no plea- sure” And he attempts thereby to prove that “ sacrifices considered in themselves then, were never desired by God, they are approved merely with a view to his making atonement for whom God had prepared a body” and that “‘ they ceased after he had offered himself a_ sacrifice for sin.” How strange is the idea that ‘*God who preserves man and beast nor suffers asparrow to fall to the ground without his permission” and by whom sacrifices * were never desired for their own sake” should have caused millions of animals to be slanghtered at different times by men under the mistaken notion of their being an atonement for sius white he has been remitting iniquity from e- ternity referring only to the real aud sufficient atonement made by Jesus for the sins of all men that ever lived from the beginning of the world ? How inconsistent is such an idea with the known mercy of that Providence whose un- willingness to receive human sacrifices was such that when Abraham had proved his fide- = Se [ 4! ] lity by binding his son on the altar,God stayed his hand frofa the sacrifice and produced a ram unexpectedly before him which he was graci- ously pleased to accept as an offering in the stead of Zsuac (Genesis XXII. 13.) How can we imagine that God should have received the offering which be himself had thus prepared, with referencesolely to the future sacrifice of a being far superior in excellence to Isaac whose life he mercifully preserved ? As to the above cited verses, they rather cor- roboratethe second mode of interpretation noti- ced in the preceding paragraphs than the doc- trine of a real human sacrifice in the Chris.ian dispensation; for in verses fifth and sixth, the author of the epistle to the Hébrews declares the dissatisfaction of God with sacrifices and offerings in geaeral terms without limiting them to any particular species whether of man - or of animal. The lanzuage of the fifth verse “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me,” confirms the idea that the divine disrezard of mere sa- crifice led to the preparation of abody for Jesus, through which he could impart to mankind the perfection of the will and laws of God ina manner consistent with the divine nature, teach- ing them to yield to God a heart-felt, instead of a M a Lt 4 | ceremonial and outward obedience, and there- by puitiog. an eud to the further effusion of blood as a testimony of humility, gratitude, ~ aud devotion. Hence it appears more consistent with the coutext and the general tenour of scripture to undersiand by the phrase ‘ The/offering of the body of Jesus Christ’ (quoted often by the Editor) the death of Jesus asa spiritual and virtual sacrifice for the sins of all those for whom he became a mediator; in as much as by that death the blessed saviour testified his perfect obedience and devotion to the will of his heavenly father, and thereby vindicat- ed to himself the unlimited favour of God. Daring his life he instructed mankind how they might render themselves worthy of the divine mercy; by his death he qualified him- self to be their intercessor at the heavenly throne, when sincere repentance was to be offer- ed by them instead of perfect duty. We may easily accounf for the adoption by the apostles, with respect to him, of such terms as sacrifice and atonement for sin, and their representing Jesus as the high-priest en- gaged to take away the sins of the world by means of his blood. These were modes of speech made use of in allusion to the sacrifices ——— “ae [ 43 ] and blood-offerings which the Jews and their high-priest used to make for the remission of sins; and the apostles wisely accommodated their instrnctions to the ideas and forms of language familiar to those whom they addressed. How inconsistent would it be in the author of the epistle to the Hebrews to declare in one place that God would not have sacrifice and offering ; and again to announce, almost at the same moment, that he was so pleased with sa- crifice, even with a human sacrifice, that for its sake he would forgive the sins of the world. Besides in the Christian dispensation sacri- fice implies a spiritual offering required by God not only from the author of this religion, but also from his disciples and followers; a fact which may be illustrated by sacred authority. 1 Peter Ii. 4 and 5. “To whom coming as unto a living stone disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God and precious, ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices accep- table to God by Jesus Cnbrist.” E am not at all disposed to dispute the as- sertion of the Editor (page 532), that ‘a priest Without atonement however had no existence & Xe sh ak [ Ma] in the old Testament” but 1 must say that a priest without atonement has existence in the new Testament, and refer the Editor to the following verses, excluding those that are ap- plied to Jesus. Rev. I. 6. “‘ And hath made us kings and priests unto God;” XX. 6. “ but they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with hima thousand years; 1 Peter V. 5. * Ye also as lively stones are built up aspiritual house, an holy priesthood.” Moreover in explaining such phrases as “ I am the living bread.’—“ If any man eat of this bread he shali live for ever." —* The bread that 1 will give is my flesh.” ‘“‘ Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man” and “Unless ye eat his flesh and drink his blood, ye have no life in you"—‘‘ my flesh is meat indeed and wy blood is drink indeed”—protestant com- mentators take upon themselves to interpret that these phrases are in allusion to the manner of sacrifice, aud that the eating of the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood must be under- stood in a spiritual notin a carnal sense. If these writers make so direct an encroachment upon the literal sense of those phrases in order to avoid the idea of cannibalism being a tenet of Christianity, why should | not be justified upon the same principles and on the authority of the apostle in understanding by sacrifice t 3%) in the language of the apostle a virtual oblation; that Christianity may not be represented as a religion founded upon the horrible system of human victims. The Editor first refers (page 520) to ‘* Noah’s sacrifice on his coming out of the ark ;” whence he concludes that all the genuine religion of the new world was founded on the future atone- ment made by Christ. He again mentions God having made a promise to Abraham, that in him “ shall all the families of the earth be blessed” a blessing which came tothe Gen- tiles through Jesus.( He considers this cir- cumstance of the communication of blessing as fully foretelling the atonement of Jesus. The Editor has also quoted the passage in Job ‘know that my redeemer liveth and that he shall stand in the latter day upon the earth ;° being of opinion that the term redeemer being applted to Christ proves either his atonement or his deity. I must confess my inability to find out the connection between these authorities and the conclusion drawn by the Editor from them. Did God, wh», according to the Revd. Editor, had no delight even in animal sacrifice, anticipate great delight in human. sacrifice when Noah made an offering to him? N b t 46e4 May we not admit, that the divine promise to Abraham has been fulfilled in the blessings” we enjoy derived from the sacred instructions: of Jesus, without assuming that other advan- — tages have been reaped by us from the cireum- stance of his having shed his blood for ms ex- clusively considered? If not, how can Jesus assure us of the divine blessing merely through the observance of his instructions? Matthew V. 3—11. Luke XI. 28. “ But said he (Jesus) yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it,” Could not Job or any one call another his redeemer or deliverer without having allusion to his blood? Cannot one being redeem ano- ther without sacrificing his own blood? How is it then we find Jehovah, the fatherof all, call- ed redeemer, though iu that capacity not con- sidered even by ‘Trinitarians to have had his. blood shed as an atonement. Isaiah LXIII. 16. “ Thou O, Lord art our father, our redee- mer” LX. 16. “Shalt know that I Jehovah am thy saviour and thy redeemer.” I wonder at the assertion of the Editor that_ ‘the Messiah is nottermed a redeemer merely ou account of his teaching or his example; These” (he says) ‘‘ could be of uo value to Job who lived Be 40s | so long before the appearance of Christ in the earth.” I wish to know whether Job an inspired writeris tobe considered as possessed of a knowledge of future events or not; as in the. former case the circumstances of Chrisi’s aton- ing for sin, according to the Editor, and the na ture and import of his divine instructions were equally known to him, and he could call the Messiah redeemer in either view. In the lat- ter case (i. e. if he was unacquainted with future events while writing this passage) then the doctrine of the atonement and the sav- ing traths inculeated by Christ \ were, of course, equally hidden from him, and neither consequently could be of any value to Job, « who lived so long before Christ’s appearance in the earth.” The fact is the verse of Job quoted by the Editor has no such obvious reference to the Messiah that any one can be justified in applying to Jesus the term * redeemer’ found in the same verse. I therefore quote it with it’s context, that my readers may have a better opportunity of considering the subject in ques- tion. Job XIX. 24—26. “* That they (my words) were graven with au iron pen and Jead in the rock forever! For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter [ 48 } day* upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” The Editor having urged in his first review (page 101.) that the circumstance of the term “lamb” being twice applied to Jesus — by John the Baptist, shewed that Jesus came into the world to sacrifice his life as an atonement for sin, I obssrved to the Editor in my Second Appeal (page 68 ) that such terms as “lamb” and “ sheep” were applied in scrip- ture to the disciples of Jesus also; many of whom likewise suffered death in their attempt to withdraw men from sin, yet in their cases no allusion to the sacrificial lamb has ever been made; and that it might be thereforesafely infer-- red that the epithets “lamb” and ‘ sheep” are merely fizurative terms for innocence subjected to persecution. The Editor however without noticing this observation, quotes in his present review (page 522.) some verses of the epistles of Peter and John, in which the apostles use the same epithet “lamb” applied to their gra- cious master. It is obvious from what I stated in my Second Appeal, that I did not dispute the application of that term to Jesus in thescriptural * {FIN Signifies properly afterwards withe out any reference to a particular day. p49 4 books. I only maintained that no Christian, whether primitive or modern, could ever apply the word “ lamb” in its literal sense to Jesus; who, as being above the anzels of God, is of course far above the nature of a “lamb;” and ihat under this consideration it must have been used for innocence subjected to persecu- tion, as we find the use of the word “ lamb” very frequent elsewhere when applied to man ; (John XXI. 15. already quoted in the Second Appeal) “feed my lambs” Luke X. 3. “ Behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves.” Genesis XXII. 7 and 8. “and he (Isaac) said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where fs the lamb for a burntoffering? and Abraham said, My son, God _ will provide himself a lamb for a burntoffering?” Wherein Abraham doubtless meant his innocent son about to be subjected to a violent death; hiding the com- mandment of God from him, as appears from the following verses ;—‘* And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abra- ham built an altar there, and laid the wood in _order, and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar upon the wood: and Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay his son.” Jeremiah XI. 19. “ But [ was’. like a lamb or an ox that is brought to slaugh- ter.” | “2 oO [ 50 J Upon the same principle the apostles ge-— nerally used ‘blood’ for condescension to death; and ‘ sacrifice” for a virtual one; as I noticed fully in the preceding paragraphs. The Editor relates (page 524) that the priest used to lay his hands on the head of a living goat ‘and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, putting them on the head of the goat and by the hand of a fit per- sonto send it away into the wilderness as az atonement for all. their sins im every year.” - He then infers from this circumstance that ‘ conmandments like these did more than merely foretel the atonement of Christ.” Were we to consider at all the annual scape- goat as an indication of some other atonement for sin, we must esteem it as a sign of Aaron's bearing the iniquities of Israel; both the scaye-_ 7 goat and Aaron having alike born the sis | of others without sacrificing their hves: but by no means can it be supposed a sign of the atonement of Christ, who according to the author bore the sins of men by the sa- crifice of bis own life, and had therefore no re- semblance to the scape Goat or Aaron: Exodus XXVIII. 38. “And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel shall 7 ps9 hallow in all their holy gifts: and it shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord.” I wonder that the Revd. Editor himself notices here that the ini- quities of Israel were forgiven by confession cover the scape-goat, without animal or human victims, and yet represenis the circumstance of the scape-goat as a prediction of the sacrificial death of Christ, and insists upon the forgiveness of sins being founded upon the effusion of blood. The Revd. Editor now begins with Psalm If. 1. (oage 527.) stating that in Acts IV. the apostles lifted up “ their voices with one ac- cord to God in the very werds of the Psalms, adding verse 27.” “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered toge- ther ;” Secondly he quotes Psalm XVI 8—11}. omparing them with Acts 11. 25 —27; 3rdly Rin XXI1.1. comparing it with fiche ii. 10 —12; 4thly Psalm XXXI. 5, while he re- peats Psslm XL. 6—8, comparing them to Heb. X. 4; 5thly Psalm XLV. 6 and 7. com- paringit with Heb. I. 8—12: 6thly Psalm LX- VIil. 18. applying it to Ephessians LV. 8— 11; 7ihly Psalm LXIX. 1] and 2; comparing them [ 52 ] with John IJ. 17. ** The zeal of thy house has eaten me up;” and with Romans XV. 3. “ Even Christ pleased not himself ; but as it is written, the reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me;” 8thly Psalms LX XII. 7—11. and 17; 9thly Psalms LXXXIX. 19—36 and 37; 1Othly Psalms CI]. 4—5 and 10, quoting im- mediately after this. Heb I. 7, without com- paring one with the other; Jithly Psalm CXVII1. 22; 12thly Psalm CX. 1 and 4. Afier having filled up more than six pages (527—533 ) with the quotations of the above Psalms, the Editor observes that ‘‘ notwith» standing the abundant evidence of the atone- ment and even the deity of Christ already adduced from the Pentateuch and the Psalms” &e. But I regret that none of these Psalms appear to me to bear the least reference to the principle of vicarious sacrifice as an atonement for sin except Psalm fourteenth; in which a de- ciaration of the disp!easure of Jehovah at sacri- ficgin general is made, and which f have fully examined in the preceding paragraphs. I therefore beg my readers to look over all the Psalms introduced here by the Editor, and to form their opinion whether these are properly applied to the discussion of the doctrine of the atonement; and should they find them having little or no relation to a proof of the atonement {[ 53 ] they may then judge whether the frequent complaint of the Editor of the want of room is or is not well founded, I will examine his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus from some of these Psalms in a subsequent chapter on the Trinity; but can- not omit to notice here two or three remarks made by the Editor, in the course of quoting these Psalms, on some of my assertions in the | Second Appeal, leaving a decision on them | to.the free judgement of the public. The Editor having quoted Psalm XL. 6~8. and | compared these verses with Hebrews X. 4—7. 9. thus concludes ; (Page 528) “ By these de- clarations various facts are established: They inform us that the grand design of the son in becoming man was that of being a sacrifice ; which fully refutes our author’s assertion (page 58.) that the sole object of his mission was to preach and impart divine instructions.’ The Editor, I am sorry to say, following a frequent practice of his other othodox brethren, omits the immediately following verses which thoroughly explain whether “ the will of God” mentioned in verse eighth of the psalm quoted by the Editor implies sacrifice or divine inse tructions; “I delight to do thy wiil O my “God: yea, thy law iswithin my heart. I have P [ a4 J preached righteousness in the great congrega- tion: 1o, 1 have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest. J have not hid thy righteousness within my heart. Dave declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lov- ine kindness and thy truth from the great con eregation.” It is now ieft to the public to judge whether psalin fortieth quoted by the Editor e- stablishes that “ the grand design of the son in becoming man was that of being a sacrifice,” or of preaching the righteousness of God to the world, and deciaring his truth and salvation tothem. The preparing of the body for the son,as found in Hebrews X. 5 implies of course the necessity of his being furnished with a body in preaching the will of God to mortal men; a body which, in the fulfilment of his com- mission, Jesus never valued, but exposed to danger and virtually offcred as a sacrifice. t is worth observing that the Editor though he affirms positively, that the grand object of the son’s appearing in this world was to be .— a sacrifice, and not to inculcate divine instrac- tions; and thinks it proper to rest his position uponacomparsion of the above Psalm with Heb- rews, yet never attempts to reconcile to this notion the verses poiated out in page 58 of my Second Appeal, proving that the object of —.- fo) his mission was to preach and impart divine in- structions. Are we to place greater reliance on his bare affirmation, or onthe authority of Jesus himself the Lord and King of Jews and Gentiles ? Not finding a single assertion in the scrips tures that can support his above notion, the Editor lays stress upon John X.17. “* Therefore doth my father love me because I lay down my life that | might take it again.” Do these words imply any thing more than his attributing the love of the father towards the son to his implicit obedience even to the loss of his own life taken by the rebellions Jews? Should a General inform his fellow soldiers that his king is attached to him in consequence of his being ready to give up his life in the discharge of his duty, can we thence iofer that the grand design of the king in appointing him General is his death, and not his reconciling rebels to their merciful king through friendly entreaty and offers of amnesty which we know he has em- ployed? The second conclusion ‘of the Editor from the above quoted Psalms and Hebrews is that ‘they also demonstrate that the son delighted in offering himself a sacrifice, which refutes that [-56 ] dreadful assertion that Jesus declared great aversion to the death of the cross and merely yielded to itas kuowing that the will of his father rendered snch death unavoidable.” I find po mention made in Hebrews X. much less in Psalm XL. of the son’s “* delighting in offering himself as a sacrifice;’ on the contrary it is evidently found in Hebrews X. that what- ever the son performed with the body prepar-- ed him was entirely through his implicit obedi- ence to the wiil of the father; verse. 7 * Then said I (the son) lo I come to do thy will O God” —‘‘ Then said he (the son) lo [come to do thy will O God.” (9) anassertion which is thoroughly confirmed by what I quoted in my Second Appeal, pages 62 and 63, part of which I am necessitated to repeat here to shew that Jesus whether as man or God (let the Editor decide) declared great aversion to death yet yielded to” it in common with many other prophets, know- ing that the will of his father rendered such death unavoidable. Matthew XXVI. 37. 38. 39. and 42. “ And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. ‘Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death. And prayed, saying. O my father, if i be possible, let this cup (meaning death) pass from me, nevertheless no/ as T will, but as thou ye [ or ] wilt. He went-away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my father, if this cup may not pass away from me except I drink it, thy will be done.” Mark XIV. 36. “ And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee ; fake away this*cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt” Luke XXII. 42 and 44, “ Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thive, be done. And being in an a- ’ gony he prayed more earnestly : and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, falling down to the ground.” Now let the Editor find out a set of verses or even a single passage which may evince that Jesus so far from feeling aversion to death delighted in it, as he has attempted to prove; and let him take upon himself to reconcile such gross contradictions between those two sets of passages (if there are any such) or reject one set of them. The third conclusion of the Editor from the above Psalm and the compared passage of Hebrews is that “they furnish a complete auswer to the declaration (page 62) that it would be a piece of gross iniquity to afflict One innocent being who had all the human Q [ 58 ] feclings, and who had never transgressed the will of God, with the death of the cross for the crimes committed by others, and (vage 63) that the iniquity of one’s being sentenced to death as an atonement for the fault committed by another, is such that evgry just man would shudder at the idea of ones being put to death for acrime commitied by another, even if the innocent man should willingly offer his life ia behalf of that other.’ The Edicor then main- tainsthat the texts quoted(Psalmand Hebrews) refute the above positions, stating that “ this iniquity, if it be such, the father willed, since he prepared the son a body in which to suffer this palpable injustice.” Iu this | perfectly coin- cide with the Editor, that the death of the junocent Jesus took place, like that of many preceding prophets, by the unsearchable will of God, who hath ordained that all the sons of men shall die,some by a violent and painful death, others by an easyand naturalextinction: nor do I require the evidence of the text quot- ed, (“Thou hast prepared me a body,”) to con- vince me of the fact declared by Jesus in his agony in the garden, that his sufferings in par- ticular were, like those of mankind in general, conformable to the will of God. But I} cannot find any thing in these words that warrants an inference so contrary to our ideas of justice as = [ 59 ] that the pain thus suffered by Jesus was in- flicted on him, though innocent, by God, as an atonement to himself for with-holding merited punishment from the truly guilty. And this is the real point in discussion. The Editor wiil admit that the ways of God in bestowing hap- piness ou some and leaving others in our eyes ~ more worthy of divine favor to wretchedness and misery are inserntable; yet on the bare | fact that the innocent Jesus was ordained to die on the cross he pretends to rest the conclusion, as the only possible one, that this death he suf- fered to satisfy the justice of his Maker. Was it for this that John the Baptist was beheaded? Was it for this that Zechariah was slain? Was it as an atonement for the sins of the rest of mankind that Jerusalem was suffered to “stone the Prophets and kill those who were sent to her?” The Editor will not admit that it was; yet the proposed inference from the bare fact would be as legitimate in these cases asin that of Jesus. The plain and ob- vious conclusion to be drawn from the text is that God prepared for Christ a body that he might communieate a perfect code of divine Jaw to mankind, and that he loved him for the devotion with which he fulfilled his divine commission, regardless of the comfort or safes [ 60] ty of that body and his readiness ‘to ly" it down when it suited the purpose of the Maker. The Revd. Editor expresses his indignation at the mode of reasoning adopted by me in the passages above quoted; saying, “ Should not a creature, a worm of the dust who cannot fully comprehend the mysteries of his own being, pause before he arraigu his Maker of gross injustice, and charge him with having founded all religion on an act of palpable iniquity? (page 529 ) There appears here a most strange mistake onthe part of the Editor, Itis he who seems to me to be labouring to prove the absurdity that God, the Almighty and all-merciful, is ca- pable of a palpable iniquity—determined to have punishment, though he leave quite un- punished ; inflicting the marks of his wrath on the innocent for the purpose of sparing those who justly deserve the weight of its terrors. If he mean to object to the rashness of apply- ing the limited capacity of the human under- standing to judge the unsearchable things of the wisdom of God, and therefore denies my right, as a worm of the dust, to deduce any thing from human ideas inimical to his view of the divine will, 1 can only say that I have - [ Gi } for my example that of a fellow-worm in his own argument to shew the necessity that the Almighty labored under to have -his justice satisfied. For I find this very Editor in his en- deavour to prove the doctrine of the atonement arguing (page 506.) thus “He who has kept the law has not broken it, and he who has broken it cannot have keptit: that the same man. therefore should incur its penalty for violating it, and also deserve its reward for Keeping it, is an outrage on common sense.” ‘* This will clearly appear, if we refer to human laws imper- fect as they are.” “ Apply this to the divine Jaw.” “For him therefore to be rewarded as one who had kept the divine law would be directly contrary to righteousness.” “ Human judges enquire not repentance of the robber or murderer but respecting his guilt.” From these passages does it not appear as if the Editor were of opinion that it is quite right and proper to apply human reason as a standard by which to judge what must be the will of God when he thinks it supports his views of the ways of Providence; but that on the contrary itis blasphemous and rebellious against the divine majesty to deduce from hu- man reason conclusions from the scriptures con- trary to his interpretations of them? The Edi- R [ 62 } tor has not attempted to dispute that, applied to human affairs the motive to which he as- sizns the will of God in ordaining the death of Jesus on the cross would be palpably ini- _ quitous. Should not this indoce him to pause and permit nothing but ihe most express and positive declaration couched in language not capable of being explained in a metaphorical sense, to sway hm to a belief so irreconcilable to common sense? Yet he is willing to assume ‘at once this conclusion on the bare fact that Jesus was provided with a body. Do not orthodox divines often offer it as a’ reason for ihe necessity of an atonement being _ made for the crimes of men that it would be in- equitable in the perfect nature of the just God to remit sin without some sort of puuishment being ioflicted for it as a satisfaction to his jus- tice? Do they not in consequence represent the death of Jesus as an atonement for the sins of ' mankind? \{ they do and are allowed to do so, ~ I think myself also authorized to urge in refer- ‘ence to huma: notions of juustice that “it would be apiece of gross iniquity to afflict one innocent being who had all the human feelings and who had never transgressed the will of God, with the death of the cross for crimes committed by others especially when he declares such * [ 63 ] great aversion to it.’ But if the Editor aban- don this mode of reasoning and confess the uusearchable, inscrutable nature both of divine justice and of-divine mercy, f am perfectly ready and willing to do the same. The Editor now refers to the prophets ; (paze 533.) saying that Isaiah in Ch. VAI. ** pre- dicting the birth of Christ identifies his divine and his human nature.” As Isaiah VIL 14. aud JX.6. have no relation whatever to the doctrive of atonement, | deem it proper to defer _ the notice of them io the subsequent chapter on the Triuity. The Editor in his next quotation from Isaiah first introduces Ch. Xl. ** And he shall make him (Jesus) of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord ;” but my limited capa- eity has failed to enable me to ascertain what he really means to establish by the quo- tation of this passage (page 536). The Editor was in the course of an attempt to prove the deity and the atonement of Jesus Christ, but the force of trash would appear, to have in- duced him here to cite a verse which, coutaia- ing such phrases as—‘ make him of quick understanding” and “ in the fear of the Lord” go to prove his created nature. In like man- [ 64 ] ner I must confess my inability to discover avy allusion whatever to the atonement in his next quotation from Isaiah, X1X. 19 and 20. The Editor having endeavoured in his for- mer review to prove the doctrine of the atone- ment from the application of the term «“ Saviour’ to Jesus, | noticed in my Second Appeal that “ we find the title Saviour appli- ed frequently in the divine writings to those who have been endued with the power of saving nations, whether in a spiritual sense by the im- parting of the divine will, or by affordiug tem- porary protection to them ; altho’ none of those saving prophets or priaces atoned for the sins of their fellow creatures by their death ;” (vage 64.) and that “ all those who have been instrumental in effecting the deliverance of their fellow creatures from evils of whatever nature, were dependant themselves upon God, and only instruments ‘in his hand.” The Editor though unable to deny this fact, thus turns — away the subject saying ; “ It surely required but little knowledge to discern, that a man’s delivering his country does not elevate him to an equality with God, or that to overcome an invading enemy is an act totally different from ~ saving sinners from their sins:’’ but the force of truth again makes the Revd. Editor quote here [ 6 ] the following passage (‘and he shall send them a Saviour and a great one and he shall deliver them”) which does not only refute his own position, but proves what 1 advanced in my Second Apveal ; that is, as Christ and others who saved people at different times in their peculiar capacities were depencent themselves upon God and only instruments in his hands.” Is it not possible for God who could raise, as the Editor confesses, personages to save men by their miraculous strength from the grasp of - their enemies, to raise one to save mankind from sin through his divine instructions? If not, how should we reconcile such disavowal of the power of God to the following assertion of the evangelist Matthew that the people “glo- rified God who had given such power ta men?” (1X. 8.) and if Jesus was not entitied to the apvellation of a saviour from the saving power of his divine instructions, in what sense shonid we understand those declarations of Jesus himself to be found even in a single Gospel John V. 24. Vi. 63. XV. 3. To his question ‘* When previously to Christ's ‘eoming did the Egyptians ery to Jehovah for deliverance and when previously was Jsrae] the third with Egypt and the Assyrians?” My answer must be in the negative; that is, 5 ee [ 66 ] neither previous to Christ’s coming did the E- gyptians cry to Jehovah and join the Ass/rians and Esrael, a biessing in the midst of the land, nor have they subsequentiy to the ccminz of Jesus, up to this day, cried to the Gouof Is- rael, or joined Israel aad the Assyrians in ask~ ing a divice blessing. The Editor says paze 537 that in Ch. KXXV. the blessings of Christ’s kingdom are declared in the most elowing lan- guage” I do not dispute it in the least. If verse 10. (the ransomed of the Lord shall return &c.) have any allusion to Jesus, it must have reference to his implicit obedience to the will of Jehovah, even to the laying down of his own life for the safety of mankind; as ex- plained in my Second Appeal pages 57 and 58, Avy one who has a tolerable knowledge of the idiom of Hebrew or Arabic, or even of Pere sian, must be aware that the word ** Ransom” my) or Ay is often used to express ex- treme aitachment or obedience, without im- plying an actual sacrifice as an atonement for sins. - He again quotes Isaixh XLII.‘ He shall not ery &c.) The Lord is well pleased for. his righteousness sake;” but Tam una- SE [ ov ] ble also to discover what these quotations have to do with Christ's atoning for sin as a sacri- fice in lieu of goats aud buliocks. So 2 Cor. V. 21. “for he hath made him to be sin.” &c. has no reference to the atonement which the Editor insists upon: It implies no more than that “God hath made him subject to sufferings and death, the usual puvishment and conses quence of sin, as if he had been a sinner, though he were guilty of no sin; that we in and by him might be made righteous, by a righteousness imputed to us by God.” See Locke’s works vol. VALI. page 232. The Revd. Editor now refers to Ch. LIII. of Isaiah, Jaying great stress upon such phrases as the following found in that chap- ter;—‘“surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” ‘ He was wounded for our transgressions” the Lord hath laid on him the iniqnities of us all.” ‘* He shall bear their iniquities.” Do these sentences prove that he like a sacrificial “lamb” or ‘‘ sheep” atoned for the sins of others? Did ever a sacrificial lamb or goat bear the iniqnities of men? The scape- goats are stated to have borne the iniquities of Israel, a circumstance far from being applicable to Christ even typically; for he, as was predic~ ted, made no escape from the hands of his ene- ‘ 1 [ 6 ] thies. My readers may peruse the whole of Ch. LIL and may find that it conveys’ bat the: jdea that Jesus as a prince, though ionocent himself, was to suffer afflictions or ratherdeath for the transgressions of his guilty people while interceding for them with a king niga pan apne om To this question of the Editor “Is not our repentance sufficient to make atonemeut with the allemerciful?” My answer must be in the affirmative, since we find the direct authority of the author of this religion and his forerunner John the Baptist requiring us— to have recourse to repentance as the means of procuring ‘pardon for sin. Vide page 22. Had the human race never transzressed or had they repented sincerely of their trariseres- sions, the son of God need not have been sent to teach them repentance for the pardon of their sins; to lav before them the divine law calculated to prevent their further transgres-— ~ sions; the falfilment of which commission was” . at the cost of his life. T | POW. 2 Oe As [have already noticed in page 60 the Editor's reference to human ideas of just in support of the doctrine of atonement,and his censuring me for the same mode of reference to [ 69 ] natural equity. I will not renew the subject here, The Editor seems contented with the quota- tion of only two passages of Jeremiah: viz. Ch. XXII1. «‘ Behold the days ‘come, saith Jeho- vah, that I will raise unto David a rizhteous branch” &c. and Ch XXXII. as being quoted in Hebrews VIII. “ Behold the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant witb the house of Israel and the land of Judah. I will put my law in their inward parts &c.” ‘The Editor then quotes (page 539) I Cor. I. 60. *« Christ is made unto us wisdom, righteous- ness, sanctification, and redemption.” But what these quotations have to do with the vicarious sacrifice of Christ | am againat alossto perceive ; being able to discover in them nothing more than a prophecy and its fulfilment, that Christ -was to be sent to direct mankind to sincerity in worship, righteousness in conduct, sanctifica- tion in purity of miud, and salvation by re- pentance. The Editor then advances that “ Ezekiel also predicts the promised redeemer in Ch. XXXIV. 13. “He says J will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; and he shail be T ee tl a shepherd. ” J never denied ia a y of 4 -my publications that Jesus was se ent a promised Messiah ; nor did I ever interpret the above. passages, as some Jewish writers, that the Messiah would be not only of the race of David but also of his spirit. How is it then, that \ the Editor thinks it necessary to attempt so often to prove the kingdom and redemption of Jesus as the promised Messiah in the course of his arzuments in favour of the atonement ? He afterwards quotes Daniel 1X. 26. “ Shall Messiah be cut off but not for himself.” There is ‘no term in the original Hebrew passage an- “swering to the words “ but” or © himself” found in the Eaglis) version. We find in the — ‘Hebrew 1? PSR) — “no person or nothing for — him;” that is “ Shall Messiah be cut off and 0 one be for bira.” The translators used the i term“ but” instead of “ and” as in the Hebrew, and the term “ himself” in lien of * him.” In. z jliustration [ shall here cite the sa 1e phrase found in other instances both in the original “ Hebrew scriptures and their translation also — in the English version. Exodus XXIL. 1. rot) PR « No. blood for him” Nombers XXVIL.4.127 RX «He hathno son.” Psalm LXXIT. 12.1) Ty psi And him that hiith no helper.” Daniel XI. 48. 7 WW prrve™ And none shall help him.” But even were we to ad- 7m, mit this mistranslation or perversion of the original scriptures, the words “shall the Mes- siah he cut off but not for himself,” would to my mind convey nothing more thanthat the Mes- ‘siah should be cut off, not for any guilt he com- mitted himself, but by the fan!t of his subjects, who continned to rebel against the divine law though istructed by their intercessor even at the hazard of his own life. - The Editor quotes Hosea IIT. “ After that the children of Israei return and seek the Lord their God and David their King &e.” and Joel Jf. 28. “ And it shall come to pass afterwards that { will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall pro- phecy” &c. and also Amos 1X. *‘ In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David which is fallen” &c. Had he been pleased to shew the tendency of these quotations to the proof of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus, I would endeavour to examine the connection between them; as he has omitted to do so, and their relation to the question is certainly — not obvious | must spare myself the trouble. | The Revd. Editor says (page 541) “nor does ~Obediezh in his short prophecy wholly omit the Redeemer’s Kingdom. He alludes thereto in = Sag pe a ’ er. ee + » Ph [). 7a verse 21. ‘And saviours, shall come HS q -mount Zion to judge thie mounts of Esau an the kingdom shall be Jehovah's.” To justify the application to Jesus of the noun “ Saviours” though found in the plura! form, he thus argues ‘should he (the author of the appeals) reply that as the plural number “ Saviour” is used, this cannot refer to Christ, we ask him whether he has not (page 98) aflirmed that “ the plural form is often used in a singular sense as of his masters, Meaning his master has given hm a wife.” The Editor as a diligent student of the Scriptures should have known that the noun in question * Saviours” being accompanied with the plural verb Vy « they shall come up,” jis by no means an analogous case to that of the term ‘“ Masters” as found in Exodus XXI. 4. which is connected with the verb sin- gular | whereas in Neh. 1X. 27. the term ‘‘ Saviours” is associated with the verb in the F plural form and tbe past tense, as well as with — the pronoun plural. | 1 must therefore maintain the correctness of reading ‘ Saviours” in Obadiah as required is the former alternative of the question put the Editor, (page 541, L. 34.); finding myself unable to “ acknowledge the triune 09 as proposed by him in the latter alternative : fore { 73 ] having relinquished the notion of the trinne, quadrune and decimune gods which I once professed, when immersed in the grosser polys theism prevailing among modern Hindoos ; 1 cannot reconcile it to my understanding to find plausibility in one case, while the same. notion is of acknowledged absurdity in ano- ther. Vhe Editor admits (page 536) the appli- cation of the term Saviour to human individuals as pointed out by me, (Second Appeal page 145) yet he is anxious to prove the doctrine of the atonemeat by the application of that very term to Jesus. The Editor says (page 542.) that «* Micah in Ch. 1V. describes Uhrist’s kingdom nearly in the same terms with Isaiah, and in Ch. V.he repeaty the place of his birth ‘thou Bethichem Ephratah, out of thee shall he come forth auto me—whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.” The testimony to the ete:nal deity of Christ given in connection with his birth as man, it is wrong. to overiook.” any testimony relating to the birth of-Jesus hav. ing nothing to do with his atonement, is pot in placehere, but I will examine the verse here cited in. the subsequent part of this dis- cussion, when we come to the subject of the ~ Trinity. Vv a [8 He quotes again Nahnm I. 15. for the pur- pose of proving Chriscs kingdom, which is a subject totaliy foreign to that of the viearious sacrifice of Jesus. “* Habakkuk” (saysthe Heitor page 542) “ was evidently no stranger to the doctrine founded on the atonement ;” and he then quotes the passage “‘ the just sivall live by bis faith” as-corroborated by Paul Rom. I. and Gal. 11f. 2; and “ the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah” &. But whiat faith in, and kuowledge of God, as well as faith in the perfection of his attributes, and in the pro- phets sent by him, has todo with the atone» ment I am at a loss to discover. Does the bare mention of faith by Habakkuk or other prophets prove his or their familiarity with the sacrificial death of Jesus? Be qnotes the passage of Hawai IT. * thas saith Jehovah; the desire of all mations shall come and will fill this house with glory—the glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, saith Jehovah of hosts” which the Editor thinks affords decided proof respect- iug both the atovement and the deity of Christ. It is howevet!'too deep for my shallow under standing to discover from this passage an allu- sion to either of these doctrines, much less that it isa decided proof of them. Were we to an- { %] derstand by thé word «temple” in both in- stances in the verse a material one; which is evident from it’s Context in the prophecy was alone in the contemplation of Haggai, we must be persuaded to believe that the Jatter tem- ple was more mMiacnificently built by Zerubs babel and Joshua in the reign of Darius than the former built by Solomon. Should the spi= ritual temple be understood by the latter term ini the above, it would be regatéed naturally superior to a material one without the neces- sity of “ Jchovah’s coming into it cloathed in our nature.” He quotes Bethiariah Ill. 8 and 9. and VI. 12 and 13. whereiti there is not the Sli¢htest meution of the atonement. As to his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus from these passages 1 will notice it in a subsequent chapter. The phrase found in the verse (“1 will remove the iniquity of that laud in one day”) does not attribute the removal of the ini- quities of the land of Israel to the sacrificial death of Jesus, so as to justify the Editor in gioting it as a proof of the doctrine of the a- toriement. Besides the verse can by no means be applied to the death of Jesus whether vica- rious or accidental, since after the day of his © ‘crucifixion the Israelites so far from being freed ee Cn tT agen = ‘eee pee ———- » [ 76 ] from sins, continued more vehemently than ever to pursue sinful conduct in their violent persecution of Christians. So the Jews have — been puuished to this day, as Christiaus believe, on account of their outrages upon the body of Jesus and their disobedience to him | The remaining passage of Zechariah (.age d543— 548.) and yerse ist of Ch. II}. of M dlachi, (pege 54°.). quoted by the Editor in sup- port of the deity of Jesus, [ will notice after- wards, Iam sorry I cannot agree with the Editor in re his assertion (paze 5149) that * had our Lord himself made no direct declaration respecting the design of his death, his referring his disciples » to those predictions already named would have been sufficient, particularly in their circumstan-. ces,” for it would be strange to suppose that Jesus should have omitted to inculcate so im- portant a doctrine and so fundamental for sal- vation, (according tothe Editor) both before and - after his resurrection, while he was constantly enjoining loveto God, to neighbours, and to each other, and also repentance in case of failure im obedience. How is it possible to think, unless biassed by early prejudices, that a teacher, a truly divine teacher, who by declaring himseif publicly the son of God* and the king of the Jews,* as predicted, brought death upon | ESO bs Oe eee ~ Joho X1LX, 7 avd 12, - nas g POM 0 ands 2 aeemnngeetE se aets oer Bo. gg [17 J himself, should have kept concealed the doce trine of the atonement, if such were the main source of salvation. from his own apostles, even after his resurrection; and have left them to deduce so material a point from the obscure predictions of the prophets which are suscep- tible of so many different laterpretations. The Editor then affirms that «itiv evident that direct intimations of his nature were not withheld: such were, his declaring to them (his apostles) that he came to give his life a ransom for imany,—his conversing with Moses and Elias—Luke IX. 31. his declaring that the son of man should be betrayed into the _hands of men and be killed and mse again the third day; — that he was about to sive his flesh for the life of the world arid to lay down . his life for his sheep — and his discourse with them « This is my body which is broken for you” “This is tay blood of the new Testa- ‘Ment which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” “Thus itis written and thus it behoved - Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.” As the Revd. Editor quoted some of these verses in his former réview, I noticed them in the Second Appeal (page 57). Kaotirely overlooking my observations, however, he has thought proper to repeat them here with some ' U = _ de ers lpg eel C ay ae additions. This is indeed a strange mode of — conducting a controversy, but it lays me under the necessity of again adducing my remarks in the Second Appeal on those passages. | They are as follow. , ‘‘ Do these passages rea- sonably convey any thing more than the idea that Jesus was invesied with a divine commission to deliver instructions leading to | eternal. beatitude, which whosoever should receive should live for ever? and that the sa-_ viour, foreseeing’ that the imparting of those instractions wouls, by exciting the anger and © evemity of the superstiiious Jews, cause his life to be destroyed, yet hesitated not to persevere in their promulgation—as if a king, who ha- zgards his life to procure e freedom and peace for his subjects, were to address himself to them saying, “1 lay down my life for you.” This interpretation is fully confirmed by- the following, Luke LV. 43. * And he said unto them, I must preaclf the kingdom of a: to other cities a!so; for therefore 1 am sent.” If. 47 48 49. * And all that heard him were aston ished at his understanding and answers. And when they (his parents) saw him, they ~ were amazed: and his mother said unto him, son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? be- hold, thy father and I have sought thee sor- rowing. And he said unto them, how is it [ 79 ] that ye sought me ? wist ve not that I must be about my fathers business?’ Wherem Jesus declares, that the sole object of his com- mission was. to preach and impart divine instructions. Again, he instructed his disciples in the divine law and will, as ape pears from the following text, “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee and thev have believed that thou didst send me.” (John XVII 8.) Jesus in communing with God manifests that he had completed the object of his commission by imparting divine command- _ ments to mankind. ‘“ I have glorfied thee in the earth, J have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” Had his death on the cross been the work or part of the work, for the per- formance of which Jesus came into this world, he as the founder of truth would not have de- clared himself to have finished the work prior to his death. J now beg that the Editor will be pleased to reconcile ali the above passages to his position that the death of Jesus on the cross was the sole object of his appearnce in this world: and that his precepts was a mere code of morality inadequate to procure salvation. | Had not Jesus disregarded his life, and suffer- ed his blood to be shed as predicted in the ae anaes see [: 80..j. delivery of the will of the Father, the whole of. the Jews would have still remained sunk in superstition and the Gentiles in idolatry, and there would nave been no perfect seu ity for the remission of sins and the attainment of e- ternal’ comfort in those sayings. Hence the gracious benefactor alludes to this act of deli- very from sins throuch divine instructions even at the expence of his own life, and not to an ac. tual sacrificial death as an equal value or com- pensation for the sin pardoned; since the new Testament declares that God forgives man- kind freely without any equivalent. Ro- mans If].°24. * Being justified freely, (Swgeav gratis) by his grace, throngh the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.” So Romans VIII. 32. 15 16 and 18. confirms the idea of justification: by the free grace of God. For the further ilius- tration of this subject I quote the paraphrase on the above cited verse(Rom. III. 24 )hy Locke, one of the greatest men that ever lived, and his noies onits different expressions. Locke’s Works Vol. 8th page 304 Paraphrase on verses 24and 25. * Being made rizhteons gratis, by the favor of God, throuch the redemption which is by Je- sus Christ: whom God hath set forth to be the propitiatory, or mercy seat in his own blood, for the manifestation of his (God’s) righteousness, by passing over their transgressions, formerly ‘ a [ 81 ] “@ominitted, which he hath-bore with hitherto, so as to withhold his hand from casting off the nation of the Jews, as their past sins deserve ed,” Note on the word Redemption verse 24. * Redemption signifies deliverance, but not deliverance trom every thicg but deliverance: from that, to which a man is in subjection or bondage. Nor does redemption by Jesus Christ import, there was any compensation made to Ged, by payiog what was of equal value, in consideration whereof they were de- livered ; for that is inconsistent with what St. | Paul expressly says here, viz. that sinners are justified by God gratis, and of his free bounty. What this redemption is, St. Paul tells us, Eph. J. 7. Col. I. 14. even the forgiveness of sins. But if St. Paul had not been so ex- press in defining what he means by redemp- tion, they yet would be thought to lay too much stress upon the criticism of a: word, in the translation, who would thereby force from the word, in the original, a necessary seuse, which it is plain it hath not. Vhat re- deeming in the sacred scripture language, sig- nifies not precisely paying an equivaleut, is so clear, that nothing can-be more, I shall refer W [ 82 ] my reader to three or four places amongst’ great number, Exod. VI. 6 Deut. VII. 8. and XV. 12.and XXIV. 18 Butif any one will, from the literal significatiou of the word in English, persist in it, against Paui’s declarations, that it necessarily implies an eqnivalent price paid, 1 desire him to consider to whom: and that, if we will stricily adhere to the meta- phor, it must be to those, whom the redeemed are in bondage to, and from whom we are re- deemed, viz. Sin and Satan. If he will not believe his own system for this, let him believe St. Paul’s words, Tit. Il. 14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.” Nor could the price be paid to God, in strictness of justice (for thatis made the argument here ;) unless the same person ought, by that strict jastice, to have both the thing redeemed, and the price paid for its re- demption. For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ; Rev. V.9. ‘ Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” Note upon the word mercy-seat’ verse 2o. iraorngiov signifies propitiatory, or mercy-seat, and not propitiation, as Mr. Mede has rightly observed upon this place, in his discourse on God’s house.” [ 83 ] The Editor fills about a page and half (a part of 550 and the whole of 551) with quotations from the writings of the apostles, to substantiate the doctrine of the atonement, beginning with Rom, ITI. 24. already quoted by me; but as those teachers merely illustrated the sayings of their gracious Master, their writings must be understood with reference only to what had been taught by Him, I will therefore not prolong the present subject of dis- cussion by examining those passages separately, especially as I have already no.iced some of them iu the course of the examination of the Psalms and prophets. Being desirous to shew that my interpretation of. these is fully supported by scriptural authorities, I will only refer to a few texts explanatory of the terms, sacrifice, ransom, offering, and the taking away the sins of the world as ascribed to Jesus. Rom. V. 10. Heb. I]. 17. Eph. V. 2. Heb. V. 1. VIII. 3. 1X. 23 26. Heb. 1X 14. Tit. Il. 12 13 and 14. Heb. XIII. 12. Rev. 1. 5. Eph. J. 7. Luke I. 77. Math. XX. 28, Mark. X. 45. 1. Tim. II. 6. Now I beg that my reader will be pleased to determine whether it would be more consis- teut with the context, and with the benevolent spirit of the Christian dispensation to uader- [ 8 ] . stand such words literally, and thus found the salvation attainable by Christianity upon flesh and bicod human or divine; or whether it would not rather be thoroughly reasonaile and-serip- tural'as weil as consistent with the religion of Jesus to take them in a spiritual sense as exe plained by the apgsties themselves. As the Ejitor’s illustrative remarks upon the atonement (pages 552 and 553 ) rest entiree ly on the arguments previously adduced | wil leave them unnoticed, having already examined those in the preceding chapters; except only his queries “what shall we say to. his impug- ning (page 108) the doctrine of Chrisi’s diyme and human nature even after haviag acknow- ledged it in chapter the second — and to his ridiculing his intercession &c.” to which I must reply. Itis perfectly optional with che Editor to say for or against any one whatever his cons science May permit; nevertheless I shall from the dictates of my own conscience reject abso- lutely such unaccountable ideas as a mixed nature of God and man as maintained by the Editor, as I have previously rejected the idea of a mixed nature of God, man, and lion C afraziaeia ) in which Hindoos profess their faith. I have not the most distant recollection of acknowledging Christ’s divine and human [ 85 ] nature and/ shall therefore feel obliged if the Editor will have the goodness to point out in what passage of Ch. 2d. of my Appeall ac- knowledged this mystery. I have never, so far as | am aware, ridiculed even in thought the intercession of Jesus for mankind, | there- fore bove that Christian charity will restrain the Editor from imputing to me in future such acharge. Lonly intended to refute the argu. ment adduced by Trinitarians that no being can intercede with another being for a third one, unless the mediator be possessed of the nature of the being with whom as well as of those for whom he iutercedes. To this assertion of the Editor “ the blood of no mere creature could take away sin,” [ add the assertion also maintained by the Editor that “ the crea or is not composed of blood and flesh,” and leave to him to say if the blood of Jesus was not that of a creature whose blood it was. It is evident from the circumstance of the biood of a creature being unable to take away sin and the creator having no blood, that the teking away of sin can have no convection with blood or a bloody sacrifice. The Editor declares (page 554.) that “no one but Jehovah the unchangeable God could xX t em [ 86 } atone for sin, justify the sinner, and change his heart: the father himself witnesses that it is Je- hovah whom he hath appointed to this glorious work.” ‘He humbled himself by becoming in our nature the mediator between God and men.” Nothing that ] can conceive but prejudice in fa. vor ofthe Trinity can prevent the Editor from per- ceiving gross inconsistency between his declaring Jesus to be the unchangeable Jehovah and also to have been appointed by Jehovah, according to whose will the former Jehovah, bumbied himself in becoming in our nature a mediator. How could the unchangeable Jehovah be ens dued with a new honor which he had pot prior to his appointment by the latter Jehovah? How could the unchaugeable God change his con- dition by assuming a new nature? If the accep- tance of a new state of honour, the assuming of a new nature, or the alteration of properties — such as maguitude,and other conditions, be not considered as changes in an object, all phenomena may safely, according tothe Edi- tor’s maxim, be called unchangeable ; and con- sequenily, the application of the term “un- changeable” being common to Jehovah and those who are not Jehovah can imply uo pe- culiar ground of distinction or reverence for Je- hovah. The Editor says (page 555.) “nor does it (the scriptare) give us the least hint that Ac ‘97 9 God ever has imparted any one infinite perfec- tion to a finite creature. ‘Yhis indeed is im- possible in its own nature.” | therefore beg to ask whether or not on the same ground it is not impossible in its own nature that the whole of the omnipresent God should be brought in'o a circumference of.a small space, subjected to all human feelings, and clothed at one time with two opposite natures, human and divine. The Revd. Editor in the concluding part of the subject of the atonement attempts to prove the infinite perfection of Jesus, forgetting per- haps the denial made by Jesus himself of om- niscience as well as of omnipotence, as narrated in the evangelical writings. He entirely avoids here noticing what I stated in proof of the fi- nite effects of Christ’s appearance in the world; which J] now repeat, and beg that the Editor will favor me with a reply thereto. My argu- ment is “that the effects of Christ's appearance onearth, whether with respect to the salvation or condemnation of mankind, were fincte and therefore suitable to the nature of a fiuite being to accomplish, is evident from the fact that to the present time millions of human. beings are daily passing through the world, whom thedoc- _ trines he taught have never reached and who of [ 88 J course must be cousidered as excluded fromthe bevelit of bis having died for the remissioa of ikeir sins” (Second Appeal page 62.) Be- sides it} is worth observing that an ayowal of the beginning of creation and of its end amounts to a proof of the finite number of creatures however numerous they may be; therefore an atonemeut even for the remission of the sins of all of them must be of a finit2 nature. Should it be alleged that the sins committed by a single individual, in the limited period of his life, though they are finite in themselves, vel are committed against the infinite God and ihereby they are infinite, and that an atonement on the part of an infinite being is therefore ne- cessary for their remission: L shall reply; In the first place the assertion that the guilt commit. ted against an infiuite being is infinite in its consequences, is entirely unsupported by rea- son or proof and is contrary to scriptural authorities; for we find that the Israelites were, from time to time, afflicted with finite punish- ment for the sins they committed against the infinite God. 1 Chronicles XXI.11. So Gad came to David and said unto him; thus saith the Lord choose thee either three years fa- qine or three months to be destroyed before f a a sa [ 29 } thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee, or else three days the sword of the Lord, even the pestil«nce, in the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel &c. 15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it and as - he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, {tis enongh, stay now thine hand” &c. Judges XIJL. 1. “© And the children ‘of Israel did evil in the sizht of the Lord and the Lord delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years. In the second place were we to admit the truth of this argument, we must upon the same ‘ground, as far’ as reason suggests, esteem a good-act done for the honor of the command- ment of the infiuite God, or a prayer offered to propitiate the divine majesty to be also worthy ei infinite reward as its effect. Under these circumstances we cannot help observing that among those that believe in any revelation, either true or received as true, there is probs- bly no man that has not performed at least one single righteous act during the whole period of his life; bat as he is a mortal and imperfect being, he canuot be supposed to’ have escaped every siu iu this tempting world: Every man Y [ 90 ] then must be both guilty of infiuite sin and an agent of infivite virtue. If. we suppose that this very person is to be punished for eternity, according to the Editor, for the infinite sin he has committed, there will be no opportunity of his. enjoying an infinite reward for his good work, But according to the position he must be either rewarded for his good or punished for his evil actions for eternity, while justice requires that he should experience the consequences of both. Would it be consistent with the perfect nature of the just God to afflict one with eter- nal punishment for his guilt, leaving, at the same time, his good deeds unnoticed entirely, though performed with a view to the glory of God ?—Is it not therefore scriptural as well as reasonable that all men should be judged after death according to their good and evil works; ‘and then that through the intercession of one who stands as a mediator between God and man, those who have, through Christ, truly T@e- pented, shall be admitted to enjoy infinite beatitude by the free bounty of the father of the universe, to which they are not entitled by their own merit. . As to such phrases as. everlasting fire or everlasting punishments found in hae English version, 1 beg to refer my readers to the origi- = [ 9! ] nal Greek, in which the term caring heing des rived from cum denotes frequently duration. or ages; that is “ durable fire’ or “ durable punishments.” Besides they may find the term “everjasting” when applied to an object not divine, implies long duration: Genesis XVIL 8. * And } will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the vl of Canaan, for an everlasting pos- session, &c.” XLIX. 26. “ The blessings of thy father ae prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills” &c. Habakkuk It. 6. « He stood and measured the earth: He beheld and drove asunder the nations ; aud the everlase ting mountains were scattered and the perpe- tual hills did bow.” Vide Note in the Second Appeal page 133. Legon @ iE He papel ; Healy hpi ee ti ft 40978 ae | Wel eo Re ee [ 93 ] CHAPTER IIL. Inquiry into the doctrine of the Trinity. — SEcTION I. The Pentateuch and Psalms. I now proceed to examine the doctrine of - the Trinity, a term which although it is fre- quentiy introduced both in orthodox writings and conversation as_the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, yet is not ouce found in any part of the sacred books. The first position the Editor advances, in support of the deity of Jesus, (page 556.) is, that the angel who is said in Gen. XLVIII. 16. to have redeemed Jacob was Jesus himself as he appears “ in the scripture distinct from the Father and able to redeem,” and that the same redeeming being was the angel who spoke to Jacob in a dream “ ] am the God of lethel.” (Gen. XXXI. 11.) and appeared to Moses ‘in a flame of fire out of the midst of an uncon- “sumed busi.” (Exodus UT. 2.) and who came up from Gilgal to Bochim and said “I made 7 7, [ 9 ] you goup out of Egypt” &c. (Judges IT. 1.) and called unto Abraham out of the heaven and said ‘Thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.” (Gen. XXII. 12.) whence the Editor concludes that Christ be- ing the redeeming angel, and that redeeming angel being the angel that spoke of himself as God in other instances, Christ is God. ‘The Editor altho’ he fills more than two pages with this argument yet never thinks of producing a single authority for his inference that the angel who redeemed Jacob was Christ or for his — identifving that angel with those angels whom the Editor considers as Jehovah the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The only reason he assiyns for his first supposition is that the angel appeared “ distinct from the Father and able to redeem;” hence he was Christ who is yepresented as the redeemer of his people. Can the circumstance of the performance of similar acts by two persons identify one with the other? If so, we must on the same ground identify God with the hnman race, ‘the scrip- tures having ascribed to them both such attributes as mercy, wrath, reward and pu- nishment; and we also on the same principle must maintain the identity of Jesus with all those that are said in the sacred books to have redeemed people at different times, Isaiah ee te PD nigst — [ 95 ] LXIII. 9. ‘In all their affliction he was afifict- ed, and the angel of his presence saved them, in his love and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bare them and carried them all the days of old,” Ruth 1V. 14. “ And the woman said unto Naomi, blessed be the Lord who hath not left thee this day without a redeemer* by3 that his name may be famous in Israel” Nehemiah V. 8. “we after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, who were sold unto the heathen.” Were we to admit for a moment that the angel who redeemed Jacob was indeed Jesus, it would necessarily follow, according to the Editor, that there was Christ-man-Jesus, God- Jesus and Angel-Jesus; that is, that Christ is possessed of a three-fold nature and that he is to be esteemed as an obedient servant in his human capacity, as a faithful messenger in his angelical natnre, and as an independent master and employer in his divine essence ! * In the English Bible the term kinsman is here employed. This however is inaccurate which will appear by referring to the context. It is thereby made evident that, before the birth of this son, Ruth and Naomi had Boaz and others as their kinsmen, and therefore the expression ‘who hath not left thee this day without a kinsman” cannot have refer- ence to the child then born. Besides the synonimous term ‘‘ restorer of thy life’? used in verse 15th for the child, sufficiently determines the meaning, : ” f (2am, Se . mt OL Fe [ 96 ] If it be alleged that the term angel is here only figuratively applied to Jesus, I.shall reply that we find nothing in the verse that can pre- vent the application of the term “ angel” to the angel of God in its literal sense; no one, under such a circumstance, can be justified inadop ing a metaphorical meaning : Nevertheless we will, in conformity to the spirit of the sacred writ- ings, maintain the opinion that God is the only true redeemer, and that his Christ, his angels and his prophets, are redeemers in a seconda- ry sense; thatis, they are the instruments in the hand of God in his works of redemption. If the scriptures do not scruple to call angels like Jesus “Gods” and “ Sons of God” ina metaphorical sense, we should not wonder if we find the term ‘redeemer” applied to any angel of God in an inferior sense, Psalm XCVII. 7. * Worship him ye Gods” Judges XIIE.21—22. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the Lord, and Manoah said unto his wife we shall surely die, because we have seen God.” Job I. 6. * The sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.” As to his latter supposition, that the angel who redeemed Jacob was the same that ap- peared to him in a dream and to Abraham and to others on different occasions, the Editor neither attempts to assign reasons nor does he endeavour to shew any authority for his asser- tion. He might perhaps lay stress on the de- finite article prefixed to the word “ angel” in several of these instances in the English ver- sion, (which he cannot do without total disre- gard to the idiom and use of the Hebrew Janguage) and thereby might attempt to sub- stantiate the identity of one angel with the other. He wonld however in this case soon perceive his own error, if he should refer to Judges XIII. 13. where the angel (with the definite article in the common version) says to Manoah “ Though thou detain me J will not eat of thy bread, and if thou wilt offer a burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the Lord.” declaring himself unworthy of the worship due to God -alone:—or if he should turn to 2 Samuel XXIV. 16. where the angel is represented as an obedient messenger of God, a destroying instrument in the hands of Jehovah. Many other instances might be cited of a similar na- ture. How then can Jesus, if he be the being termed the angel, speak of himself (as the Edi- tor supposes) as God in one instance, while in others he renonnces his own deity, and even declares that he destroys the lives of thousands . by the command of asuperior being ? Let us now examine whether or not the ‘prophets, as well as the angels of God, Aa { 98 in the delivery of his message and his will, _ did not often speak in behalf of God as if t’ God himself had spoken. I confine my notice } to the prophets; for were I to point out any angel speaking in behalf of Jehovah without ; distinction: of persons, the Editor might at- | . iempt to deduce from this very circumstance } that that angel was God the Son.: i i { Sue . Instances similar to the following abound iy in the old Testament Isaiah X. 4—7. Without i me they’ shall bow down under the prisoners, | and they shall fall under the slain. For alt this his anger is not turned away, but his hand © / is stretched out still. O Assyrian the rod of mive anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hy- bh pocritical nation, and against the people/of my ii wrath will I give him a charge to take the spoil, | and te take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he mea- _ neth not so, neither doth his heart think so; .— it but it is in bis heart to destroy, and cat off {i nations not a few.” Ch. XXIX. 1, “ Wo to Ariel, to Ariel the city where David dwelt! i _add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices; yet I will distress hie and there shall be 1 heaviness and sorrow and it shall be unto me as Ariel. 1 will camp against thee found about [ 99 ], and will lay siege against thee with a mount and I wil! raise forts against thee.” Micah LV. 13. ‘* Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion, fort will make” &c. Micah V. 1. “ Now gather thy- self introops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge ' of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. 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, &c.” Now |, presume the Editor will not propose to indentify those prophets with the Deity; yet he must admit that his areument, if it have any weight atall, must force us to submit to that monstrous conclusion. In the course of this argument the Revd. Editor asserts that «* Christ also in John VILE. declares himself to be precisely what Jehovah declares himself in Exodus II]. 14. ‘ Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Zam hath sent me unto you.” John VIIE. 24. «If ye believe not that Lam (he being supplied) ye shall die in your sins” and v. 58. “verily, verily I say unto you, before A braham was Lam,” How is it possible that the Editor a diligent student of the Bible for thirty or forty years can have made ,such apalpable mistake as to assert that the de- elaration of Jehovah in Exod. IL. aud that of Hi A5SMN rendered gy or the being ia one instance and gy@) gsfbs in lies [ 100 ] ! “ Jesus in John VIII. are precisely the same? ti Te but his zeal to support the doctrine of ee | Trinity that can have preyented him from | examining the phrases found in these two chapters. In Exod. God says “Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel “ >mR SW? - mnn*” “ the being who ts being” hath sent me urto you;a phrase in Hebrew which im- plies Him who alone can be described as only mere being or existence, and which is translat- ed in the Greek Sepwagint though not} very correctly ‘‘ syw sius‘o ov” “ Ff am the being.” But in the Gospel of John VIIL. 24. the words are “ I am” (he or Christ) and in the original Greek “eva ess” “ 1am” without the additionof “ogy” the being,’ as is found in the Septuagint’ | In the Hebrew translation of John VIII. 24, “sons” or “I he” is found. So in y. 68. we find only “ey cys” or “ Lam.” To John VITIL 24. the word ‘ yzic70s’’ is of course supplied in comparing with Matthew XXIV. 5. “Tam Chrisv’ and with John LV. 25—26. I would then # TPTIR is the fature tense of M17 to be which literally implies ©] shall be”? andis used for ‘I am’? that is “ Tam and I shall be” equivalent to the ‘ eiernal being.”” The Jews consequently count this term among the names of God as is evident from its being used in agree- ment with a verb in the third person as in the aboye-cited verse. + I say not very correctly, because we find in the Sept. the term of the same term j5)4; in the other. s { 101 J ask, Ismymx ws nN or “ the being who is be- ing” a phrase precisely the same w th “ eya ems” or “ | am?” If so, it must require a mode ofar- gument to prove it equally beyond my com- prehension with the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity which it is brouzht to support. From the circumstance of Jesus’ having an- nounced ** before Abraham was | am” (v. 58.) the Editor concludes that “ the Jews at once understood bim to declare himself God and took up stoues to stone him: nor did Jesus hint that they had mistaken him ;’ a stience which the Editor thinks amounts to the tacit acknowledgement by Jesus of his deity. But from the context of verse the 58th. it appears clearly that the indignation of the Jews arose from theidea that Jesus declared himself not merely ‘he cotemporary of Abraham but even gave out that before Abraham, he was; and that it was for this they attempted to stone him. Itis not the only instance in which Jesus left the Jews to labour under a misconception of his meaning, for we find the same to have been the cas* in several other-instances. Thus: John tf. 19. and 21. ‘Jesus answered and said uato them: destroy this temple and ia three days | will raise it up. Then said the Jews: Forty and six years was this temple in Bb x [ 102 ] building and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spoke of the temple of his body.” John VI. 53 and 66, VIII. 26—27. “I have many things to say and to judge of you, but he that sent me is true; and I speak tothe world those things which | have heard of him: they understood not that he spake to them of the Father.” The Editor mentions (page 559 ) that * Job also testifies that the redeemer is God;” and quotes Job. XIX. 25—26. “ For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And thongh after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shal] | see God.” I fully coincide with the Editor im this declaration: not Job alone but all the other writers of the sacred books testify that the true redeemer is God ; and they all expected him to cast his marcy upon them both at the last moment. of their life and at the last period of the world. Iam at aloss to know what expression in the pas- sage in question has induced the Editor to refer to the other texts cited, ‘‘ would we know whether by God, Job means some inferior deity neither creature nor creator ;’ For, there cap be no doubt that the term redeemer is fre- quently in the sacred -writiags applied in its ST On ges = f 13 9 strict sense to the most high God, and that the phrases ‘“‘ he shall stand at last” and “ I shall see God” which are also found in the above passage are often spuxen of the Supreme Being without implying any necessity of understand- ing them as applicable to an inferior deity either creature or creator. Lxodus XXXIV; 5. ‘‘Andthe Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there &c.” Zechariah XIV. 3—4. “ Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations as when he fought in the day of battle.” “ And his feet will stand in that day upon the mount of Olives which is before Jerusalem.” Numbers XIV. 14. That thou art seen face to face.” Mathew V. 8. ‘«< Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” The phrase “at the latter day” found in v. 25 is incorrectly rendered in the English ver- sion as the translation of the Hebrew ;\;n8 as has been already noticed in page 48. The Editor refers his readers to Psalm 2d. last verse. ‘‘ Kiss the son lest he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kind- Jed but a little. Blessed are they who trust in him,’— leaving the context carefully out of sights I therefore deem it proper to cite the preceding verses here that the public may judge whether the verse referred to by the Editor be directly | wai applicable to Jesus or to David—David thus relates tie circumstance of the hostile dispo- sition of the heathen kings against God and against his auointed David himself in verses 1, 2, and 3, and the despite of God at their vain boast in verses 4,5, and 6. He then mentions in verses 7, 8, and 9, how God afforded him con- solation: ** L will deciare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me thou art my son; THIS DAY HAVEI BEGOTTEN THEE; Ask of me andI shall give thee the heathen for thine inherit- ance and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession; Thou shalt dreck them with a rod of tron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a poiter’s vessel.” David lastly mentions what God recommended those heathen kings to do for their safety 10,11, 12. Beware now therefore O ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth! serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son lest he be angry &c.” Here Jehovah in verse 7th calls David “ My son this day have I begotten thee” correspond- ing with Psalm LXXXIX. 27. « Also I will make him(David) my first born, higher than the Kings of the earth.” I must egain say that nothing except the violent force of early ac- quired prejudice can lead any one to the direct application of the term “ son” (found again in verse 12th of the same Psalm relating 2 eg TPR Glee ney a eee - 05 3 to the same snbject,) to anotherthan David. God again assures David in v. 8 and Q. that he would have the heathen for his possession and that he would break the heathens and dash them to pieces. So we find in Chronicles XiV. 8. “ When the Philistines heard that David was* anointed king overall Israel; all the Philistines went up to seek David and David heard of it and went out against them.” 16. David therefore did as God commanded him. And they smote the host of tne Philis- tines fram Gibeon even to Gazer. And the fame of David went out into all./ands and the Lord brought the fear of him upon al nations.” and Ch. XVIII. 1. 8. * Now after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them, and took Guth and her towns out of the band of the Philistines. And he smote Moab:and the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts. And David smote Hadarezer King of Zubah unto Hamath, as he went to establish his dominion by the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thou- sand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots. And when the # Vide Psalm LI. 2. ** against his anoiated.” Ce a [ 106 | King of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two aud twenty thousand men. Then David put garrisons in Syria~-damascus ; and the Syrians became David’s servants, and brought gifis. Thus the Lord preserved David whither soever he went. And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadarezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. Likewise from Tibhath, and from Chan, cities of Hiadarezer, brought David very much brass, wherewith Solomon made the brazen sea, and the pillars, and the vessels of brass.” And also Ch. XX. 2. and 8. “ Aud David took the crown of their King from off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold, and tere were precious stones in it; and it was set upon David’s head : and he brouzht also exceeding much spoil out ofthe city. And he brought ont the peopie that were in it, and cut them with saws, and harrows of tron, and with axes: even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David andallthe people returned to Jerusalem.” Do not such denunciations as, “ Thon shalt breakthem with a rod of iron,” * thou shalt dash them in pieces” found in v. 9. of the above Psalm, correspond with Chronicles XVIIL ** David smote the Philistines. ’—-* He smote Moab.”—* David smote Hadarezer.’ ’_« Datid slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand p form men.”—'*David took the crown of their king ‘Sand cut them (the citizens) with saws and with harrows of irou?” Are jot these directly suitable to the history of David the conqueror, called by God his son, father than to the office and nature of the meek and lowly Jesus, who, though most exalted among the sous of God, was himself the victim of the rage of unbelievers? Even upon the from off his head :’ irinitarian system, Do not such sentences as “ask 1 shall give thee the heathen for an in- heritance,” corresponding with the passages in Chronicles, “ The Lord brought the fear of him (David) upon all nations—’ ‘Thus the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went,” admit of better application to David, whose glory depended from time to time upon his supplications to God, than to Jesus, who as God himself, according to the Editor, was pos- sessed of infinite power and glory from eterni- iy and needed not to ask of another? Does not such address to the heathen kings as “kiss the son. lest he be angry” &c. agree with the circumstances mentioned in 1 Chronicles XVII. “ The Moabites became David’s ser- vanis and brought gifts:”—‘ The Syrians be- came David’s servants, and brought gifts?’ — and he brought out the people—and cut them with saws and horrows of iron and with axes ; [ 108 ] even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon”? The opponents whom David broke “witha rod of iron” were his political enemies; conse- quently the assertion of the Editor that “ the destruction to spiritual enemies is no where in scripture described as arising from the wrath of a mere creature” has no applicability to the subject in question. As to his assertion ‘‘pro- phets denounced on men the wrath of God aud pronounced on them a curse in his name,” I only refer the Revd. Editor to 2 Kings V, 26—27. in which Elisha is said, when displea- sed at the conduct of his servant, to have mi- raculously punished him with leprosy, without pronouncing on him verbaily any curse in the name of God ;—and also to Exodus XXIII. 2). wherein he will find that the angels of God, if provoked, have the power of keeping away pardon from men. It may however be fairly concluded from the authority and acts of Jesus himself, that both the angels and the prophets of God in performing miracles either of punishment or reward according as they were disposed, ap- plied always to God for power, though they sometimes omitted to express such applica- { 109 j tions verbally. John XI. 41— 42. * And Jesus (in raising Lazarus from the deac) lifted up his eves and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me, and I knew that thou hearest me always.” From the words “ who trust in him” found in the second psa!m the Evitor attempts to prove the deity of the son on th+ sapposition that the phrase * to trustin” is exclusively applicable to God, and corroborates his opinion by Jeremiah XVII. 5., forgetting that this term thouch it is often used with reference to God, y+t is appli- ed sometimes to created beinss. Proverbs XXXI. 11. “ The heart of her husband doth , safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. Isaiah XIV. 32. « The Lord hath founded Zion and the poor of his people shail trustin it.” As to Jeremiah XVII. 5 quoted by the Editor “ Thus saith Jehovah cursed be - he that trusteth in man and meketi fle-h his arm and whose heart departeth from Jeho- vah,” it of course implies that he who trusis in man independently of God should be cursed, as appears from the last sentence of the same verse “‘ whose heart departeth from Jehovah.” The Editor quotes Psalm XXIV. “The earth is Jehovah’s and the fulness thereof, the Dd [ 110 J world and they that dwell therein; for he hath founded it upon the sea and established it upon the floods” and compares it with John I. 3. “All things were made by him (the Word) and without him was not any thing made which was made.” The inference which he draws from this comparison is that ‘In creating power Christ is equal to Jeho- vah.” Were we to overlook the mistranslation of this verse*in the English version (which it is almost impossible not to notice) and to understand the passage as it stands in the orthodox translation, we should esteem Jesus as the cause of all created things. But we should be in this case naturally inclined to aseertain whether Jesus was an efficient or an instru- mental cause of those things; since the prepoe sition “by” found in the verse siznifies either a oe AR a a a ® Allthings were done by him.] ‘* All things were made by him, and without him was not any thiog made, that was made.”” Newcome ¢ who explains it of the creation of the visible material ‘world by Christ, as the agent and instrument of God. See his notes on verse 3 and 10. But this is a sense which the word ey eveTo will not admit. yivopoeeb eccurs upwards of seyen bundred timesin the new Testament, bnt never in the sense of create. It signifies i in this gospel, where it eccurs fifty- three times, to be, to come, to become, to come to pass: also, to be done or transacted, Chapter XV. 15 XIX. 36. It has the latter sense, Matthew V. 18; YI. 8; XXI. 42; XXVI. 6. All things in the chrig- ‘tian dispensation were done by Christ; i. e. by his authority, aad ac- cording to his direction; and in the ministry committed to his apostles, nothing has been done without his warrant. See John XV, 4—5. ** Without me ye can do nothing” compare ver. 7, 10, 16,5 Joba VIL. 8; Col. I. 16, 17. Cappe, ibid. (improved version.) | paer ch ; Hew principal agent of an action or an instrument therein. We find Hebrews I. 2 (as it stands in the English version) deciding the question bes yond a doubt: ‘“ (Goa) hath in these last days spokea unto us by his son whom he hath ap- pointed heir of ail thins s by whom also he made the worlds.” Khe. J11. 9. * who (God) created all thiugs by Jesus Christ.” Here all the worlds are represented as made by Jesus as an instru ment in the hands of God. It is hoped that after reflecting upon this decision by the Author of these Episties, the Editor may perhaps retract his assertion that “in creating power © brist i 1s equal to Jehovah” and be of opinion that the world was made by the will of one being. Could not Jehovah to whom the Editor ascribes omuipotence create this world indepen- dently of another omnipotent beivg equal to him “ in creating power?” If not, the world must be, in this case, the joint production of Jehovah and Christ, as well as of the Holy Ghost, (whom the Editor here omits to no- tice) and each of them must depend upon the others in creation like joint managers of a con- cern. Can the Editor point out any set of men or any nation professing a grosser poly- theism than this? The only difference that he ean show between his notion and that of avowed Polythiests must consist only in respect f 1a j of the increase or decrease of the supposed number of Creators, A distinction which will amount to nothiug intrinsic. I must now leave the subject to the suund Judgment of my reader. 4 The Editor further proceeds saying “ with ‘ Yeference to Christ, Paul adds (1 Cor. X. 25 and 26.) “ Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat. For the earth is the Lord’s and the ful- ness thereof.” He then concludes *‘if this Psalm (XXIV. 1.) then speak of Jehovah the father, the same absolute dominion over the earth is here ascribed to the son as to the father ; if the son, he is there termed Jehovah.” St. Paul here justifies the eating of whatever is sold in the shambles, referring to Psalm XXIV. 1. as his reason for such justification without the most distant allussion to Jesus: | am therefore at loss to discover the ground upon which the Editor founds his foregoing conclusion. For further illustration I quote the paraphrase by a most eminent personage on the above verses of Corinthians. ‘ Eat whatever is sold in the shambles, without any inquiry or scruple, whether it had been offered to any idol or now For the earth and all therein, are the good, creature of the true God given by him to men for their use.” (Locke vol. 8th.) If the Editor [ 113 ] still insists, in defiance of St. Paul’s reference, of common sense, and of the above paraphrase, thatin 1 Corinthians X. 26. St. Paul alludes to Jesus, I should take upon myself to re- fer him to Hebrews I. 2. (the son) “* whom | he (God) hath appointed heir of all things” and to John If. 35. ‘ The father loveth the son and hath given all things into his hand.” These [ hope will convince him that all the power and possession of the son in heaven and on earth are derived from the gift of the father of the universe. The Editor quotes 1 Corinthians X. 22. ‘‘Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he”? whence he infers that «the Lord then is capable of being provoked by the worship of idols equally with God.” Granting that St. Paul means Jesus by the term ‘“ Lord” and by the pronoun “ he” in verse the 22nd, (a position whieh is unsup- ported by proof) we still find nothing in the passage elevating Jesus to eqnality with his Father. The Apostle may, according to the Editor’ interpretation, be supposed to have prohibited Christians from provoking Christ to jealousy by partaking of the cup and table of devils, instead of those of Christ of which their master required them to partake, as ape Ee ( Yu 4 pears from the immediately preceding verse — «Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils, Yecannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils.” Is it not natural that Jesus, who enjoined the apostles to observe the Lord’s supper, would be provoked to jealousy by his foilowers par- taking both of his table and of the sacrifice offered to idols without his thereby equalizing himself with God? I find that the prophets of God are declared in more pointed terms to have been jealous of the dishonour manifested to God, but no one has ever felt disposed to ascribe to them equality with his divine majes- ty. 1 Kings XiX. !0. “ And he said I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant and thrown down thy altars,” &e. J will repeat verbatim the Editor’s quotation of Psalm XXIV. 8. and Eph. IV. 8. and his inference of the Deity of Jesus from the comparison of the one with the other, that my reader may perceive how violently prejudice can operate upon the human mind. He savs (page 561.) that “ in verse 8th one is about to enter heaven as the king of glory; who is called ‘Jehovah,’ mighty in battle.” In Ephes. LW. “ Jesus elsewhere styled the Lord ————— ~ a oe i - = = Wie of glory ascends having led captivity captive, which implies battle and victory* Here also the son is either described as equal in might to Jehovah or as Jehovah himself.” There are not ia verse eizhtth nor in the whole Psa m XXIV. such phrases as “ captivity captive” or ‘ascend on high” as found in Eph. 1V. 8. nor are there in the whole Chapter IV. of Ephesians the terms “ king of glory’ or even “ Lord of glory” or ‘“‘ mighty in battle” as we find stated in the above Psalm. The Psalm commences bya declaration of God’s sover- eignty over the earth—proceeds to state the virtues that must belong to those who seek his presence and desire h’s blessing —and concludes with an exhortation to Jerusalm to receive him as tne king of glory—the Lord of Hosts. But the subject of the above verse of the Epistle to the Ephesians is Je- sus, who ascended on high to give divine gifts to men, after he had descended first into the middle of the grave, as is evident from the im- mediately following verse; ‘“ now that he as- cended, what is it, but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth’ and so on;—a descent which cannot he ascribed to * This term ‘+ to lead captivity captive” is not synonimous te “mighty in battle” nor equivalent in application. For one may be mighty in battle without leading captives; so one ny lead captive by miraculous or ariful means without being mighty in battle, [ 116 J God. Verse the 8th of IV. Ephes. is an obvious reference to Psalm LXVIJI. 18. a fact which is acknowledged even by Mr. Brown and Mr. Jones and many other Trinitarian writers. ‘Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received | gifts for men; yea for the rebellious also, that i the Lord God might dwell among them.” But the Editor omits here to compare the passage in Ephes. withthe last mentioned psalm, though ‘ai both coutain almost the same words that he : dwells upon; perhaps in consideration of the i Jatter phrases of the Psalm being inconsistent ah with his object. ‘ Thou hast received gifis for men that the Lord God might dwell among them,” which clearly show the subordina- tion of the son to his heavenly father. In further explanation | repeat the note of Mr. f Locke on verses 9. and 11. of Ephesians in his paraphrase of this Epistle, page 477. Note on verses 9-10. ‘St. Paul’s argumens tation, in these two verses, is skilfully adapted to the main design of his Epistle. The con- verted gentiles were attacked by the uncon- verted Jews, who were declared enemies to ' the thoughts of a Messiah that died. St. Paul, i to enervate that objection of theirs, proves by : the passage out of the Psalms v. 8. that he | | must die and be buried. Besides the unbe- sae ——L—_ Br hFee lieving Jews, several of them, thaf were con- verted to the Gospel, or at least professed to be so, attacked the gentile converts, on ano- ther ground persuading them, that they could not be admitted to be the people of God under the kingdom of the Messiah, nor receive any advantage by him, unless they were circum- cised. and put themselves wholly under the Jewish constitution. He had said a greatdeal, in the three first chapters, to free them from this perplexity, but yet takes occasion here to offer them a new arzument, by telling them, that Christ, the same Jesus that died, and was Jaid in his grave, was exalted to the right hand of God, above ail the heavens, in the highest state of dignity and power, that, he him-elf being filled with the fulness of God, beii-vers, who were all his members, might receive immediately from him, their head, a fulness of gifts and graces, upon no other terms, but barely as they were his members.” After having compared Psalm XXXVI. G. “OQ Jehovah, thou preservest man and beast” with Col. 1. 17. “ By him (by Jesns) all things consisw” and with Hebrews |. 3. ‘‘ He upholds all things by the word of his power” the Edi- tor thus concludes “the son then is either equal to Jehovah in preserving power ; or Jeho- Ff Cte j vah himself.” In-the first place in some anci- ent manuscripts, instead of ‘* by him all things consist” there is the phrase “all things are united in him” which of course bears po comparison with the above Psalm, ‘© O Jehovah thou preservest man and beast.” In the second place he may perceive from the context that by the term “ all things” the apos- tle could have meant only the things concer- ning the Christian dispensation ; For we find in the - verse immediately following Jesus is declared to be ‘the head of the body, the church,” and in the’ preceding verse* ‘the * ‘* That the apostle does not here intend the creation of natural substances is evident; for Ist, He does not say that by him were created heaven and earth, but thiogs in heaven and things on earth : Qdly, He does nat, in descending into detail, specify things themselves, viz: celestial and terrestrial substances, but merely states of things, viz: thrones, dominions &c. which are oaly ranks and orders of bes ings in the rational and moral werld: 3dly, It is plain, from compar ing ver. 15 and ver. 18, that Christ is called the first-born of the whole creation, because he is the first who was raised from the dead to aa immortal life, 4thly, The creation of natural objects, the heaven, the earth and sea, and all things therein, when they are plainly and une- qnivocally mentioned, is uniformly and invariably ascribed to the father, both in the old Testament and the new. Heuce it follows, that the creation which the apostle here ascribes to Christ, expresses that great change which was introduced into the moral world, aod particu- larly into the relative situation of Jews and gentiles, by the dispensa- tion of the gospel. This is often called creation, or the new creation, and is usually ascribed to Jesus Christ, who was the great prophet and messenger of the new covenant. See Eph. I. 10. If. 10—135, IIL. 9; IV. 24; Col. I1f. 10; 2 Cor. ¥Y. 17, This great change the apostle here describes under the symbol of a revolution introduced by Christ amongst certain ranks and orders of beings, by whom, according to the [ 119 j things” are enumerated as orders and ranks in the religious and the moral world and oot natural substances. Jn the third place admit- ting even the interpretation of the Editor that all natural substances consist by Jesus, we cannot help yielding conviction to the repeated avowal of Jesus manifesting that the support of all things, or the things of the new dispensation by Jesus is entirely owing to the power vested in him by the father of all things, without which. he is totally unable to support them. John XVII. 2. ‘Thou hast given him (the son) pow- er over all flesh” Ch. V. 30. “I can of mine ownself do nothing” &c. As to the term * all things” ze wzuru found in Heb. I. 3. just quoted by the Editor, it signifies also all the things belonging to the Christian dispensation as | observed before. Butif the Editor again insists upon his mode of interpretation as meaning all natural objects by that term,he, by referring to John XIV. 24, “ The word which ve hear ts not mine but the Fathers” and Matthew XXVIII. 18. ‘all power is given un- to me in heaven and on earth” must be con- vinced that the word of power by which Jesus upholds or rules all things is in fact be- longing to the father. Jewish demonvology, borrowed from the oriental philosophy, the af- fairs of statesand individuals were superintended and governed. See Mr, Lindsey’s Sequel, page 477, and Wetstein in loc.” Improved version, r 120 J In his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus the Editor repeats (page 561.) Psalm XLV. 6. as quoted in Hebrews J. 8. ‘Tay throne O Jehovah is for ever and ever” My reader may observe that to apply to Jesus the term “ Je- hovah” the peculiar name of God, the Editor perverts the verse in question by placing the word ‘‘ Jehovah” instead of Gad” a term which is in the scriotares commonly used not only for the creator but for other superior exis- tences. He at the same time neglects intirely the original psalm in Hebrew mnbs “ Thy throne O God” and also the original epistle to Hebrews in Greek Sac ‘* The throne of thee O God” I now beg to ask the Editor to let me kngw his authority for this unaccountable change. I should for my own part be indeed very sorry and ashamed of my opinions, if L found myself compelled to make perversions of scriptural passages and to set aside the suggestions of common sense to support the doctrines that J may have been persuaded to profess. It is again worth observing that the Editor quotes the above passage of Psalm XLV., omitting intirely to notice my remarks on it inthe Second Appeal. I am therefore induced to repeat them, in the hope that he may reply to them and adopt a regular mode_ of argumentation. After stating that Moses if wi q wasgalso called God inscriptures [thus proceed. ““On what principle then can any stress be laid in defenceof thedeity of the son in the prophe- tic expression quoted in Hebrews from Psalm XLV. 6 “Thy throne O God is for ever and ever’ especially when we find in the very next verse words that declare his subordinate nature. “ Thou lovest righteonsness and hatest wickedness, therefore God thy God hath a- nointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Page 27) ‘ But it deserves par- ticularly to be noticed in this instance that the Messiah, in whatever sense he is declared God, is in the very same sense described in verse 7. (‘ God thy God’) as having a God superior to lam, aud by whom he was ap- pointed to the office of Messiah.” (page 141.) . In the third place no scripturalist ever hesi- tated to appiy Psalm XLV. directly to Solo- mon after his mariage with the daughter of Pharaoh as is evident from the context. “« My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which | have made touching the King ; my tongue ts the pen of a ready writer. Thou art fairer than the children of men; grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. Thy throne, O God, ts for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom Ge oS i [ 192 ] isa right sceptre. ‘Thon lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of glad- ness above thy fellows. Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and in- cline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; So shall the Kiug” greatly desire thy beauty; for he as thy Lord, and worship thou him. Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou myest make princes in all the earth.” If the application of the word “God” in an accommodated sense entitle Jesus to deity, how much more properly — should the direct application of the same word ««Goad” to Solomon, according to the Editor, — exalt him to a participation in the divige na- — ~ ture. The Editor afterwards quotes, in defence of the deity of Jesus, Psalm Cil. 25—2%. refer- red to by the author of the Epistle to the He- ‘brews 1. i\Q—12. “* Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth and the - heavens are the works of thy hand, they shall — perish but thou remainest, aod they all shall wax old as doth a garment and asa ve shalt thou fold them up and they shall be [| 123 9 changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” The construction here ad- mits of two interpretations ; one is that verses 10, 11, and 12, are in continuation of verses 8, ‘and 9th, addressed to the son by God as sup- posed by the Editor: the other is that the author of the Epistie to the Hebrews invokes his divine majesty by quoting Psalm CII. 95—27. after he has, in the preceding verse introduced the name of God as anointing the son above his fellows, to shew the continual duration. of the honour bestowed on the son as flowing’ from the unchange- able and preserving power of the bestower of that honor. To ascertain which of these two interpretations the Apostle had in view let us now refer tothe context. One’s exal- tation above his fellows by another on ac- count of his merit as stated in the preceding verse (9.) Is quitevinconsistent with the imma- table character memioned in verses 10—12. and therefore these two opposite qualities can by no means be ascribed to the same being. A- gain in the following verse, (13.) the apostle to prove the superiority of the son over angels asks ‘to which of the angels said he at any time, sit on my right hand until I make thine -enemies thy footstool.” ? Here common sense .dictates that if such expressious as ‘‘ thou [ 124°] Lord in the begining hast laid the foundation of the earth &c. as a vesture shalt thou fold them up ;” and “thou art the same and thy years shall not fail” had been meant by the apostle as applicable to Jesus, he would not_ in setting forth the dignity of the son, have ad- ded the words “ Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool,’ which imply a much inferior nature to that attributed in the preceding passage, and which indeed may be parallelled by other expressions found in scripture applied to mere human beings. Deut. XXXII. 10. “ He (Jehovah) kept him as the app/e of his eye” Isaiah XLIX. 16. ‘ Be- hold I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands” Psalm XLVII. 3. ‘‘ He (Jehovah) shall subdue the people under ws and the nations un- der our feet’ In describing the superior courage and strength of aman who is reported to have overpowered a lion and also a dog, no one endued with common sense would after stating the former fact, adduce the latter as an addi- tional proof of courage and strength, as it is evident that to kill a dog is a feat by no means of so wonderful a nature as that of overcoming alion. My reader may recollect Matthew XXII. 45. * If David then call him (the Mes- siah) Lord, how is he his son?” which tells us that Jesus disproves the assertion of the Mes- ae sila ot eee i f 125 3 siah being the son of David on the ground that no father coald consistently call his son ** Lord” much less conid he apply to his son the term «my Lord.” Were we to admit the first inter- pretation upheld by the Ev itor and to consider the passage “‘toou Lord in the beginning &e.” as a part of the address of Jehovah to Jesus, we must, in conformity to the argument used by Jesus himself in Matthew XXII. 45. relinquish the commonly received doctrine that Jesus is the son of God, and actually admit his superiority to the father of the universe, who, according to the Kditor, addresses him as “Lord” in Hebrews v. 10. Either therefore the Editor must abandon the opinion that God the father addresses Jesus as Lord, in the pas- sage referred to, or he must cease to consider him as the “son of God.” The Editor again uses the word Jehovah in verse 10, and reads “* Thou Jehovah in the be- ginning &c.” instead of “ Thou Lord in the begining &c.” without assigning any reason for his deviating from the English version, as well as the Hebrew and Greek originals. For in the original Hebrew there is no ‘‘ Jehovah’ mentioned in Psalm CIL. 25. and consequently in the Greek passaxe Hebrews I. !0. which ts a quotation of the same verse of the above Hi h [ 126 ] Psalm the term xvge cannot be supposed to be intended as a translation of the word Je- hovah. So in the English version the verse stands thus ‘ thou Lord in the begining” &c. 1 shall however feel obliged to the Revdy Editor, if he can point out to me any authority for his substitution of the word ‘ Jehovah” for Lord in the verse in question. With a view to weaken the strength of the evidence found in 1 Corinthians XV. 24. as to the changeable nature of Christ, the Editor says (page 562.) ‘* His original throne as Jehovah God is for ever and ever; his mediatorial throne remains for a season and then ceases.” ] have already noticed in page 27 and 138 of the Second Appeal and in the foregoing chapter of this work that the term for ever or similar terins when used for a crea- iure or a begotten son signify in scriptural idiom long duration of time. My reader therefore by referring to those instances will be convinced that neither Solomon to whom Psalm CII. 25. is directly applied, nor Jesus to whom the apostle applies the said verse in the above psalm in an accummodated sense, can be supposed to be endued with a throne or kingdom that never will cease; a ‘question which St. Paul decides in the most plain and ¢ —s q ay % 5, 127 4% positive terms in 1 Cor. XV. 24, 25. * Then cometh the end when lhe shall have delwered up the kingdom to God even the father, when he shali have laid down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put ail enemies under his feet; (28.) And when ail things shall be subdued unto him then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put ail things uuder him, that God may be all in ali” Here the apostle declares that Jesus will in the end diver up his kingdom to God the father and not to God composed (as the Editor maintains) of the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost; and that the son himself, uslimited to any particular capacity whether mevitorial, human or divine, shall be subject to the father, that God alone may be aliinall. Is there in this passage or in avy other part of the scriptures any autho- rity for saving that the sou’s mediatorial throne alone shall be delivered up to the father? on the coutrary neither he nor any one can ina mMediatorial capacity exercise a kingdom; but Jesus as the king of cur faith, the anoicted with the oil of gladness above his fellows, has a kingdom and throne, and that kingdom only can he deliver ep in the end of the world th.it God may be all ia all. Besides the a- Hove verse 28, asserts that he, -as the sox, the highest title that Jesus is honored with, will be subject to him who has exalted him a- bove a'!l creatures. No one. besides, unbiassed by early prejudice, can ever venture to pro- nouuce such an opinion as that a being can lose his kingdom in any capacity whatsoever and yet be unchangeable. As some orthodox divines had attempted to prove the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of the term “shepherd” being applied to God in Psalm XXIIL. and to Jesus in John X. 16. I pointed out (page 146 of the Second Appeal) thatthe same term “shepherd” isused for Moses (in Isaiah LXIL. 11. “ with the shepherd of his flock”) and for the leaders of Israel (Jeri- miah XXIII. 4. “i will set up shepherds over them”) yet that none of those persons is supposed to have been united with God. The Revd. Editor altho’ he acknowledges the accuracy of my above assertion yet tries to draw from it an argument against me by means of one or two strange questions, one is - (page 562 ) “ but did he (the author) never read of a chief shepherd, who when he shall appear will give the under shepherds acrown of glory?” The other is “ But was our author ignorant that David was also one of Christ's fold, and ee [ 129 J Moses and Abraham?” In answer to which I must confess that I am iznorant of David Moses and Abraham having been of Christ’s fold; and although Jesus is styled “a chief shepherd” yet such avowal of his superiority above other messengers of the Deity neither places him on a level with Jehovah nor does it prove his unity with the most high God. Can achief among the generals of 2 king be ever supposed equal to or identified with the king his employer? With respect to the argument founded on referring to Jesus Corist Ezek XXXIV. 23 «I will set one shepherd even my servant David’, I observed iu my Se- cond Appeal (nage 147.) that even in this case “they must suil attribute his shepherdship o- yer his flock to divine commission and must relinquish the idea of unity between God the emoloyer and the Messiah his servant” to which the Editor makes reply, we must relin- quish a unity of nature between the divine father and the Messiah whom he sent just as much as we do between Cyaxares, and Cyrus employed to lead his armies, between Vespas- sian and Titus, between George the Third aod his son, now George the Fourth.” In this passage it must be confessed that we have some thing like a clear definition or exoosifton ‘of the nature of the Trinity in which the Kai- ki Se rere i [ 130 ] for professes his belief; that is he conceives the Godhead to constitute a genus like angel, maa, fow), fish &-. God the son being of the same nature with God the father just as the man George the Third is of the same nature with the man George the Fourth, though of a separate wiil, inc'iaation, and passion, and distinct ex- istence. A conception which is certain’y compatible with an idea of unity of nature bes tween the father avd the son but which is’ entirely inconsistent. with that of eoevality be- tween them; and imp)ies that as the difference of existence &c between man and man is the origin of the plurality of mankind so, the ci& ference of existence &e between God and God must cause plurality in the Godhead. Can there be any polytheisiical creed more clear and more gross than this? Yet the Eaitor will take it amiss if charged with polytheism, Tt is worth observing that the orthodox so far from establishing the unity of the Meseiih with God by means of the above passaze, * J will set one shepherd over them even my servant David’ can at most but prove unity between the Messiah and God’s servant Daorid. “ yu bags In the course of this argnment the Editor Says that “he had adduced many other pas- saves in which the son is called Jehovah.” E woncer at this assertion: I find hitherto only two places in which he applies the word Jeho= vah to Jesus ‘‘ thy throne O Goa!” &e. * And thou Lord in the beginning” &c. The Editor takes upon himself to use the term Jehovah instead of “‘God” in the former and instead - of ** Lord” in the latter instance, 2s before no- ticed, and now he gives ont his own perversion of those texts as authority ! Mr. Jones having attempted to deduce the deity of Jesus by a comparison of Ep»esians 1V. 18. with Psalm LXVIIL. 18. “ Thou hast ascende:i on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast receis ed cifts for men, yea for th« retellious also, that the Lord God micht dwell among them’, I observed (cage 153 Second Appeat) that * from a view of the whole verse. the sense must, accodmg to this mode of reasoning. be as follows. The person who ascended on high, and who received cifts for men, that the Lord God mighcdwell a- monz them, is the Lord God ; an interpretation which, as implying that the Lord God ascen- ded, and received gifts from a being of course superior to himself, in order, that he might dweil among men, is equally absurd and unscriptaral” The Editor entirely omits to notice the forego- Pe [ 182 ) ing observation and only refers to the context, inferring thence that different persons of the Godhead are addressed in the course of the Psalm. (page 564.) “ The psalm he observes (LXVIIL) commences with an address to God inthe third person. At verse 7th he is addressed in the second person, the second person is retained till verse 1}th andis resumed again in this the 18th verse. If one person be not addressed from the beginning, therefore, it is certain that he who ascended on high iden- tified by Paulas ‘ hrist, is God who went forth before the people through the wilderness.” How is it possible that the Editor, a diligent student of the Bible for thirty or forfy years, should not know that in addressing God, the . third person and also the second are constant ly used in immediate sequence, and that this variation is considered a rhetorical trope in Hebrew and Arabic as well as in almost all the Asiatic languages from beipg supposed to convey notions of the omnipresence and perva- ding influence of the deity. To prove this as sertion, I could quote a great many instances even from the single book of Psalms, such as Psalm 3—5. &c. and ina single ch. 2 Samuel XXII. 3. 49. in which God is addressed both in the second and third persons; but as the Editor might perhaps allege in those Cases, bs cy eat tee & Voor J thouch in defiance both of the idiom of the Hebrew and of common sense, that-in all these instances David in spirit meant the first and the second persons of the Godhead bv the vas, riety of persons; I shall quote the translation of some lines of the Qoran by Sale and of a Jewish prayer, in’ which the same variety of persous is used, and where it.cannot be ima- gined that different persons of the Godhead are meant to be therein addressed. Alqoran ch. I. “ Praise be to God the Lord of all crea- tures, the most merciful, the king of the day of judgment. Thee do we worship, and of thee do we beg assistanc>. Direct us in the right way in the way of those to whom thou hast been gracious, not of those against whom thou art incensed, not of those who go astray”. Can Mohummaud, here be supposed to have alluded in spirit to the first and second per- sons of God, or has he not rather used those phrases according to the common practice of the language? The following lines are from a - Jewish bock of prayers written iu Hebrew and translated into English.* Sabbath morning service. ‘Therefore allwhomGod hath formed, shall glorify and bless him; they shall ascribe praise, honor, and glory unto the king who hath _* Compiled by the Revd. Solomon Hirschell, translated by Messrs. Justins Barnet and Joseph, and printed ia London by E. Justins 1803. K k- f. Tay formed ail things; and who through his holiness, causeth his people Israel to iuherit rest on the holy sabbath. Thy name, O Lord our God! shall be sanctified.” ‘ Morning service * His words also are living, permanent, faithful, and desirable for ever, even unto all ages, as well those which he hath spoken concerning our ancestors, as those concerning us, our chil- dren, our generations, and the generations of the seed of Israel, thy servants, both the first and the last.” A thousand similar instances might be adduced. In the Qoran it is further remarkable that the same change of person is adopted when God is represented ds speaking of himself. Algoran II. 5. ‘Set not up therefore any equals unto God against your own know- ledge. If ye bein doubt concerning that re- velation, which we have sent down unto our servant, produce a chapter like unto it and eall upon your witnesses besides God, if ye gay truth.” Moreover we find in the Jewish ~ scriptures that in speaking of a third party both the second and the third personal pros nouns are sometimes used Hosea II, 15—17. Aud I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope; aud she shall sing there as in the days of her f 135 J youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt. ‘ And it shall be at that day saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi, aud shalt call meno more Baali.” « For I will take away the manes of Baalim. out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.” (19) “ And 1 will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will be- troth thee unto me in righteousness, and ia judgment, and in loving-kiuduess, and io mercies.” The public may now judge what weight the argument of the Editor ought to carry with it; and whether E adduced only a ‘: Jewish dream” in applying verse 18 origi- nally to Moses or whether the Editor rather has not founded his position on the ground of mere imagination. To me, as an Asiatic, nothing can appear more strange than au attempt to deduce the deity of Jesus from an address by David to the omnipresent God couched in both the second and third persons. 1 will moreover confidently appeal to the context to satisfy any waprejudiced per- son that the Psalmist in verse 18th had Moses alone in view. The Psalm it will] be recollect. ed was written on the specific occasion of the removal of the ark, which was done accord- ing to the instructions delivered to Moses by Gud on mount Sinai. David accordingly reca- 1 i t 1560] pitulates in the preceding verses of the Psalm tlie wonderful mercies of God in delivering’ Israel from the Egyptians and leading them towards the promised land. In the 15, 16, and 17th verses Sinai is thus mentioned. ‘¢ The hill of God is as the hill of Bashan ; an high hill as the hill of Bashan. Why leap ye, ye high hills, this is the fill which God desireth to dwell iu: yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever. The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.’ In verse 18 immediately after mention of the word Sinai the holy place he goes on, thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: ‘Thou hast received gifts for men; yea for the rebellions also; that the Lord God might dwell among them;—the very reason to which in the Book of Exodus the — construction of the ark, whose removal was taking place, is assigned. From this it appears evident that the gifts alluded to were those ‘granted on mount Sinai; and the only question’ that remains is who was it that received those geiftsformen? | leavethisto be answered by the candid reader. There are besides many other passages in the writings of the psalmist where David after addressing the supreme father of the wuiverse, abruptly addresses himself to - 4 standing Ains-woman (VII. 4.) instead of bes- towing on her such epithets as Jehovah, the everlasting God, that are insisted upon by the Editor as properly applied to Jesus. In fact ~ the book of Proverbs meant only to urge in. the usual poetical style of expression, the necessity of adhering to wisdom both in re- ligious and social life, strengthening the ex hortation by pointing out that all the works of God are founded upon wisdom. If such poe- tical personifications as are found in the Pro- phets, as well as in profane Asiatic works i ia i: Faw") common circulation, were to he noticed, a separate voluminous work would I am afraid fail to contain them. And if the abstract at- triontes of God such as wisdom, mercy, truth, | benevolence, &c. are to be esteemed as separate deities, on account of their being sometimes personified and declared eternal and associat- iug with God, this mode of literal interpreta. tion would, I admit, be so far advantageous to the cause of the Editor as respects the refuta- tion of the doctrine of the unity of God, but wonld not be precisely favorable to the doc- trine of the trinity, as it would certainly extend the number of personified deities much beyond three. Take for example the following pas- sages which personify the attributes of God and ascribe to them eternity and association with God. Psalm CXXX. 7. “ With the Lord there is mercy and with him is plenteous re- demption” LXXXV. 10. * Mercy and truth are met together righteousness and peace have “kissed each other.” Number XVI. 46. “There is wrath gone out from the Lord.” Here we have mercy, redemption, truth, and wrath all spoken of as separate existences. Are we therefore to consider them as persons of the Godhead? As abstract qualities are often repre- sented in the scriptures and in Asiatic writings generally, as persons and agents to render ideas ° Qq 4 [ 158 j familiar to the understanding, so real existences are intended sometimes under the appellation of abstract qualities for the sake of energy of © expression. In 1 John 1V. 8. God is declared to be mere Love. John I. 1. Jesus is called word or revelation; 1. Cor. I. 24, and 30. Christ is represented as power and wisdom &e. 11 Cor. V. 21. true Christians are de- clared to be wisdom in (hrist. and Israel is said to be an astonishment in Deut. XXVIII. 37, and curse in Zech. VIII 13. Abraham to be blessing in Genesis. XII. 2. and Jehovah is declared to be glory in Zech. 1[. 5. But every unprejudiced mind is convin- ced that these allegorical terms neither can alter the fact nor can they change the nature of the unity of God and of the dependence of site attributes. After this no further remark seems necessa- ry on the passages quoted by the [ditor from Matthew and Luke—where, as in many other passages in which the word wisdom is to be found, the sense neither requires nor even ad- mits of our understanding she. to be megut under that appellation. The Editor quotes Isaiah VI. 1. 10. relating to the Prophet's vision of God: He then com- —— Se [ 159 4 ments “as this glorions vision wherein the Prophet received his commission, represented either the father or the son, we might have ex- pected that it should be the son, who had undertaken to redeem men.” The Editor after- wards quotes John XII. 41. “ these things said Isaiah when he saw his glory and spoke of him,” and considers these words as decisive testimony of the opiniou that it was the son who was seen by the Prophet in the vision. Let us first impartially refer to the context of verse 41. of John. We find in the versea personal pronoun ased three times. The first **he” in the phrase “* when he saw” though un- derstood in the Greek verb “ « ” ; the second his” connected with the word “ glory;” and the third “ of him” after the verb “ spoke”’— thus—*“ when fe saw his glory and spoke of him. The first pronoun “he” of course refers to Isaiah mentioned just before it. The second and the third “his” and “ of him” can have no reference to Isaiah, for the words “* when Isaiah saw Isaiah’s glory and spoke of Isaiah, could bear no sense whatever. These two last pro- nouns must therefore have reference to some pronoun or noun to be found in the immediate- ly preceding part of the passage. We accor- " dingly find from the preceding verse (40.) that [ 160 ] these pronouns refer to Jehovah the God of hosts mentioned twice in verse 38. whose glo- ry Isaiah saw andin whose beha'f he spoke, without mention of the son being once made between verse 38 and 41. the passage thus stands(v. 88.) He(isaiah) spoke Lord who hath believed our report and to whom hath the arm ofthe Lord been revealed 1(39.) Therefore they could not believe that Isaiah said again (40.) He hath blinded théir eyes, and hardened their - heart; (41.) These things said Isaiah when he saw his glory and spoke of him. Isaiah must have then seen the glory of himin whose be- half he spoke; a fact which neither party can dispute : and as it is evident from the preceding verse (40.) and from Isaiah VI. that he spoke of God who blinded the eyes of the Jews and hardened their hearts, it necessarily follows that he saw the glory of that very being spoken of by Isaiah. For further illustration of God’s being ofren declared to have blinded their eves and hardened their hearts, | quote Romans X{I. 7 and 8. * What then? Israel hath not obtain- ed that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtaimed it and the rest were blinded. According as it is written, God hath given’ them the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should mot see and ears that they should not fear unto this day.” Isaiah LX. 17. cele R 168 « Q Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways and hardened our heart from thy fear: Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribe of thy inheritance.” From v. the 58 to 4}. ds already observed is not a single noun or a pronoun that can have allusion to Jesus. But we find in verse 42. the provonn * him” implying the son as absolutely required by the sense, in reference to verse 37. and in consistence with verse 44. in which the name of Jesus is found mentioned. As all the Pharisees believed in God as well as in {saiah ove of their prophets, the text could convey no meaning, if the phrase ‘“ nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed in him” were admitted to bear reference either to God or Isaiah. If it be insisted upon in defiance of all the - foregoing explanation that the two last men- tioned pronouns in verse 41. “‘ when he saw his glory aud spoke of him’ are appiied to Jesus, the passage in the evangelist would be in that case more correctly explained by re« ferring itto John VIII. 56. “your father Abras ham rejoiced to see my day,” which cannot be understood of ocular vision but prophetic anti- cipation ; whereas the glory seen in the vision of Isaiah was that of God himself in the deli- Rr [ 162 } very of the command given to the prophet on that occasion as I observed in the Second Appeal (page 142.) With a view to invalidate this interpretation the Editor inquires (page 569.) What has Abrahaw’s day to do with Jsaiah’s vision?” Jn answer to which I must allow that Abraham’s day had nothing to do with Isaiah’s vision except that as Abraham saw the day of Christ, (properly speaking the reign of Christ) by prophetic anticipation and not through ocular vision (John VIII. 56.) so Isaiah as another prophet of God must have seen the glory of Christ (if he had seen it _ at all) through the same propheti¢ anticipation, and must have spoken of Christ’s commission (if he had spoken of him at all) through the same prophetic power: the reference therefore is one which goes to prove that whenever the prophets such as Abraham, Isaiah, or any other prophets are declared to have seen or spoken of future events, they must have seen or spoken of them through the prophetic power vested in them by God.I never attempt- ed to prove that the words “ day” and ‘ glo ry” are synonimous, nor did I declare that Jsaiah saw the day of Christ, that the Editor should have occasion to advance that “ itig not the day of Christ which the Evangelist des: cribes Isaiah as having seen bat his. glory.” [ 163 } However I cannot help being of opinion that in such phrases on particular oceasjons as “he saw the day of the king Messiah” or “ he saw the glory of the king Messiah” the words day” and ** glory” amount almost to the game thing. My limited understandiag cannot like the Editor's discover how “Isaiah fixes the time when he thus saw Christ's glory, even when it was said * he hath blinded their eyes” &c. fer I find the Jews were from time to time charged by several of the prophets with diso- bedience and with having been blinded and hardened. Deut. XXVIII. 28. ‘ The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness and astonishment of heart XXIX. 4. The Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive - and eyes to see and ears to hear unto this day” 1 King XVIII. 37. “ Bear me; O Lord, hear me that this people may know that thou act the Lord God and that thou hast turned their heart back again.” Isaiah LXILI. 17. as noticed before. The Editor refers to the prophet Isaiah (633... and 570.) saying that Isaiah in ch. VII “ pre- dictiug the birth of Christ identifies his divine Immanuel,’ This passage the holy spirit ape [ 164 ] plies to Christ in Matthew I. 22 and 23. He regrets my applying the above verse to Heze- kiah in an immediate sense, though totally unable to r-ject the proof of such asplication © deduced by me in my Second Appeal from its context and from the sacred history. He rests his rejection etitirely upon the phrase ** A vires gin shall conceive” found in the Enelish versi- on as being used in the future tense, ou ihe ground that * Hezekiah could not have been the child at the time about to be conceived by . the virgin, for this plain reason that God never foretels past things.-The birth of Hezekiah was not then a thing to come; for, he was at least six _ years old when this prophecy was spoken.— This our author will see by merely comparing the fact that Ahaz reigned sixteen years and. Hezekiah began to reign when he was five and : twenty years old. Hezekiah must then have been six if not seven years old whenthis pro- phecy was delivered.” The Sditor then charges me with having expended in vain 12 pages on this as well as on the pas- sage in ch. IX. of Isaiah. Here we find again a new iustance in which a diligent study of the Bible for thirty or forty years but accompanied with early religious prejudices has not been able to save the student from making such an error as to take the [ 165 ] term 77 “pregnant” in the original verse in Hebrew as meaning absolutely “ shall cons ceive,” and to declare unthinkingly that ‘* Hes zekiah could not have been the cliild at that time to be conceived.” How will the Editor render the same term “ a4,” found in Genesis XVE. 11. “ Thou hast conceived or art with child.” Wili he on his adopted principle inters pret it-“‘thou shalt conceive”? He must in that case overlook verses 4th. and dth. of the same chapter which testify Hagar's having already conceived before the angel of the Lord had seen and spoken to her in verse the lith. “ He went in unto Hagar and she conceived and when she saw she had conceived &c. (4) And Sarai said unto Abraham “ My wrong be upon thee: have given my maid unto thy bosom, and when she saw that she had conceived &c.”’. (5.) Did not the Editor ever reflect upon Jeremiah XXXI. 8. containing the same terms * min’? on “ pregnant” and « ntbim” or “ bearing” - as are found in Isaiah VII. 14. ?— 5; a passage which might have suggested to the Kaitor the propriety of not making so positive an assertion that “* Hezekiah could not have been the-child at that time to be conceived.” Did the Hditor entirely overlook the same term “ ain” signifying pregnant in 2d Samuel XI. 5. and Isaiah XXVI. 17. Genesis XXAVILI1. 24. Ss [ 166 ] 25. Exodus XX1. 22. 2d Kings VII. 19. Amos. 1.13. ‘The fact is that we find in the origival, Hebrew “ 72°v7” signifying “ the virgin” which, if not referred to a particular person before mentioned, implies in the figurative lan- guage of the /scrip‘ure either.a city or the peo- ple of acity, as I noticed in page 128, 129, and 136. of my Second Appeal; and also we find ‘‘mmn.” synonimous with the participle ‘© conceived” instead of “shall conceive.” The verse therefore thus runs; ‘ Behold the virgin (the city of Jerusalem or the nation) is p:egs nant andis bearing a son and ghall call his name Immanuel” (14.) For before the.child* shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good the land that thou (Ahaz) abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings” (15 ),i.e. Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the king of Israel, who at that time had besieged Jerusalem; as is evident from the preceding verses; and such personifying phrases as ‘ oppressed virgin” and “ bring forth children” are found also applied to the city or the peo- was born, and twenty years old was Alaz when he hegan to reign in Jerusalem and he reigned sixteen years 2 Kings XVI. | and2, Hence it appears that he lived thirty-six years only and as Hezekiah began to reign aftes the death of his father Ahaz when he was twenty ead five yeurs old (2 Kings XVIII. 2.) he must have been born wheq his father Ahaz was ten or at most eleven years of age which wag gather contrary to the common course of nature, » Inthe ih. ear of the reign of Pekah the king of Israel Ahaz — . 167 3 ple of the city in the prophets in other instances similar to that.of Isaiah VII, 14. in question Micah IV. 10. “ Bein pain and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, likea woman In travail, Isaiah XXIII. 12. “ And he said, thou shalt no more rejoice, O thou oppressed virgin daughter. of Zion.” But unless orthodox authors changed ‘the virgin” into * a virgin” and “ conceived” into “shall conceive” they could not apply the verse in 2 direct sense to Mary the mother of Christ and to Christ himself; and consequently - to suittheir convenience they have entirely disregarded the original scripture, the context, and the historical facts. In noticing my explanation of the nnobyn* the virgin” in the Second Appeal, the Rev. Editor states that “It is true Tthe emphatic of Hebrew is generally rendered in the septue agint by the Greek article 5 that they are by no means equivalent in value however he may convince himself by referring to that excellent work on the Greek article for which the learn- ed world is indebted to Dr. Middleton the bishop of Calcutta,” [am really sorry to ob- serve that the Editor should have given such ee % In Isaiah LIN. 2. The city er the people of the city is once called ‘6a captive daughter;” Iu ch LLYV.1. it is once styled ‘© barren’”’ pys “ aharlov’ ig Ezekiel XVI 35- and in other. instances, ( 168 j én evasive answer to so important a point; He | however was obliged to do so, knowing that 7 in Hebrew before a noan as J in Arabic is invariably a definite article. In his attempt to re- move the inconsistency between his maintaining the ideaof the deity of Jesus and applying to him verses 15. aud 16. in Isaiah VII. by which he is declared subject to total ignorance, the Rev. Editor attributes (534.) such ignorance to the human nature of Jesus, forgetting what, he in common with other orthodox Christians, offers as an explanation of such passages as declare all power in Heaven and earth to have beet given to Jesus by the father of the universe; which is that all power was given him in his human capacity while in his diviae capacity he enjoys independent omnipotence. Is not the power of distinguishing good from evil included in all power gzven to Jesus, accord. ing to the Editor in his Auman capacity? How then can the Editor be justified in maintaning the idea that in his human nature he, though possessed of all power in heaven and earth, was unable before the age of maturity to distin- guish the good from the evil, as found in verse 15. aud 16.2? I beg also the attention of the Editor to Luke II. 46—50. shewing that Jésus was possessed of knowledge of his divine commission even in his early youth and also a E 169 ; to the Euitor’s own declaration (page 536.) ‘¢ The spirit of the Lord was to rest upon him as the spirit of wisdom and understanding.” Nothiug but early prejudice can persuade a> man to believe that one being at one time should be both subject to total ignorance and possessed of omuiscience—two diametrically Opposite qualities. | Let us now refer to the context of the verse in question. The first verse of the same chapter speaks of the king of Syria and the king of Is- rael having besieged Jerusalem; verse 3. and 4. of the Lord’s having sent Isaiah the pro- phet to Ahaz the king of Jerusalem to offer him consolation and confidence against the attacks of these two kings ; 5. and 6. of the two kings having taken evil counsel against Ahaz and of their determination to set the son of Tabeal oa his throne; 8. and 9. foretel the total fall of Ephraim (the ten tribes of Israelites who separ- ated from Judah which comprised the two remaining tribes) and of Samaria within three score and five years; (10. and 1!th. mention the Lord’s offering to Ahaz a sign which he (12. and 13) declined ; 14. 15. and 16. contain ‘the Lord’s promise to give spontaneously asign of the destruction of Ahaz’s enemies in the pers _ son of the son born by the virgin of Jerusalem ; T t { 170 ] the delivery of Judah from these two kings before the child should become of age; 17. and following verses foretel what was to hap- pen in Judah bringing the king of Assyria in opposition to the kings of Syria and of Israel, who were then inimical to the house of David. Vhe first four verses of chapter 8th. speak of the birth of a son to Isaiah the prophet and of the depredations by the Assyrians on the land of Damascus the eapital of Syria and on the land of Samaria the head of Ephraim, before that son should have know- ledge to cry,—‘* My father and my mother.” Hence itis evident that the child mentioned in VII. verse 14. calied Immanuel, was much older than the child mentioned VIII, 3; for the attacks upon Syria and Israel by the Assyrians took place only before the former became of age to know right from wrong, but while the Jatter was still unable to could pronounce a sine gle word. V. 6th. speaks of the army of Rezin and of the son of Remaliah, the kings of Syria aud Israel having refused the soft waters of Shiloah*, a river in Judah, figuratively mean- ing peace; 7. aud 8.of the Lord’s declaring that he would bring into the land of Immanuel * Shiloah found in Genesis XLIX. 10. implying a redeemer, differs in signification and aleo in spelling from the word * Shiloah”” hereio mentioned as signifying rivers; in Geaesis 752y in Isaiah YALL: 6, n>w 4 a fat 4 upon these invaders the strong waters ofthe river, that is the armies ofthe king of Assyria; 9th. and 10th. of the combination of the people against the king of Judah which turned to their own destruction for the sake of Jmma- nuel, It is worth noticing that the last word in verse 10. is translated in the English version - God is with us” instead of leaving it as it Is in the original Hebrew “ Immanuel” though in two other iustances ch. WII. verse 14. and ch: VIII. verse 8. the word ‘¢ Immanuel” is Jefi unchanged as it stands in the original. UE 1}. to 17. pronounce the Lord’s displeasure at the disobedience of the tribes of Israel; ad- vising them to fear the Lord, and not fear the confederacy of the kings of Syria and Asrael. Verse 18. declares the Lord’s having given the prophe! and the children for signs and for wonders in Israel and the remaining verses of this chapter speak of false prophets of the miserable situation of the Israelites—a fact which is fully related in the book of 2d. Kings; XVI, 5. # Then Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz but could not overcome him. (6.) At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drove the Jews from Elath and the Syrians came to Elath and dwelt there unto this day. ai (7.) So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpile- ser king of Assyria saying I am thy servant and thy son, come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me. (8) And Ahaz took the silver and gold that ‘was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king's house and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. (9 ) And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir and slew Rezin.” It is now left to the public to reflect seri- ously on the above circumstances stated in the context; and to pronounce whether there- by it appears that verse 14th. is originally applied to Hezekiah the son and heir of Abaz king of Jerusalem, a child born before the de- feat of his enemies, the Immanuel whose land was Judah, or to Jesus of Nazareth born at least 500 hundred years afterwards: and also to decide whether or not the land which Ahaz abhorred had been forsaken by the king of Syria and of Israel from the interfer- ence of the king of Assyria before Hezekiah caimeto years of discretion or whether that event took place only after the birth of Jesus. > < i ee As to the application of verse the 4th. to Jesug Christ by St. Matthew my language in the Second Appeal was that “ the evangelist Mat- thew referred in his Gospel to ch. VII. 14. of Isaiah merely for the purpose of accommoda- tion; the son of Ahaz and the Saviour resem- bling each other in each being the means at different periods though in different senses, of establishing the throne of the house of David. In the same manner the apostle referred to Hosea X1.1.in I]. 15 of his Gospel and in many other instances.” Nevertheless the Revd. Editor charges me with having blasphemed a- gainst the word of God by attempting to per- suade him and others in my explanation of the above verse “ that the evangelist Matthew ought not to be credited.” ! indeed never ex. pected such an accusation from the Editor. To acquit me of the charge I entreat my readers to refer to the translation of the four Gospels by Dr. Campbel!, a celebrated trinitarian wri- ter, in whose notes page 9. that learned divine says “thus ch. il. 15. a declaration from the prophet Hosea XI. 1. which God made in relation to the people of Israel, whom he had long before called from Egypt, is applied by the historian allusively to Jesus Christ, where all that is meant is that with equal truth or rather with much greater energy of significa. Vv ‘i ae tion God might now say J have recalled my son out of Egypt. Indeed the import of the Greek pbrase as commonly used by the sacred wri- ters is no more as Le Clerc has justly observed than that snch words of any of the prophets may be applied with truth to such an event.” Did these orthodox writers also attempt to persuade people to discredit the evangelical writings by applying Hosea XI. 1. originally to Israel and allusively to Jesus Christ? The Editor will not I presume get the sanction of the public to accuse those Jearned divines of blasphemy: I did no more than ad opttheir mode of expression in examining Isaiah VII. 14. Compared with Matthew J. 22 and 23. and Hosia XI. 1. with Matthew II. 15. yet lam charged with blasphemy against the authority of the Gospel of Matthew. I must repeat the very words J used in the Second Appeal in comparing the book of Hosea with the Gospel of Matthew (page 1/9.) that the public may judge whether the languace of the Editor as to my attempt to discredit the Gospel is just and liberal. Thus Matthew II. 15. “ out of Egypt have I called my son” the evangelist refers to verse Ist. chapter XI. of Hosea: which though really applied to Israel, represented there as the son of God, is used by-the apos- {t 175 J tle in reference to the Saviour, in consideration of anear resemblance between their circum- stances in this instance: both Israel and Jesus were carried into Egypt and recalled from thence, and both were denominated in the scrip- tures the “son of God.” The passage of Hosea thus runs from chapter XI. 1—3. ‘when Israel wasachild, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt: As they cailed them, so they went from them; they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burnt incense to graven images. J tanght Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms, but they know not that I heated them”: in which Israel, who is represented as a child of God, is declared to have sacri- ficed to Baalim and to have burnt incense to graven images — circumstaces which can not justly be ascribed to the saviour.” The Revd. Editor likewise in opposition to my explanation applies Isaiah IX. 6. to Jesus « For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shail be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting father, and the Prisceof Peace’: and gil that he says (page 534.) in support of his referring this verse to the Deity of Jesus ts in these words ;—“‘ to secure to Hezekiah that : [ 176 ] passage in chapter IX. Our author gives us a transiation or rather a paraphrase of it by Jovathan in his Targum to which we shail merely oppose that given by sishop Louth” Can the interpretation of the old Testament givei by Jonathan and other celebra- ted Jewish writers, some of whom lived prior to. the birth of Jesus, be discredited from the authority of one or one thousand Christian Bishops to whom at any rate, Hebrew is a foreign language? Can a Tri nitarian in arguing with one not belonging to the orthodox sect and establishment quote with propriety for the refutation of his: adversary the authority of a Trinitarian writer? The public may be the best judges of these points. As these Jewish writings are not uaprocurable, the publie may . refer to them for their own satisfaction. Js there any authority of the sacred writers of the new Testament authorizing the Editor to apply Isaiah 1X. 6. even in an accom- modated sense to Jesus? I believe nothing’ of the kind—It is mere enthusiasm that’ has Jed a great many learned Trinitarians to apply this verse to Jesus: The Editor avoide ed noticing the context and the historicab circumstances which I adduced in my Ap- peal to prove the application of the verse in 2 f ae 4 question to Hezekiah. It may be of use how- ever to call his attention again to the subs ject. I therefore beg of him to observe those facts, and particularly the foilowiag instances. Verse 1. ch. ]X. promises that Israel shall not suffer so severely from the second as from the former invasion of the king of Assyria, when he invaded Lebanon and Naphtali and Galilee beyond Jordan. So we find it mentioned in 24. Kings XV. 29. “in the days of Peeka king of israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria took Jjon and Abel-Beth-Maachah and Janoah and Kedesh aud Hazor and Gilead and Galilee and all the land of Naphtali and carried Israel captive to Assyria”; but in the reign of Hezekiah so far from reducing Israel to cap- tivity, the king of Assyria was compelled to return to his country with great loss, leaving Israel safe in their places: (2d Kings XIX. 35 and 36.) Verses 2. and 3. declare the joy which Israel were to feel at their delivery from the hands of their cruel invaders; aud (v. 4.) at throwing off the yoke and rod of the oppres- sor. We find accordingly in 2d Kings XVIII. 7. that Hezekiah rebelled agai: st the king of As- syria and served liim not. Verse 5. foretels the destruction of the army of the iuvavers. 5o we - find Kings XIX. 34 and 35. that the angel of the Lord slew a great part of the army of the Oar ee | Ya Assyrian invaders. Verses 6 and 7. speak of the illustrious son who was then to reign with justice, and judgement. So we find in 2d Kings XVIII. 3—7. that Hezekiah during his reign did what was right in the sight of Goa, so that after or before him there was none like him among the kings of Judah; and that the Lord was with him wheresover he went. Verses 9. and 10. speak of the displeasure of the Lord at the pride and stoutness of heart of Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria, the enemies of He- zekiah and his father. So we find in 2d Kings XVIII. 10 and 11. that the people of Samaria were defeated and made prisoners by the Assy- ~ rians in the sixth year of Hezekiah. Verse 11, of the Lora’s settung up the adversaries of Re- zin the king of Syria against him. So we find in Isaiah Vil. that Rezin the king of Syria, who with Ephraim besieged Jerusalem at the time the city had borne the child mentioned in chapter VII. 14, was defeated by his adversa- ries. V. 12 to 20. describe the anger of God as occasioned by the wickedness of Israel, 21. of Ephraim and Manasseh having joined tozether to invade Judah. Ch. X. verse 1. to 6. denounce punishment to the wicked people of Judah by the hands of the Assyrians. So we find in 2d Kings XVIII. 13. that in the four- teenth year of king Hezekiah, the great king of Assyria- came against Judah and took all her fenced cities. Verses 8. to 14. of the boasting of the king of Assyria as to his powerand conquests of many kingdoms, and his destruc- tion of the gods of different nations, and of his contempt for the living God of the Jews in Jerusalem. So we find in 2d Kings XVIII. 33—35. and XIX. verses 11 to 14. that the king of Assyria boasted of his great power and of having subdued the gods of the na- tions; and that he despised Jehovah the true living God, even blaspheming him in a message to Hezekiah. Verses 12. to 26. promising to pu- nish the king of Assyria aad to bring ruin upon him for his high boastings, and for his contempt azainst the Lord. So we find in 2d. Kings XIX. 21. to 34. that the Lord encouraged ¢he virgin the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jeru- salem to despise the king of Assyria, whom he had determined to punish for his disre- spect; and promised safety to the inhabi- tants of Jerusalem on the prayer offered by Hezekiah. So also we find in 2d Kings XIX. 35. and Chronicles XXXII. 21. that the Lord sent his angel iuto the camp of the king of Assyria and slew his mighty men, leaders and captains. Verse 27. promises the king of Ja- dah’s liberation from the yoke of the king of _ Assyria. So we find 2d. Kings XVIII. 7. that [ 180 ] Hezekiah rebelled against the king of As» syria and served him not afterwards. It was not Hezekiah alone that in the beginning of his reign acknowledged dependence upon the king of Assyria, but his father Ahaz also confess- ed the superiority of the king of Assyria, and sued to him for protection against the kings of Syria and of Israel when Hezekiah was only a child: (2 Kings XVI. 7 and 8.) The public may now judge whether or not the above circumstances and the contents of chapters VIL. and VIII. noticed in the preced- ing paragraphs, determine the application of verses 6. and 7. of ch. XI. of Isaiah to Heze- kiah; who ‘‘ did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,’’—“ removed high places” — ‘broke ths images and cut down the groves” — ¢ trusted in the Lord God of Israel”—* clave to the Lord and departed not from following him”—* with whom the Lord was”—who “ pro- spered whether so ever he went”—and prior and subsequent to whose reign ‘‘ was none like him among all the kings of Judah.” (2d. Kings XVIII. 3—7. And they may also decide whe- ther the delivery of Israel from the attack of the Assyrians and the punishment inflicted upon the king of Assyria in the prescrived manner took place in the reign of Hezekiah or that of Jesus f 181 j Christ. If my readers compare minutely ch 7, 8, 9, 10, and 39, of Isaiah with 2d Kiugs ch. 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20, they will, 1 trust, have a still clearer view of the subject. In common with the son mentioned in Isaiah 1X. 6. who was called Hezekiah ‘“ God my strength,” “Immanuel “ God with us” wonder- ful, counseller, mighty God, the father of the everlasting age, the prince of peace,” human beings and even ivanimate objects were de, signated by the same terms or similar epithets as noticed pages 138, 139, 140, 171, and 172, of my Secoud Appeal without being held up as the most high Jehovah. Moreover the difference between ‘ to be” ‘and to be called” is worth observing as I noticed in the note at page 171. of the Second Appeal, to which I beg to refer my reacers. As to the phrases “ no end” and “ for ever” or “everlasting” found in verses 6 and 7. ch, JX. of Isaiah, these when applied to creatures are always to be taken in a limited sense, the former signifying plenteousness, the latter long duration, as I observed in note page 133. of the Second Appeal. Vide Gen. XLIX. 26. Heb. I}1. 6. St. Matthew in an accommodated sense ap- plies verses ist and 2nd of ch, 1X. o1 Isajah Ww { 182 ] to Jesus whose spiritual reign delivered also the inhabitants of Zebulun, and the land of Naphialim and Gallilee from the darkness of sin in the same way as in Hezekiah’s reign their inhabitants were saved from the darkness of foreign invasion, As the Editor and many orthodox Christi- ans lay much stress on the application of the term Immanuel to Jesus, I offer the following observations. The sum total of their argu- ment is derived from the following verse Mat- thew !. 23. “And they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” This name is composed of three - Hebrew words ** Emma” or with “ noo” 73 us sel” > Gods; that is, wiih us God; hence the advocaies for the trinity conclude that Jesus is here called God, and that he must therefore be God. Bui let us ascertain whe- ther other beings are not in common with Jesus called by designations compounded with eZ or God in the sacred writings, or whether the term e/ is exclusively applied to Jehovah and Jesus, and then direct our atten- tion to the above stated conclusion ; Genesis XXXIL. 24. “ And Jacob was left alone and there wrestled a man with him until the break- ‘ing of the day (80.) And he (Jacob) called the name of the place %28 Penied for I have seen God face to face aud my life is preserved” Here the place is called the face of ef (God) and the angel who wrestled with and blessed Jacob and whom he saw there, is styled ed (God) (verse 28.) And he (the angel) said thy name shall be called no more Jacob but Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men and hast prevailed;” as Jacob in wrestling with the angel, shewed him his power and prevailed, he was called Israel the prince of God, or properly speaking the prince of the angel, for it would be the grossest blasphemy to say that Jacob wres led with the almighty God and prevailed over him. So we find in Genesis XLVI. 17. “ Malchiel” that is, my king God.” Daniel VIIL. 16 “ Gabriel” (“mighty God”) 1 Chron XV. 18. Jaaziel “strong God” 20. Jehiel “ Living God” { Samuel VIII. 2. The name of his first born was Joel” that is, Jehovah God. Moreover the very term Immanuel is appli- ed immediately in Isaish VII. 14. to the de- liverer of Judah from the invasion of the king of Syria and that of Israel during the reign of Ahaz; but none esteemed him to be God from the application of this termto him. Be- sides by referring to Pa:khurst’s Hebrew Lex- ( 184 j cion on the explanation of the word el (or God) we find * that Christian emherors of the fourth and fifth centuries would suffer themselves to be addressed by the style of ‘ your divinity,” “ your Godship.” And also by referring to the Old-Testament we find tie terms* >» el, Gnd elohim, or God, often applied to superiors: no one therefore can be justified in charging the apostle Matthew with inconsistency on account of his having used even in an accommodated sense the phrase “Immanuel” for Jesus appoint. ed by God asthe Lord of the Jews and Gentiles. The Editor denies the truth of my assertion in the Second Appeal (page 139 ) that David is also called the holy one of Israel in Psalm LXXXIX. and insists that Jehovah and the future Messiah only are styled the holy one. I therefore beg to refer my readers to the whole context of the Psalm in question, a few pas- sages of which I here subjoin. (Verse 19.) ‘*'Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst- (verse 20.) I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have | anointed him (26 ) “ He shall cry unto me, thou art my ® Ezekiel. XXXI. Il. “ >)3 5” “The mighty one of the heathen” Exodus XV. 15. “ 332) 159” “ Tne mighty men of Moab.” 1 Sam. XXVIEL. 13 “opp corm by” “ T saw Ged” that is Samuel, Exo, XXIL. 8. * coyadssr bay” ** to the Gods” that is the Judges. [ 185 ] father, MY GOD, and the rock of MY SAL- VATION.” (27.) « Also I will make him my first born.” (33.) “Once have I sworn by my holiness that | will not lie unto DAVID.” (38.) ‘s But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed.” (39.) “ Thou hast made void the covenant of thy serena (44) © Thou hast made his glory to cease; ¥ (45.) * Thou hast covered him with shame.” ‘Lhe public now may judge whether the above sentences are applicable to king David or to Jesus whose glory never ceased,— with whom God has never been wroth, and who cannot be supposed to have been covered with shame. Besides it is evident from this passage that the term “‘ holy one” is applied to one constantly styled a servant. The Editor inquires (page 570.) what instances I bring that these names peculiar to God, such as wonderful, counseller, the mighty God, the everlasting father, the Prince of peace were applied to certain kings in Israel: I therefore beg to refer him to the passages mentioned in pages 171 and 172. of the Second Appeal in which he will find the same epithets given to human beings and even to inanimate objects. X x [ 186 } With a view to deduce the deity of Jesus Christ from the comparison of Isaith XXVIII. 16. with Isaiah VILL. 13. and with 1 Peter 11.8. the Revd. Editor thus comments (page 570.) ‘ The declaration is that Jehovah of hosts shall be for a stumbling stone and for arock of offence to the two houses of Israel but after the delivery of this prophecy, was he this to them prior to the coming of Christ? As the house of Israel was carried away captive a few years after the delivery of this prophecy, if not a year or two before, it is doubtful whe- ther they ever saw this prophecy while in- their own land, but Christ has been a stone of stumbling and rock of offence to all of every tribe for nearly eighteen centuries while ke has been a sanctuary to all who have trusted in him.” I need not prolong the discussion by pointing out that Isaiah delivered this prophe- cy inthe reign of Ahaz, that the captivity of one of the houses of Israel took place in the relgn of Hezekiah his son, and that of the other house in the reign of Zedekiah the 9th. king of Judah from the time of Ahaz. As the Editor acknowledges the fact of the house of Israel being “ carried away captive a few years after the delivery of this prophecy,” he will un- donbtedly be persuaded to confess also the circumstance of their distress and misery just i ie 4 before as well as during the time of captivity, by an attentive reference to the sacred histo- ries 2d Kings and 2d Chronicles. The ne- cessary consequence then will be that he will clearly perceive that the above stated prophecy of Isaiah had been duly fulfilled long before Christ’s birth, the Lord of hosts having become for a stumbling stone and for a rock of offence to the two houses of Israel soon after the pro- phet’s declaration ; and that | Peter 11.7. and 8. (** The stone which the builders disallowed the same is made the head of the corner. And a stone of stumbling and rock of offence to them who stumble at the word being disobe- dient”) is but a general statement of the ill con- sequences attached to disobedience, whether on the part of Israel or of the Gentiles, to the word delivered to them by Jesus io his divine commission. Jesus is here represented as a stone rejected by men but chosen by God and consequently he must be a stumbling stone to those who reject bim, stumbling at his word, Common sense, if not biassed by early preju- dice, is sufficient to decide that a stone which is chosen and made the head of the corner by a maker, must not be esteemed as the maker himself. _ The Editor comments however on the phrase * made the head of the corner’ in verse 7th, [ 188 ] saying “as to his being made the head of the corner by his heavenly father, this can no more affect his unchangeable deity than his being made flesh.” This is as much as to say that the circumtance of his being made the head of the corner is as much a proof of his chaugeable nature as the fact of his being made flesh; for were we to admit that the circumstance of an object being made flesh or matter which he was not before, does not evince the changeableness of the nature of that object, we must theu be ata loss to discover even a single changeable object in the world. If one’s being made flesh and his growth and reduction in the progress of time should not be considered as an evidence of a change in him, every man might claim the ho- nor of an immutable nature and set up as God made fl: sh. The Editor says (page 571.) that I “ attempt- ed to evade Isaiah XL. 3. (“ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a high way for our God”) by coupling it with Malachi III. 1. («* Behold I will send my mes- senger and he shall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek shail sudden- ly come into his temple, even the messenger of [ 189 ] the covenant whom ye delight in, behold he shali come saith the Lord of hosts.”) and con- fining his animadversions to the Jatter.” I trust the Editor by referring to Mark 1. 2. ana 3. will find that in coupling the above verses I did no more than follow the example of that eyanzelist who also coupled them in his Gos- pel. As the explanation adopted by me of the prophecy of Malachi fully explains the passage of Isaizh. 1 confined my animadversion to the former ; fer, “ we find in the book of that pro- phet distinct and separate mention of Je- hovah and of the Messiah as the messenger of the covenant ; John therefore ought to be con- sidered asthe forerunner of both andas the preparer of the way of both; in the same manuer as a commander sentin advance to occupy a strong postin the country of the enemy may be said to be preparing the way for the bat- tles of his king or of the general whom the king places at the head of his army.” (Second Appeal page 141.) On which explanation the Editor observes that “ the fact is that Malachi does not mention two; It is Jehovah who was. suddenly to come into his temple ; and after- wards Jehovah and the messenger of the cove- nant are identified by the prophets” adding «he shall come,” not * they.” But we find ia the original Hebrew Malachi Ill. i. «« and the Ry - [ 190 ] messenger of the covenant,” with the conjune- tion “and” after the mention of the Lord. It is therefore evident that the messenger of the covenant is distinctly and separately mention- ed. How the Editor supposes that ‘ Malachi does not mention two,” Iam unable to guess. We find also immediately after the mention of ‘‘ the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in,” the prophet adds, ‘* Behold he shall come saith the Lord of hosts,” as the saying of Jeho- vah—How can the mention of the messenger of the covenant in the third person by the dei- ty prove the unity of that messenger with the deity? Were we to admit that every being spoken of in the third person by God is iden- tified with God, the number of identified Gods must in that case amount at least to thousands in the sacred writings, It is worth observing that in the original Hebrew ‘‘ the messenger of the covenant” stands as nominative to the verbs2 or ‘shall come,” with the pronoun“ he.” The verse thus stands in the original. “ Behold I will send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in behold he shall come, (OR, 18 COMING,) saith the Lord of hosts.” The Editor adds “that Jesus is Jehovah mentioned in Isaiah ie i XL. 3. whose way John was sent to pre- pare, is confirmed by the testimony of Zechariah and John his son.” As to the nature of Jesus Zechariah gives us to understand Luke I. 69. that God “ hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of bis servant David.” In the evangelical writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke we find Jesus re- presented by John as mizhtier than himself. In John we find still more explicit testimony ; I. 29. « Behold the Lamb of God who taketh a- way the sin of the world (30.) This is he of whom | said after me cometh a man who is preferred before me.” My readers may now jadge whether Zechariah and John confirmed the identity of Jesus with Jehovah, or repre- sented. him as a creature ratsed and exalted by hfs aud our father, the Most High. Some orthodox divines having attempted to prove the deity of Jesus by comparing Isaiah XL. 10. (¢ Behold the Lord God wiil come with astrong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold his reward is with him and his work before him’) with Rey. XXII. 12 (“ Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be”) 1 brought to their notice (in my Second Appeal page 152.) John V. 30. [ 192 3 and 32. ‘ the father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgement unto the son”; and Matthew XVI. 27. * For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father, with his an- gels, and then he shall reward every man ace cording to his works.” To weaken the force of my argument the Editor says (page 573.) ‘these passages, however, do not iu the least» affect the question, which is not, by what au- th rity Christ rewards, but whether he be the person described as rewarding ; and this, these very passages confirm, particulariy Rev. XXII. 12.” If in the adminstering of judgement and of reward, as well asin the performance of miracles, the authority by which these things are done should be considered as a matter of no consequence, the almighty power of Jesus and that of several others might be established on an equal footing. Is it not therefore a sub- ject worthy of question whether Joshua order- ed the sun and the moon to stop their motions by the authority of God or by his own power? Is it not a question worth determining whether Elijah raised the dead by the authority of the most high or independently of the almighty power? Bat if we consider it incumbent on us to believe and to know that those prophets performed works pecutiarly ascribed to God by the authority of his divine majesty ; why [ 193 ] should we not deem it also necessary to ascer- tain whether the authority to judge men and to reward them accordingly, as well as the pow- er of performing wiracles were vested in Jesus by the omnipotent God or exercised by him in- dependently of the father of the universe? In point of fact we find the following posi- tive avowal of Jesus himself—** the father judgeth no man but hath committed all judge- ment unto the son.”—‘* As I hear I judge; and my judgement is just: because | seek not mine own will but the will of the father who hath sent me.” Here the Editor offers the fol- lowing explanation, saying, that ‘‘ all power as to providence and final yudgement is commié- ted to him, not merely as the son, but as the son of man, the mediatur, because he made himself the son of man.” This amounts to the doctrine of the two fold nature of Jesus, the absurdity of which [have often noticed. | may however be permitied to ask the Editor whe- ther there is any authority for the assertion that Jesus as the son of man was dependent on God for the exercise of his power; but as the son of God was qnite an independent Deity ? So far from meeting with such autho- rity we find that Jesus in every epithet that he was designated by is described to be subject to,aud dependent on, God. Acts XVII. 31. ZZ [ 194 ] “ Because he hath appointed a day in which HE will judge the world in righteousness by that Ma4aN whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that HE hath raised him from the dead.” John VII. 28. “ Then said Jesus unto them when ye have lifted up the SON of MAN then shall ye know that I am he and that J do nothing of myself; butas my father hath taughé me I speak these things” XVII. 1. and 2. ‘Father, the hour is come: glorify thy son that THY SON also may glorify thee: As thou hast given HZIM power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as éhou hast given him.” Hebrews I. 8. and 9. Thy throne OU GOD is for ever and ever; a scep- tre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kings dom: Thou hast loved righteousness and bat- ed iniquity; therefore God even THY GOD hath annointed thee with the oii of gladness above thy fellows.” ‘The Editor says, * His glory he (the son) may for a season lay aside, but his divine nature he can never change. I wish to be informed what kind of divine nature it was that could be divested of its glory* aud power,f even for a season. To my understanding such divinity must be anilogons to matter without space or gravity, eee — FB ¥ John AVIL 5. and 22, + John XVID. 2% Acts X. 38. [ 195 ] ér sunbeam without light, which my limited capacity 1 must confess, cannot compres hend, The Editer fually argues that “as the father’s committing to the son the entire work and glo- ry of being the final judge of all, judging no man himse!f does not change his glorious na- ture, so the son’s laying aside his glory and Becoming man in no way changes his original nature and godhead.” It is true that. God's committing to the son the authority of judge- ment, bestowing on the sun the power of cast- ifg light upon the planets round him, and ena- bling superiors to provide food and protection for their dependents, do not imply any change in his glorious nature ; for itis ordained by the Jaws of nature that nothing can be effected in this visible world without the intervention of some physical means; but that the son’s or any other being’s laying aside his glory and become jne a aan mast produce at least a temporary change in his nature is a proposition as obvious as any that can be submitted to the under standing. Lhave of course omitted to quote John V. 93. during this discussion inmy Second Ap- peal, because it has no relation to the subject [ 196 j and because I noticed it fully ia another part of that publication page 45. I will also refrain from noticing in this place Hebrews I. 12. alluded to by the Editor as I have already considered that passage as ful-. ly as possible in the preceding chapter page 122. The Editor next comes to Isaiah XLIV. 6. “Thus saith the Lord the kiog of Israel and his. redeemer Jehovah of Hosts, | am the first and lam the last and beside me there is no God” comparing it with Rev. I. 8. and XXII. 13. This argument has been already replied to in my Second Appeal it shall be again adver- ted to shortly. He then endeavours to prove ‘that Jesus cannot be meant as prohibiting John from worshipping him in verse 9th, Saying. that “ in this book five persons address at dif. ferent times: two of the elders around the throne, two angels, and he who is the grand Speaker throughout the book —whom he after the first chapter often introduces without the least notice, while he previously describes. every other speaker, with the utmost care.” The Editor however has quoted ouly instances in which John describes the two elders and the two angels in a distinct manner, but wu ( feria I cannot find that he adduces even a single in- stauce where the “ grand speaker” is ‘‘intro- duced without the least notice.” Again he says how could Jesus forbid John to worship him after he received worship by the command of God from all the anzels? 1 may be on the same principle justified in asking the: Editor how the angel could forbid Juhn to worship him, while he knew that other angels of God, and even human beings, had received worship from fellow creatures? Joshua V. 14. “ And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and did wor- ship and said unto him” (the Captain of the host of the Lord) what saith my Lord unto his ser- vant.” Numbers XX{I. 31. “And he (Balaam) saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in hishand, and he bowed down his head and fell flat on his face” Daniel J]. 46. “Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel.” As the Editor’s argument therfore must apply with equal force to angels as to Jesus, it is quite plain that no conclusion can be drawn from it relative to the identity of the being who in Rev. v. 9. of ch. 22. forbids John to worship him. The factis that the word “ worship” iu scriptural lan- guage is used sometimes as implying an external wark of religious reverence paid to God ; and since in this sense worship was offered by John A 3 [ 198 J to the angel or to Jesus, he refused it, as is evi- deut from the last sentence of verse 9th. “worship God ;” and sometimes the same word ‘“‘worship” is used as siguifying merely a token of civil respect due to superiors, and accord- ingly in this Jatter sense not only Jesus, but angels and prophets, and even temporal princes or masters, used to accept of it, as we find in Matthew XVIII. 26. “the servant therefore fell down and worshipped him”—and so in various other instances. It denotes in this acceptation merely a mark of reverence which neither iden- tifies those to whom it is offered with the deity, uor raises them to a level with their crea- tor, the Most High. My readers will observe that the author of the book of Revelations de- clares himself ia J. 17, to have fallen at the feet of Jesus: and he speaks also in ch, V. 8. of the four beasts and foar and tweuty elders having fallen down before the lamb, avoiding however in these places as well as throughout the whole book of Revelations the use of the word wor ship to express the reverence shewn to the lamb; while to the words “ fell down” when referring to God he adds invariably ‘“ and wor- shipped him :” vide ch VIL. 11. XL. 16. XIX. 4. and V. 14. 3dly. He says “ how could Jesus. who declares himself to he Alpha and Ome- ga, the beginning and the end, reject worship from John?’ Ido not wonder at the Editor's entirely neglecting to novice my remarks ou the terms “ Alpha and Omega” or “ the beginning aud the end” in the Secoud Appeal page 151. to wit, “ Alpha and Omega beginning and eud are in a finite sense justly applicable to Jesus,” when 1 find him regardless of the explanation given by John himselt respecuing these terms and by St Paul oue of his fellow labourers. Rev. 1iJ. 14 “ These things saith the Amen the faithful aud true witness, the beginning of the creation of God: \ kuow thy works &c.” Colossiaus 1. 15. “ The first born of every creature.” 1 Corinthians XV. 24, «Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the f ther” 28. And when ali things shall be subau- ed unto him éhen shail the son also himself be suiject uato him, that Goc may be ali in all.” As to Rev. I. 8th. introduced again by the FReitor, the expressions it contains are given as those of God himself and not of Christ, since it describes the speaker to be him “ who is and who was and who is to come, the Almigh- ity”—an epithet peculiarly applied to God five times in the book of Revelation and very often throughout the rest of the sacred writings, and which is but a repetition of what is fouud [ 200 ] in the preceding verse 4th. of that chapter, Being equivalent to ‘“ Jehovah” it has never been applied to Jesus in any part of the Reyela- tions either separately or joined with the terms “* Alpha and Omega.” But as J have already fully noticed this verse in page 150, I will not return to the subject here. 4thly. The Editor urges ‘“ how could Jesus who searches the heart, reject the acceptance of worship.’ In answer to which | beg to remind him that the prophets and the apostles also as far as they possessed the gift of prophecy were able to discover what passed in the hearts of other men; orin other words were ‘searchers of hearts.” Thus in the acts of apostles ch. V. 3. and 4. 8. and 9. St. Peter is represented as a searcher of the heart; but he is azain stated in ch: X. 25. and 26. to have prohibited Corne. hus from offering him worship. And in 2d Kings VI. 32. Elisha is declared to have known what passed in the heart of the king, without our therefore ackuowledging him as an object of religious worship. The Editor lastly lays stress on the phrase found in Rev. VII. 17. “the lamb who is in the midst of the throne’—overlooking the applica< tion of the same word ‘‘ midst’ to the elders and the four beasts in 1¥V. 6. Besides such a [ 201 ] whrase as “to sit with the father on his throne” implies nothing in the book of Reve- lation except aa acquisition of holy perfection and honor, which Jesus, in common with every richteous Christian, acquired through his me- vits II. 21. * To him that overcomeza will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as L aiso overcame, and am set down with my father in his throne.” In answer to his assertion that itis “the lamb whom the blessed constantly adore, cry- ing Holy, holy, holy, Lord God, Almighty” beg to refer my readers to v. 8th. of ch. 1V. which contains this phrase—nay rather to the whole of that chapter, where they will find that no mention of ‘‘the lamb” or Jesus is Ouce made. ) The Editor observes (page 577.) that “in verses 5, 6, of the XXI. chapter another speak- er besides the angel is introduced in an abrupt manner. I therefore repeat verse 11. of ch. XX. and 5. 6.and 7, of ch. XXI. and leave my readers to judge whether or not the speaker here is introduced in the same abrupt* Le ESS * In the book of Revelation John introduces, about eighty times, different speakers, but not once without a distinct notice of the speak- er in the coatext : In ch. XVI. 14. and 15, the day of the Lerd is we- B 3 manner as he is alleged to be in ch. XXII. 12. according to the interpretation of the Kadi. tor; XX. 11, ‘“‘And | saw a great white throne and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away and there was found no place for them” Ch. XXI. 6. “ And he thut sat upon the throne said behold I make all things new. And he said unto me, write, for these words are true and faithful. (6.) And he said unto me it is done, | am Alpha and Omega &c. *(7.). He that overeometh shall inherit all things and 1 will be dis God and he shall be my son.” I really cannot perceive what the Editor could have meant by the following remark ‘ he there (in verse 5.) uses the same language found inch. XXII 6 Write, for these words are true and faithfal!” J hope he could not have intended to identify the speaker in XXII. 6. who represents himself as a fellow servant of John, with the speaker in XXI. 5. who thus, sveaking of himself, says (v. 7.) “ I will be his i God aud he shall be my son.” Besides the lan- guage found in ch, XXI. 5, is not ‘the very same” used in ch. XXII. 6, since in the former the whole speech stands thus—“ Write, for taphorically introduced as a speaker. Vide 1 Thess V. 3. and 2 Peter III. 10. fF 203 } these sayings are true and faithful,” , but in the latter we find only ‘‘ these sayings are faithful and true”; but not the verb “ write,” nor the causal preposition “for.” The Editor comes next to what he calls in- ternal evidence, saying ‘ interpal evidence however demoustrates that this angel neither said “behold { come quickly” v. 7. nor Lam Alpha and Omega v. !3.’ Let us now exa- mine the context and the style of the writings of the book of Revelations. 1st. There is not a single instance iu the whole book of Revela- tion in which a speech is repeated without the previous introduction of the speaker ; and in this instance we find an angel is previously introduced in v. 6. as the speaker of verse 7. The passage in question (6, 7—13.) runs thas «‘ And he said unto me, these sayiugs are faithful and true: andthe Lord God of the ho- ly prophet sent his angel to shew his servant the things which must shortly be done. (7 ) Be-— hold I come quickly. Blessed is he who keeps the prophecy of this book : (8) I Johu saw these things and heard them. And when | had heard and seen I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who shewed me these things. (9 ) Then saith he unto me, see thou do it not; for 1 am thy feilow servant aud of thy [ 204 3 brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book worship God. (10.) And he saith unto me seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. (11.) He that is uojast let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy let him be filthy sull, he that is righteous let him be righteous still: and he that is holy let him be holy still. (12.) And be hold I come quickly: and my reward is with me, to give every, man accords ing as his work shall be (13) 1 am Alpha and Omega the begining and the end, the first and the last.’ I am therefore quite at a loss to comprehend how the Editor can justify him- sélfin ascribing verses 6, 8, and 9, to one be- jug, and verse the 7th. to another, in which there is no notice whatsoever of a new speaker. Qudly.. There is only one agent in the whole train of these verses extending as far as verse 90th. and no unbiassed mind can in the face of all the rules of composition reject the rela= tion of a verb to an appropriate nominative standing before it, in order to refer the same to a noun which is not found in any of the imme- diately preceding sentences. 3rdly. Were we to follow the example of the Editor, and refer verses 6, 8, and 9, to an unknown angel and verse 7. abruptly to Jesus, (which I conceive we cannot do, without defying common sense ( 205 j and all the acknowledged laws of grammar,) we must be totaliy ata loss tu account for the strange conduct of John towards Jesus, his masier, in falling down to worship before the f-et of the angel and neglecting Jesus entirely, though he saw and heard them both at one time, or rather his vision of Jesus was subse- quent to that of the angel. 4thly. John bim- self explains whom he meant by the angel mentioned in XXII. 6. identifying this angel with Jesus. expressly named in the first chap- ter of Revelations. (Ch. XXII. 6.) “* And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel io shew unio his servants the things which must shortly be done.” (Ch. 1.1.) “God gave unto him (Jesus) fo shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” As in the English ver- sion there Is some difference, though of no con- sequence, in these two phrases, 1 therefore quote the original containing the precise words in both instances. SerZae roe ovate avrov & det yeverOae ev TAXEL. I hope now that the explanation of the aus thor of the book of Revelations, joined with the above stated circumstances will not fall short of producing conviction in the mind of the Editor and my other opponents. We may easily find out the angel who is descrived in the latter end of ch. I. verse the C3 ; { 206 j Ist. as being sent by Jesus, by reference to ch. XXII. 16. “© I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things iz the churches.” We find here two things distinctly: one that Jesus desiguated as an angel in XXII. 6. showed, as directed by God inch. 1. 1., all things which must shortly come to pass; and the other that he sent his angel to shew to John aud his other servants these things in the churches respecting the Christian dispensation, as expressly mentioned in verse 1. of the book of Revelation as well as in XXII. 16. Sthly. J will now have recourse to the rule recom- mended by the Editor ‘that when the speaker is not expressly named, his language designates him.” As the phrase “ I come qnickly,” found elsewhere in the book of Kevelations, is used expressly by Jesus as speaker in five different instances (I]. 5. and 16. IIE. 11. XXII. 12, and 20,) we must naturally ascribe this phrase in verse 7. to Jesus, and must therefore tefer the immediately following verses 8th. and 9th. to him in perfect consistency with all other scriptural writings. It is not only in verse 9th. that Jesus calls himself a servant of God, and addresses Christians as brethren, but also in Matihew. XII. 18. he represents himself as a chosen servant of the Most High; and in AXVIII. 10. and John XX. 17. designates the disciples as his brethren. et a ( 207 j If the Editor should say, according to the general mode of trinitarian exposition, that the adoption of such designations was in refer- ence to the human capacity of Jesus, he will perhaps give up the present difference from me under the supposition that in this instance also. Jesus calls himself a servant of God and his followers brethren, as well as forbids John to worship him, meraly in his human capacity. 1 now conclude my reply to this branch of the Editor's argument with a few remarks in allusion to such questions of the Editor as “Is it that the son of God after receiving the worship of the highest archangel at God’s ex- press command, forbad John to worship him? &c.” 1 would ask in turn can any man be justified in ascribing deity to one whose lan- guage is this,? “ As I received of my father” (Rev. 11. 27.) “Ihave not found thy works perfect before God (\11.2) “1 will confess his name before my father aud before his ange's” (5.) “* Him that overcometh will I make a pil- lar in the temple of my God” “1 will wrie upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God which cometh dowa out of heaven from my God” (12.) Is it con- sistent with the nature of God to acquire — exaltation through merit? V. 12 «Saying with ‘ ( 208 | a loud voice, Worthy is the lamb that was slain to vecetve power and riches and wisdom and strength and houor and glory and blessing” V1f. 21. To him that overcometh will 1 eraut to sit with me in my throne, Even as J alsoo- vercume and am set down with my father in his thone.” Is it becoming of the nature of God to sing thus, addressing himself to ano- ther being,? ‘Great and marvellous are THY works, Lord God Almighty just and true are THY ways, thou king of saints: who shall not fear tHee O Lord and glorify ray name? for THOU ONLY art holy &ec.” XV. 3. and 4, Is not the lamb throughout the whole Revelation mentioned separately and distiactly from God? ch. I. 1. “ The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gavee unto him” 2. “ who hare record of the word of God and of the tes+ timony of Jesus Christ” 4. and 5. “ And peace from him who is and who was and who isto come, and from the seven spirits which are be- fore his throne, and from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness” 9. ‘* For the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” V. 9. * Thou wast slatn and hast redeemed us to God” (10.) “and hast made us unto our God kings and priests” X{. 15. ‘* The kingdoms of this” world are become the kingdom of our Lord and of nis Christ” XII. 17. ‘* who keep the 14 [ 209 } commandments of God and have the testimo- ny of Jesus Christ” X1V. 12. ‘* that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” XXI. 23. “ For the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamb is the light thereof.” Jobn in ascribing to the lamb most honorary epithets, those generally printed in capitals, takes great care in the choice of words. XIX. 16.‘ He” (the Lamb) ‘hath on his thigh a name written, king of kings and Lord of Lord’s’ XVII. 14. “ For he (the lamb) is J.ord of Lords and king of kings.” The apostle never once declares him to be ‘God of Gods” the peculiar epithet of the, Almighty Power. So the most holy saints sing first the song of Moses and then that of the jamb ; having perhaps had in view the priority ofthe former to the latter in point of birth. XV. 3. “ And they (the holy saints) sing the. song of Moses the servant of God and the soug of the Jamb:” In answer to one of the many insinuations made by the Editor in the course of bis argu- ments, to wit “If this be Christ, what must be- come of the precepts of Jesus ?” (page 576.) I most reluctantly put the following query in re- ply. Ifaslainlamb be God Almighty or his true emblem, what must be his worship and what must become of his worshippers? D3 [ 210 ] On the attempt to prove the deity of Jesus Christ by comparing Isaiah XLV. 23. ( Unto me” 1. e. God “ every knee shalJ bow, every ton- gue shall swear’) with Rom. XIV. 10—12. (* Bat why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for ~ we shail all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; for itis written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall coufess to God: so then every one of usshall give account of himself to God”) [ observed in my Second Appeal (page 144 ) that between the prophet and the apostle there is a perfect agreement in substauce, since both declare that itis to God that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess thnough kim, before whose judgment-seat we shall all stand : ‘Gt the'same ‘time both Jesus and his a- postles “infoinr “ws that We must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, because the fa- ther has committed the office of final judgment to him!?’'Vb which the answer of the Editor is this, “ we here beg leave to ask our author, where the phrase through him is to be found ? It must be in the author’s copy of the prophet and the apostlé—it is not in our’s.” By these words the’ Editor clearly means to insinuate that the w6ids‘in question are gratuitously in- serted in my explanation aud without any aus fo au j thority in the holy scriptures. At least I am o- therwise at a loss to understand what he means by saying that the words of my paras phrase are not to be found in his Edition of the Bible, for it would be unworthy to suppose of him that he wished to impress his readers with theidea that I was quoting a particular passage falsely, instead of the fact that I was only giving my idea of its import. That I was fully warranted in my interpretation I hope to convince the Editor himself by referring him to the following passages, in which it is ex- pressly declared that itis through Jesus that glory and thanks are to be given to God, and that we have peace with God; and also that itis ey Jesus Christ that God judgeth the world. Romans XVI. 27. “ To God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ for ever a- men.” V. 1. “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” I. 8. “1 thank my God through Jesus Christ” 11.16. “ In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.” 2 Chr. V. 18. “ All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” John V. 22.“ For the father jadgeth no man but hath committed all judg- ment unto the son.” After considering these texts no one can I think refuse to admit the correctness of my assertion that it is lo God ( 212 ] every knee shall bow through Christ before whose judgment-seat we shali stand “because the father has commiited the office of final judgment to him,” as being founded upon the best authority that man can appeal to. . Upon the interpretation of the above men- tioned passage of Isaiah, to wit, ‘itis Jesus that swears here by himself,” I observed in my Second Appeal, “how cau they escape the context which expressly informs us that Jehovah God and not Jesus sware in this man- ner.” To this the Editor replies that the son was Jehovah before he was Jesus’ &c. Is not this merely a begging of the question, inasmuch as one may equally assert that Moses or Joshua was Jehovah before he was Moses or Joshua? He further says that “Jesus is so preemi- nently saviour that there is salvation in no other.” I agree with the Editor so far as to de- clare Jesus to be, under God, the only saviour mentioned in the records of the Christian dis- pensation, but previous to his birth there were many saviours raised by God to save his ser- vants, as noticed already in page 64 and 72. The Editor adds that in v. 24. righteousness is used in such a sense as is principally appli- f 213 ) cable to the son. I therefcre transcribe the verse that the reader may judge whether or not his position has any foundation. 24. “Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength, even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed agaiust him shall be ashamed.’’ Respecting the attempt to prove the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of his being fivuratively represented as the husband or the supporter of his church, John I{L. 29. Ephe. V. 23. and also God's being called the husband of his creatures, Isaiah LIV. 5. I requested in my Second Appeal (page 148.) that my rea- ders would be pleased to examiue the language employed in these two instances. In the one God is represented as the husband of ali his creatures, and in the other Christ is declared to be the husband or the head of his followers ; there is therefore an inequality of authority evidently ascribed to God and to Jesus. Moreover Christ himself shows the relation that existed between him and his church, and himself and God, in John XV. 1. * Iam the true vine and my father is the husbandman” 5. ‘J am the vine, ye are the branches.” &c. Would it not be highly unreasonable to set at defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus be- E 3 [ 24) tween God, himself, and his charch? The Editor has not taken the least notice of this last argument; he only glances over the for- mer, saying (page 579.) ‘‘ had our author exa- mined the context with sufficient care, he would have found that those to whom God declares himself the husband are so far from being all his creatures, that they are ouly one branch of his church, the Gentiles. the children of the desolate, in opposition to the Jews, the children of the married wife.” | wonder how the choice of the designation “ thy maker’’ in Isaiah LLY. 5. in preference to others, and its true force could escape the notice of the Edi- tor; as the phrase “thy maker is thy hus- band” implies in a general sense that whoso- ever is the maker is also the preserver, and consequently God is the husband or the pre= server of all his creatures, including the Jews - more especially as his chosen people. I how- ever wish to know how the Editor justifies himself in concluding real unity between God and Jesus from the application of the term husband to them, while Jesus declares the re- lation between God, himself, and his church to be such as that existing between the husbands man, the vine, and its branches. "Some orthodox divines having attempted to establish the deity of Jesus by comparing Jee f 215 inks MEUBe. ae. Gai (5s Ty wall raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shail reign and prosper—and this is his name whereby he shali be called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNEss’) with 1st. Cor. I. 30 ( Christ Jesus who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness &c.’) | replied inmy Second Ape peal (page 142) that « [ only refer my readers again to the passage in Jeremiah XXXIII. 16. in which Jerusalem also is called ‘‘ THE LORD oUR HIGHTEOUSNESs” and to the phrase “fs MADE unto us of God” found in the passage in question and expressing the inferiority of Je- sus to God; and also to 2 Cor. V. 21. “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him ;” where St. Paul says that all Christians may ‘‘ be mace the righteousness of God ;” to which the Revd. Editor thus replies— (page 480.) “ this does not at all affect the question in hand, which is simply whether this righteous branch of David, thts king who shall reign and prosper be Jesus Christ or not; and to prove this we need only call in the testimo- ny of the angel to Mary; Luke 1. 32. 33. “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; And he shall reign over the house af Jacob for ever.” The Editor here o- verlooks again the force of ihe phrase “* Gad ‘shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his [ 216 ]} father David,” implying that the throne and ex«itation which Jesus was possessed of was but the free gift of God. To lessen the force of such phrases as “ being made of God,” “God shall give unto him” &e. the Editor adds that “ relati ive to his “being made of God righteousness to us,’ —this can of course make no alteration in the son’s eternal wature.” I therefore beg to ask the Editor, if one’s being made by another any thing whatsoever that he was not before does not tend to prove his mutable nature, what nature then can be called mutable in this transi- tory world? The Editor again advances that Jesus “was Jehovah before he became incar- nate &c.” This is a bare assertion which I must maintain to be without any ground, une: Jess he means to advance the doctrine that souls are emanations of God and proceed from the deity. As to Jerusalem being called “ Jehovah our righteousness” the Editor says “ we may observe that it is the church of Christ, the holy Jerusalem who bears this name to the honor of her gloriously head and husband who is indeed Jehovah her righteousness” (page 681.) Let us reflect on this answer of a { “297 2 the Editor. In the first place the term Jerusa- jem in Jeremiah XXXIII. 16. from its associ+ ation with the term “ Judah” is understood as signifying the well known holy city in that kingdom, having no reference to the church or followers of Christ. In the second place, if the Editor understands by the term “ Jeru- salem” here the church of Christ, and admits of Jerusalem being figuratively called *‘ Jeho- vah our righteousness” on the ground that Christ is its head and that consequently it bears that name “‘ to the honour of her glorious head” though in reality different from and sub- ordinate to him, how can he reject the figura- tive application ofthe phrase “ Jehovah our righteousness” to Jesus on the same ground and same principle, which is, that as Jehovah > is the head of Christ, consequentiv Christ bearsthis name “to the honour of his head,” though in reality different from and subor- dinate to God? vide 1 Cor. Xf. 3. “ But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the HEAD OF CHRIST Is GOD.” The Editor shews an instance in {saiah in which seven women wish to be called by the name of a husband to have their reproach ta- ken away. He must also know that thousands FS ( 218") ofsons and descendants are called by the name of one of their fathers, and servants by the name of their masters, to the honour of the father or the master. Vide Isaiah XLVIII. 1. Genesis XLII. 6. Hosea XI. 8 snd 9. Exodus XXL. 21. The Editor then proceeds to di- vide the honorary names found in scriptures into two kinds; one given by men and the other given by God; but he must know that the names given by prophets or by common men, if used and confirmed by God, or by any of the sacred writers, become as worthy of attention as if they had been bestowed origi- nally by the Deity himself. The Editor again uses the following words ** the incommunicable name Jehovah’ the self- existent, from the verb ™7 hawah *‘ to be or to exist” which is applied to no one throughout the scripture besides the sacred three” &c. We know very numerous instances in which the name “ Jehovah” is applied to the most sacred God, but never met with an in- stance of applying to two other sacred persons the simple term “Jehovah.” 1 wish the Editor had been good enough to have taken into con- sideration that this is the very point in dispute, and to have shown instances in which the se- cond and third persons of the deity (according § { me 7 to the Editor’s expression) are addressed by this name. He further observes that ‘‘ no one supposes that Jehovah Jireh “God will see or provide,” given by Abraham to the place where he offered Isaac, was intended to deify that place, but to perpetuate the fact that the Lord did there provide a sacrifice instead of lsaac;—that Jehovah-nissi “ God my banner” given by Moses to his altar intended any thing more than that God was his banner against the Amalekites;—that Jehovah-tsidkenu “ Je- hovah our righteousness” the name men should call Jerusalem, or Christ’s church, was ine tended to deify her, but to demonstrate that her Lord and head who is righteousness, is indeed Jehovah.” Here I follow the very same mode of interpretation adopted by the Editor in ex- plaining the same phrase * The Lord our righteousness” found ia Jeremiah XXIII. 6, re- - ferred to the Messiah, that is, the application of this phrase to the Messiah does not deify him, but demonstrates that his father, his EMPLOYER, his HEAD, the Most High, who is his righteousness, is the Lord Jehovah; so that the consistency can not be overlooked which prevails through all the phrases of a similar nature ; for as Christ is represented to be the head of his church, so God is represented to be the head of Christ, as 1 noticed in the { 220. 4° foregoing page 213. Lastly the Editor says “compound names therefore do not of them- selves express deity, but they express facts more strongly than simple assertions or pro- positions.” | am glad to observe that he differs from a great many of his colleagues in their attempt to deify the Messiah from the appli- Cation of the above phrase to him; but as to the facts demonstrated by this phrase, they may be easily ascertained from comparing the application of it with that of exactly similar phrases to others, as | have just observed. The Editor now mentions (page 583.) a few more passages which he thinks tend to * illus- irate not so much the name as the divinenature of the son. In Jeremiah V. 22. we have this ex- postulation; ‘ Fear ye not saith the Lord? Will ye not tremble at my presence who have placed the sand forthe bound of the sea by a perpetu- al decree that it cannot pass it, and though the waves toss themselves, yet can they not pre- vail.’ This however is only a part of that work of creation ascribed to him who, while on earth, exercised absolute dominion over the winds and the waves in no name beside his own.” But what this passage of Jeremiah has to do with the divine nature of Jesus | am unable to discover. The Editor mizht have quoted at f 2h j this rate all the passages of the old Testament that ascribe to God the supreme controul over the whole world as evidence in favour of the deity of Jesus as he was sure to find always many persons of the same persuasion to ap- plaud any thing offered in favour of the trinity. As to his position, that, Jesus “ exercised absolute dominion over the winds and the waves in no name beside his own,” I beg to quote John X. 25. to shew that what ever power Jesus, in common with other pro phets, exercised over wind and water while he was on earth, he did it in the name of God. “¢ Jesus answered them | told you and ye bee lieved not; the works that [I do a my father’s mame they bear witness of me.” ‘And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.” | say Jesus in common with other prophets, because both Elijah and Elisha the prophets exercised power over wind and water and other things, like Jesus, in the name of the father of the universe. Ist. Kings XVII. 1. ch. XVIII. 44. 45. 2nd. Kings Il. 21.3; some times without verbally expressing the name of God; ch. V. 8—13 and 27. ch. II. 10. Upon the assertion in my Second Appeal that the “epithet God is frequently applied in the sa- G 3 [ 222 3 cred scriptures to others beside the supreme being” the Editor observes that “ this objection Jeremiah cuts up ch. X. 11.” “the Gods that have not made the heavens and the earth even they shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens;” which declaration sweeps away not only the Gods of the heathen but all ma- gisterial Gods and even Moses himself as far as he aspired to the godhead: But from this gener- al wreck of our author’s Gods, Christ is except- ed, he having made these heavens and laid the foundation of the earth.” Let us apply this rule adopted by the Editor respecting the prophets, to Jesus Christ. We do not find him once repre- sented in thescriptures as the maker of heavens and earth ; this peculiar attribute having been throughout the whole sacred writings ascribed exclusively to God the Most High. As to the instances pointed out by the Editor Hebrews T, 10. and Col. I. 17. I fully explained them in page 117 and 122. as having reference to God the father of the universe. Moreover we ohserve in the new Testament, even in the same book of Hebrews, that whatever things Jesus made or did, he accomplished as an instrument in the hands of God. Hebrew’. 2. “ Whoin he hath appointed heir of ail things dy whom also he made the worlds.” Ephesians III. 9. ** Who ereated all things by Jesus Christ,” It would { 223 Jj indeed be very strange to our faculties to ac- knowledge one as the true God, and yet to maintain the idea that he created things by the directions of another being, and was appointed as heir of ail things by that other. Againin pursuance of the same rule of the Editor | find that Jesus like other perishable Gods both di- ed and was buried, though raised afterwards by his father, who had the power of raising Elijah to heaven even without suffering him to die and be buried for a single day. My readers may now judge whether Jesus Christ be not included in common with other perisha- ble Gods ia the rule laid down by the Editor. To deify Jesus Christ the Editor again intra- duces the circumstance of his being a searcher of hearts to execute judgment: Rev. II. 23. and also quotes Heb: 1.3. Having exa- mined these arguments in page 119 and 200, 1 will not return to them here. He adds in this instance “ we are hence assured that the father who perfectly knows the son, did not commit to him all judg- ment so entirely as to judge no man him- self without knowing his infinite fitness for the work.” It is evident that the father [ 224 } did not commit to the son all judgment so entirely as to judge no man himself without qualifying him for so doing; that is, without giving him the power of knowing all the events of this world in order to the distribation of re- wards and punishments Matthew XXVIII. 18. “ All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Notwithstanding this the power of knowing those things that do not re- spect the execution of judgment by the son is not bestowed upon him ; and the son there- fore is totally ignorant of them. Mark XIII. 32. * But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are iu heaven, neither the son, but the father.” No one desti- tute of the power of omniscience is ever ac- knowledged as supreme God by any sect that believe in revealed religion.. He quotes Heb, IV. 13. “ Neither ‘js there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and ope:ied unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do,” in or- der to corroborate the idea that Christ knew all the secrets of men. Supposing this passage to be apvlicable to Jesus Christ, it does not convey any other idea than whatis understood by Rev. I]. 23. which I have already noticed : But the Editor must know that in the imme- [ 225 ] diately preceding verse the word of God, or Revelation, while figuratively represented as a two-edged sword &c. is iu the same ailegori- cal sense declared to be “ a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” There is therefore no inconsistency in ascribing the knowledge of the intents of hearts to him through whom that Revelation is communica- ted, and who is appointed to judge whether the conduct of men is regulated by them in conformity to that Revelation. The Editor says (page 584 ) that “ in Eze kiel XXVIII. God says respecting a man who arrogated to himself the honors of Gode head, ‘son of man, say uuto the prince of Tyrus, thus saith the Lord God, because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said ] am a God—be- hold thou shalt die the death of the uncircum- cised &e.’ How different the father’s language to the son ‘ thy throne O God is for ever and ever. Why this different language to the priace of Tyrus and to Jesus?” Had the Editor at- tentively, referred to the scriptures, he would not have + Se the trouble of putting this ques- tion to me: for he would have easily found the» reason for this difference; that is, the king of Tyrus called himself God, as above stated, but Jesus so far from robbing the Deity of his ho- Hi 3 [ 226 } nor, never ceased to confess that God was both his God and his father. John XX. 17. Also that the prince of Tyrus manifested disobedience to God, but Jesus, even laid down his life in submission to the purposes of God and attributed divine favour towards himself to his entire obedience to the Most High: Rom. V. 19. “ for as by one man’s disobedience ma- ny were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” John X. 17. “therefore doth my father love me 6e- cause Llay down my life that I might take it again:” Luke XXII. 42. “ father if thon be willing, remove this cup from me: neverthe- — less not my will, but thine be done.” As the conduct of the prince and that of Jesus towards God were quite different, they were differentiy treated by the father of the universe: As to the above verse, (‘‘thy throne O God is: for ever and ever,”) God does not peculiarly ad- dress. Jesus with the epithet God, but he also uses for the chiefs of Israel and for Moses the same epithet. © Bins: wl fig pre. The Editgr taal 1. Cones 5. “ Mex P =“ * nothing before the time until the ‘d come ; me who both will brivg to light ‘the hidden things of darkn®ss, and will make manifest thdebnn- sels of the heart; and then shall every man a , 27 7 have praise of God.” The passage simply a- mounts to this “‘ judge not either me or others before the time until the Lord come, who will bring to light the dark and secret counsels of of men’s hearts, in preaching the Gospel; and then shall every one have that praise, that esti- mate set upon him, by God himself, which he truly deserves” (Locke.) | It is not Jesus alone that was empowered by God to kuow and to judge all secret events, but on particular occasions others were in- trusted with the same power, as has already been noticed in page 200 and will also be found in Daniel 11. 23. “ I thank thee and praise thee O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee; for thou hast now made known unto us the king’s matter” and in 2 Sam. XIV. 19 and 29. ‘“‘ And the king (David) said, Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this? and the woman answered and said,’”—My Lord ‘is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are inthe earth.” 1 Cor. VI. 2 and 3. “Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? and ifthe world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest - [ 228 } matters 7 know ye not that we shall judge an- gels? &c.” Here Christian saints are declar- ed to be judges of the deeds of the whole world, and of cours2 to be possessors of a kuowiedge of all events both public and private so as to enable them to perform so delicate a judgment. Besides a kuowledge of future eventsis by no means less wonderful than that of past things or present secrets of hearts, yet we find all the prophets of God were endus ed with the former: i Kings XX. 22. “ And tlie _ prophet came to, the kivg of Israel and said unto him, go strengthen thyself and mark aud see what thou dost, for at the return of the year the king of Syria will come up against thee.” So we find the same gift of future know- ledge granted to righteous men in numerous instances. He then cites Dan. 1. and VII. and founds upon them the following question: ‘ If then by nature he was not God, by nature the crea- tor of heaven and earth, he and his kingdom must perish from under the heavens.” To this my reply is, that we find Jesus subjected to the death of the cross while on earth, and— after the general resprrection, to him that put all things ‘under him (1 Cor. XV. 28.). The son therefore is not by nature God, the creator of a r e234 heaven and earth. As to the sophistry that at- tributes the death and subjugation of Jesus on- ly to bis human capacity, it might be applicable to every human individual, alleging that they being the children of Adam, the son of God, (Luke IIT. 38 ) are possessed of a divine nature also; and that their death consequently is in their human capacity alone, but that in their divine nature they cannot be subjected to death Vide page 137—143 of this essay. By applying to Jesus the epithet “ most holy” found in Daniel IX: 24. the Editor attempts to prove the eternal deity of the son; forgetting, perhaps, that the same term “most holy” is ap- plied in the scriptures even to inanimate things. Number XVIII. 10. “In the most holy place shall thou eat it.” Exodus XXIX. 37. “ It shall be an altar most holy.” The Editor in noticing Hosea says that ** the Evangelist’s quoting this passage (out of Eeypt have I called my son”) plainly shows that it referred to Christ as well as to Israel ; but the difference is manifest: Israel was God's adopted son, constantly rebelling against his father: Jesus was God’s proper son of the same nature with his father (as is every proper son) and did always what pleased him.” This I 3 { 230 ] assertion of the Editor (that “ Israel was God’s adopted son’) is I think without foundation? for ‘hey are declared, like Jesus, to be begotten sons of God; but were uot like Christ entirely devoted to the will of the father of the uni- verse, Deu. XXXII. 18. “ Of the Rock ihat begat thee thou art unmindfyl and hast for- gotten God that formed thee.” Exodus IV. 22. * And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith. the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born.” sie then quotes Hosea Ii!. 5. “afterwards shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their God and David their king :” on which he comments that David had then been in his grave—he could be sought only in heaven;— -as David in common with other saints, could not search the heart and know the sincerity of prayers, this prophecy must be assigned to the son of David, the Messiah. I really regret to observe that as the Jews endeavour to misin- terpret such passazes as are most favorable to the idea of Jesus being the expécted Mes- siah, so Christians in general try ta refer to Jesus any passages that can possibly be ex- plained as bearing the least allusion to their notion of the Messiah, ,=however distant in fact they may be from such a notion. By ‘so doing they buth only weaken their respective opi- yions. The above citation on which the ee ee a ee a y ‘ { 251 J Editor now dwells is an instance. Let us *.cfer to the text of Hosea III. 4. “ For the children of Israel shall abide many days with- out a king, aud without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without ap image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim ; (5) after- wards shall the children of Israel return aad seek the Lord their God and David their king; and-shail fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter day.” Does not the poetical lan- guage of the prophet determine to the satis- faction of every unbiassed man that after long sufferings Israel will repent of their disobedi- ence, and seek the protection of their God and- the happiness which their fathers enjoyed during the reign of David; as it is very na- tural for a netion or tribe when oppressed by foreign conquerors to remember their own an- ! : ! cient kings nnder whose governments theic fathers were prosperous, and to wish a return of their reign if possib'e. If the Editor insist upon referring this prophecy to Jesus, he must wait its fulfilment; as Israel has not as yet sought Jesus as the son of David the Messiah who was promised to them. The Editor says (page 586.) that Peter in Acts II. 21. applies to Jesus Joel I}. whereby he identifies Jehovah with him: But we fiad f 232 7 Peter here quoting only a part of ch. the 2nd, of Joel y. 82. “and it shall come to pass that™ whosover shall call onthe name of the Lord shall be saved;” so far from applying this to the son and identifying him with God, the apostle explains in the immediately following verse (22.) his nature and his total subordination to God. “ Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God aa mong you, by miracles ans wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you &c.” The Editor then adds that Paul also address- ed himself “ to all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Cor. I. 2.) 1 therefore quote Locke’s paraphrase of this verse, as well as his note on Romans X. 13, With a view to shew the Editor that the phrase “call on the name of Jesus” is not a correct translation in the English version. “ Po the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that ate separated from the rest of the world by faith in Jesus Christ called to be Saints, with all that are every where called by the name of Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours,” (Locke on 1 Cor. J, 2nd) note on Rom. X, 13. page 384. “ Whosover hath, with care, looked into St. Paul’s Writings, must own him to be a close reasoner, that argues to the point; and therefore, if, iu the three pre-: . co. a ————————————— ee ea { 233 ] ceding verses, he requires an open profes- sion of the Gospel, I cannot but think thet ‘all that call upon him,” verse 12. signifies all that are open, professed Christians, and if this be the meaning ‘of calling upon him” v, 12, it is plain it must be the meaning of ‘calling upon his name,” verse 13, a phrase not very . remote from naming his name,” which is used by St. Paul for professing Christianity. 2 Tim. II. 19. If the meaning of the prophet Joel, from whom these words are taken, be urged, I shail only say, that it will be an ill rule for interpreting St. Paul, to tie up his use of any text, he brings out of the old Testament, to that which is taken to be the meaning of it there. _Weneed go no farther for an example than the 6, 7, and 8th verses of this chapter which I desire any one to read as they stand, Deut. XXX. 11—14. and see whether St. Paul uses them here, in the same sense.” If the Editor still insists upon the accuracy of the trauslation of the phrase “ call upon the name of Jesus” found in the version, he will I hope refer to Matthew X. 40 41. and 42. “ He that receiveth you, receiveth me and he that re- ceiveth me, receiveth hom that sent me: He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophets reward; &c. And whosoever shall give to driuk unto oae of J3 [ 234 these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward”— when he will perceive that calling on the name of Jesus, as being the Messiah sent by God, is an indirect call on the name of God; ia the same manner as one’s yielding to a gener- al sent by a king amounts to his submission to the king himself, and secures for him the same favour of the king as if he had yielded directly to the sovereign. The Editor then quotes Amos IV. 13. per- haps on account of its containing the phrase *‘ declaring unto man what is his thought.” As i have noticed this subject already oftener than once page 200 and 227. I will not return to it here, He again quotes Zechariah III. 2. “and Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan, even Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee! Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire.” The Editor then proceeds to say that “this passage with ch. 2. 8. ‘thus saith the Lord of hosts, after the glory hath he sent me, and ch. XIII. 7.’ Awake O sword against my shepherd, against the man who is my fellow, saith the Lord of Senay 0 9 np [ 235 j hosts.” forms another three-fold testimony of the distinct personality of the son and his equality with the f.ther. f am unable to discover exactly what the Editor intends by his two first quotations. With respect to the former that “ Jehovah said unto Satan, Jeho- vah rebuke thee” &c. the Editor must be well aware that God speaks of himself very fre- queutly throughout the sacred books in the third person instead of the first; Isaiah LI. }. * Hearken to me ye that follow after righteous- ness, ve that seek the Lord &c.” 15, * But lam the Lord thy God that divideth the sea, whose waves warred: The Lord of hosts is his name.” Even in this very book of Zechariah we find that the prophet speaks of himself some times in the third person. Zech. [. 7. “ In the second year of Darius came the word of Je- hovah unto Zechariah” &c. VII. 8. “« And the word of the Lord came unto Zechariah say- ing” &c. Neither God’s nor Zechariah’s speak- ing of himself in the third person in poetical Jancuace can be construed into a proof of the plurality of either of their persons, or of the equality of either with some other being. The fact is that Zechariah prophesies in the second year of Darius king of Persia of the Lord’s will to build the second temple of Jerusalem by Joshua, Zeruvbavel and Semuh; and to [ 236 5 rebuke Satan who would discourage Joshua the high priest from that undertaking; as is evident from the following passage. Zechariah 1.1. “ In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius. came the word of the Lord to Zechariah “ &c. 16.” Therefore thus saith the Lord, lam returned to Jerusalem, with mercies my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem ; “ II. 2” then said I whether goest thou? And he said unto me, to measure Jeru- salem “ &c. IIL. 1. and 2. And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the an« gel of the Lord and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him: And the Lord said unto Satan, the Lord rebuke thee, O Satan, even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire.” As to Zerubabel, the prophet says, 1V. 9. ‘* The hands of Zerubabel have laid the foun- dation of this house; his /ands shail also fiush it” &c. Respecting Semuh, VI. 12. and 13. thus speaketh the Lord of hosts saying; Behold the man whose name is Semuh; and he shall grow up outof his place and ye shall build the temple of the Lord: even he shall build the temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rale upon his throne, and he shall be a priest upon his [ 27 } throne; and the counsel of peace shall be be= tween them both’—that is between Semuh and Joshua mentioned in the immediately pres ceding verse 11th. In the English version the meaning of the name of Semuh is used, viz. ‘* Branch,” instead of Semuh itself both here and in ch. III. 8. and the commentators chuse to apply the name thus translated to Jesus, though no instance can be adduced of Jesus. Christ’s having been so called, and though the prophet expressly says in ch. VI. 12. ‘‘ whose name is Semuh.” He is speaking of the sz- eonp building of the temple which began in the reign of Darius king of Persia long before the birth of Christ. Vide. the whole book of Zechariah. The second quotation is “ for thus saith the Lord of hosts after the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you, for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.” IJ. 8. The prophet here communicates to the people the words of God, that “ after he has sent me with his will to the nations who tyran- nize over Israel, that* he who touches Israel touches the apple of his own eye.” Zechariah very ofien in his book introduces himself as * The word 5 in the original Hebrew signifies * that’? as well as * for.” See Parkhurat’s Hebrew Lexicon. K 3 f [ 238] being sent by God; but how the Editor from these circumstances infers the separate personality of the son, or his equality with the father he will | hope explain. If he insists upon the equality of the Most High, with that of him who says in the verse in question ‘‘after the glory hath he sent me.” (upon some ground that we kuow nothing of,) he would be sorry to find at last that he equalizes Zechariah instead of Jesus with God. I will according to the plan already adopted notice the third quotation ** Awake O sword” (XIII. 7.) ina subsequent chapter among the other passages alluded to in the second chapter of this work. ee ee ee [ 239 J CHAPTER IV. On the Editor's replies to the arguments con- tained in chapter 2nd. of the Second Appeal. To my inquiry in the Second Appeal “have we not his (Christ’s) own express and often repeated avowal that all the powers he manifested were committed to him as the son by the father of the universe” the Editor thus replies in the negative (page 588.)** No-That he was appointed by ‘the father to act as medi- ator between him and sinners, we have alrea- dy seen; for without this he could have been no mediator between his father and his offen- ding creatures.” Every unbiassed man may easily pronounce whether it is consistent with any ratioval idea of the nature of the Deity that God should be appointed by God to “act the part of a mediator,” by “ laying aside his glory and taking on himself the form of a@ ser- vant ;’’? and may discern whether if is not most foreign to the notion of the immutable God, that circumstances could produce such a ‘change in the condition of the Deity as that he should have been not only divested of hig glory for more than thirty vears but even sub- jected toservitude? Are not theideas of supreme dominion and that of subjection just as remote as the east from the west? Yet the Editor says that while he was stripping himself of his glory and taking upon himself the form a servant he was just as much Jehovah as before, The Editor in common with other tri- nitarians conceives that God the son eqnally with God the father (according to their mode of expression) is possessed of the ate tributes of perfection, such as mercy, jus- tice, righteousness, truth &c, yet he repre- sents them so differently as to ascribe to the father strict justice or rather vengeance, and to the son unlimited mercy and forgiveness, that is, the father, the first person of the Gods head, having been in wrath at the sinful cone duct of his offending creatures, found his mercy so resisted by justice that he could not for- give them at all, through mercy, unless he sa= tisfied his justice by inflicting punishment up- on these guilty men; but the son, the second person of the Godhead, though displeased at the sins of his offending creatures, suffered his mercy to overcome justice, and by offering his own blood as an atonement for their sins, he has Se, iu a ee Pen ee . a ( 241 ] obtained for them pardon without punishment; and by means of vicarious sacrifice, reconciled them to the father and satisfied his justice and vengeance. If the justice of the father did not permit his pardoning sinful creatures and reconciling them to himself in compliance with his mercy, unless a vicarious sacrifice was made to him for their sins; how was the jus- tice of the son prevailed upon by his mercy to admit their pardon, and their reconcilation to himself, without any sacrifice, offered to him as an atonement for their sins? It is then evident that according to the system of trinitarians the son had a greater portion of mercy than the father to oppose to his justice, in hav- ing his sinful creatures pardoned, without suffering them to experience individual pu- nishment. Are these the doctrines, on which geniune Christianity is founded? God forbid! If the first person be acknowledged to be pos- sessed of mercy equally with the second, and that he, through his infinite mercy towards his creatures, sent the second to offer his blood as an atonement for their sins, we must then confess that the mode of the operation and manifestation of mercy by the first is strange and directly opposite to that adopted by the second, who manifested his mercy even by the Ls { 242 j sacrifice of life, while the first person displayed his mercy only at the death of the second, without subjecting himself to any humiliation or pain. In answer to the Editor's position. that Je- sus even as a mediator was possessed of every power and perfection that was inherent in his divine nature, I only beg to remind him of a few sacred passages among many of a simil- ar nature; John ill. 35. “the father loveth the son and hath Given all things into his hand ;” XVII. 22. ‘and the glory which thou GAVEST me] have given them ;” &c. V. 26. *‘for as the father hath lite in himself so hath he GIVEN to the son to have life in himself ;” Luke 132. “and the Lord God shall Give un- 7o him the throne of his father Davia.” Mat- thew IX. 8. * But when the multitude saw it they marvelled, and glorified God who had given such power to MEN ;” XXVIII. 18. Jesus came and spake unto them saying, all power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth,” On these texts I trust no commentary is ne- cessary to enable any one to determine whe- — ther all the power and glory that Jesus enjay- ed were given him by God or were inherent in his own nature, { 243 ) The Editor again denies Christ's having ‘* possessed a single power, perfection, or at- tribute which wos not eternally inherent in his divine nature ;’ and defies me ‘“ to point out one attribute or perfection in the father, which from scripture testimony, the son has not beea already shown to possess.” [ therefore take upon myself to point out a few stances which, | hope, will convince the Esitor that the peculiar attribut_.s of God were never a8- cribed to Jesus, nor to any other human being who may have been like Jesus, figura- tively called Gods in scriptural language. In the first place the attribute of being the “ Most High” or wy by which the supreme Deity is distinguished above all Gods, is not found once ascribed to Jesus, though invariably applied to the father throughout the scriptural wriings. Qndly. Jesus was never called almighty or “wa term peculiarly used for the deity; nay moreover he expressly denies being possessed of almighty power: “Matthew XX. 23. “But to sit on my right hand and on my left Is NoT MINE TO GIVE but to them for whom it is PRE- PARED of MY FATHER; XXVI. 53. “ thivkest thou that I cannot now pray To MY FATHER and he shall presently GivE Me more than twelve legions of angels ;? John XI. 41. “ then they took away the stove from the place where { 244 ] the dead was laid; and Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, father 1 thank thee that thou hast heard me.” Healso denies his omniscience 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.” Any being if not supreme, almighty, aud omniscient and more especially one sub- jected to the transitions of birth and death, must, however highly exalted, even by the ti- tle of a God, and though for ages endowed with all power in heaven and in earth, be cone sidered a created being ; and like all crea- tures, be in the end, as the apostle declares, subject to the creator of all things. Besides in the creed which the generality of trinitarians profess, God is described as self-existent have ing proceeded from none; but the son, on the contrary, is represented ag proceeding from the father. Here even the orthodox amongst Christians ascribe the attribute of self-existence to the father of the universe alone. In my Second Appeal I observed that « the sun, although he is the most powerful and most splendid of all known created beings, has yetno claim to be considered identical in nature with God, who has given to the sun all the heat &c.” to which the Editor replies fr 245 J «* what is the sun to his maker ?” I wish he had also added “but that which a son and creature is to his father and creator? When he a gain inquires saying ‘if the sun has no claim to Godhead has its maker none”? (alluding to Christ) be might have recollected that nel- ther the sun nor Jesus has ever arrogated to himself Godhead, but that it is their wor- shippers that have advanced doctrines ascrib- ing Godhead and infinite perfection to these finite objects. Notwithstanding that we daily witness the power of the glorious sun in bring- ing into life and preserving to maturity an in- finite variety of vegetable and avimal objects, yet our gratitude and admiration recognise in him only a being instrumental in the hands of God, and we offer worship and duty to him a- lone who has given to the sun all the light and animating warmth, which he sheds on our globe. Onthe same ground whether we un- derstand from scriptural authority that the supreme Deity made through Jesus Christ all the things belonging to the Christian dispen- sation, or every thing relating to this visible world, (as interpreted by the worshippers of Jesus,) we must not, in either case, esteem him as the supreme deity, in whose hand he is re- presented by the same scriptures but as an instrument. M 3 [ 246 j The Editor says that though the power of effecting a material change without the aid of physical means be peculiar to God, “ yet this power Christ not only possessed but bestowed on his apostles.” Supposing Jesus alone had the power of effecting material changes withe out the aid of physical means and of bestow- ing on others the same gift it could have proved only his being singular in the enjoy- ment of this peculiar blessing of God, and not his being identical or equal with him who conferred such a power on him; but it is no- torious that Jesus was not at all peculiar in this point. Were not the miracles perform- ed by Joshna and Elijah as wonderful as those done by Jesus? Did not Elijah bestow on his servant Elisha the power of effecting changes without physical means by putting his own spirit on him? Is Elijah from the posses-. sion of this power to be considered an incar- — nation of the supreme deity? 2 Kings If. 9. * And it came to pass when they (Elijah and Elisha) were gone over that Elijah said unto Elisha, ask what I shall do for thee before [ be taken away from, thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me: (/0) * And he said thou hast asked a hard thing, nevertheless if thou see when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee, but, [ 247 } if not, it shall not be so.” (11.) “ And Elijah was taken up bya whirlwind into heaven.” (12.)* And Elisha saw it and he cried, my fas ther, my father, &c. 14. ‘“‘ And when he had smitten the waters they parted hither and thi- ther, and Elisha went over.” (15.) When the sons of the prophets saw him, they said, the spirit of Hlijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him.” Besides we find in the evangelical writings that notwithstanding the power of performing miracles given by Jesus to his apostles, they could not avail themselves of such a gift, until their faith in God was become firm and complete: It is thence evident that God is the only source of the power and influence that one creature has cover another. Matthew X. 1. * And when he had called unto him his twelve dis- ciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits to cast them out, and to heal all manoer of sickness and ail manner of disease.” Ch. XVII. 16. “ And J brought him (the lunatic child) to thy disciples and they couid not cure him.” (19) ‘* Then came the disciples to Jesus apart and said why could not we cast him out? (20) ‘And Jesus said unto them because of your unbelief; for verily I say unto you, if you have faith asa grain of {[ 2418 } mustard seed, you shall say unto this moun. iain, remove hence to another place and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible uhto you.” (21.) “ How be it this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.’ Mark XI, 22. “ And Jesus answeriog saith unto them (his disciples) have faith in God (28.) for verily [say unto you that whosever shall say unto this mountaiu be thou removed” &c, In my Second Appeal 1 mentioned that it is evident from the first ch. of Genesis that * in the beginning of the creation God bestowed on man his likeness and sovereignty over all live ing creatures. Was not his own likeness and that dominion peculiar to God, before mans kind were made partakers of them? Did God then deify man by such a mark of distinc. tion” ? on which the Editor thus remarks ; “ it is in reality asking did God make him cease to .be a creature by thus creating him? we presume he expects no answer.” If the Edi- tor acknowledges that God by bestowing on man his peculiar likeness and dominion did not make him cease to be a creature, is he not according to the same principle obliged to admit the opinioa that altho’ God raised Jesus above all, and bestowed on him a portion of his peculiar power and influence, yet he did not make him cease to be a creature. : T 249 ) In my Second Appeal (page 14. and 15) 1D selected nineteen passages out of many in which Jesus distinctly disavows the divine nature and manifests his subordination to God; to which the Editor replies, ** they cam prove nothing to his purpose, till they shew that his thus becoming incarnate, changed that divine nature which’ he possessed from eter: nity &c.” I therefore take upon myself to ask the Rev. Editor, whether the following pas- sages found among those already quoted do not prove the entire bumanity of the son, or (in the words of the Editor,) a complete change in his divine nature, if he was ever possessed of it? “as the father gave me commandmené even so, Ido.” “1 CAN OF MINE OWNSELF DO NOTHING :” “all that the father giveth me shall come to me” “as my father hath taughé me I speck these things” “ Zo my father and your father and to my God and your God.” ‘Behold my servant whom I have chosen.” If these declarations do fall short of shewing the human nature of the person who affirms them, 1 as well as the Editor, would be at a loss to point out any ‘saying of any of the preceding prophets that might tend to substantiate their humanity. The 3 E.jitor may perhaps say, after the example of his orthodox friends, that these as well as other sayings to the same effect proceeded N 3 ( 250 7 from Jesus in his human capacity, I shall then entreat the Editor to shew me any au- thority in the scriptures, distinguishing one class of the sayings of Jesus Christ as man” from another set of the same author as God. Supposing Jesus was of a two-fold nature di- vine and human, as the Editor believes him to be; his divine nature in this ease, before his — appearance m this world, must be acknow- ledged perfectly pure and unadulterated by hu- manity: But after he had become incarnate, according to the Eviter, was he not made ofa mixed nature of God and man, possessing at One time both opposite sorts of conscious- ness and capacity? Was there not a cHANGE of a pure nature ivio a mixed one? J-will not, however, pursue the subject further now as I have already fully noticed it in another place. (page 137 ana 140.) The Editor adverts here to Heb. 1. 10. 1 Cor. XV. 24 and 25. but as T have ~ examined the former in page 122 and the lat- ter in page 126. I will not revert to the consis deration of them in this place. : At page 589. the Editor thus censures me ‘‘to say that in the mouth of the fa- ther “‘for ever and ever” means only a limited period, is to destroy the eternity of God himself,” and he quotes “ Jehovah shall reign . [ 251 for ever and ever.” If have shown by numer=: ons instances both in my Second and in the present Appeal, that the terms © for ever” ‘everlasting,’ when applied to any one except. God, signify \ong duration I therefore presume to think that the Editor might have spared this censure as being altogether undeserved. ] will here however point out one or two more passages in the mouth of the father, which contain the term “forever” and in which it Gan imply only long duration ; Gen. XVII. 8. And I will give unto thee and unto thy seed after thee—all the land of Canaan for an ever= lasting possession” Jeremiah Vil. 7. “ then will cause you to dwell in this place in the land that I gave to your fathers for ever and ever’ Daniel VIL. 18. * But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom forever even for ever and ever.” Is the land of Canaan now in possession of Israel; and will it remain in their possession after all rule, authority, and power have been put down, and after the son bas delivered up his kingdom to God the fa- ther of the universe? 1 Cor. XV. 24. and 28, The Editor in the course of this discussion notices Philippians Il. 6, whence he cone cludes that Jesus was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, { 252 ) yet took upon himself the form of a servant and became obedient to death: I will there. fore first give the verse as it stamds in the English version and for the purpose of shewe: ing the gradual progress of truth, I will add some subsequent translation of the same verse by eminently learned trinitarian authors, and finally transcribe it as found in the original Greek with a verbal translation, ’ English version: Philippians LI. 6. “ who, bee ing in the form of God, thought it not rpbheny to be equal with God.” Secondly in a new translation from the orie ginal Greek by James Macknight D. D. verse the 6. thus stands ‘ who being in the form of God did not think it robbery to be like God”, So John Parkhurst M. A. the author of a Greek and English Lexicon to the new Testament, who was also an orthodox writer, thus transe lates conformabiy to the opinion of Drs. Dode« drige and Whitby, two other celebrated ortho« cox writers. pave 322. ‘ Phil. II. 6,ro ewar coe Gew to be as God. Sowa 6c» is most exactly ren- dered agreable to the force of «a in many places in the LX X, which Whitby has collected in his note on this place. The proper Greek phrase for equal to God is «wo» 7p 6, which is { 235 ] used John V. 18.” “ therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath but said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God.” (This is not the only instance that the Jews misunderstood Jesus, for in many other instances they misconceived his meaning. John Il. 19. 21. ch. VI. 41. and 42, 52. 60) The term “to be like God” as it is used by several orthodox writers, neither amounts to an identity of one with the other, nor doesit prove an equality of the former with the latter. Genes sis I. 26. “God said let us make man in ourimage and after our likeness.” 1. Chroni- cle XII. 22. ‘‘at that time day by day there © came to David to help him, untilit was a great host dike the host of God.” XXVIII. 23. ‘“ Vhe Lord said that he would increase Israel like to the stars of heaven.” Zechari- ah XII. 8. “In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David: and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.” 2 John If]. 2. * But we know, that when he shail appear, we shall be like him &c.” Another trinitarian author Schleusner, in bie Lexicon to the new Testament renders the 0 3 t 264 Jj passage “non habuit predz loco similitudi- nem cum Deo.” “ He did not esteem likeness to God in the place of a prey.” The substance of this translation is adopted in the improved : version of the new Testament. 1°2 3dly. The original Greek runs thus é bg ey (NA Shs tgs > gulag age M 12 Hopdy Gov irapywy ovy apraypov yynsaro ro éwar 1a Oew A Since stage) "ing 5a)! gre eine Who in form of God being, not robbery 8 9 16 11 12 id th thought the being like God. Which word's arranged according to the English idiom, will run thus; ‘‘ who being in the form of God did not think of* the robbery the being like God.” This interpretation is most decisively confirmed by the context of the verse in question; verse “2nd. of the same chapter. “ Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory, but in low- ness of mind: let each esteem others beter than themselves (3.) and look not every man on his own things but évery man also on the things of others (4.). Leé this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus (5.) who being in the form * We find the verb yeopar implying to pies as wellas to think with « simple accusative, Peter 111.9. de reso Bpaduriira ¥ yyowvrat **as some men count sjackuess.” ( properly speakifg, ‘ ‘think of slackness,”” ) { 255 3. ‘of God did not think of the robbery of being like God (6.) but made himself of no reputation and took upon himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men.” Where the sense of a passage is complete without introducing an additional word more than is expressed, no one, unless devoted to the sup- port of some particular doctrine, would think of violating fidelity to the original text by in- terpolation in the translation. Here the apostle requires of us to esteem others better than ourselves, according to the example of hu- mility displayed by Jesus who, notwithstand- ing his Godly appearance, never thought of those perfections by which he approached man’s ideas of God, but even made himself of ‘no reputation. It would be absurd to point out one’s own opinion of his equality with God as an instance of humility. How can we be following the example of Christ, in thinking others better than ourselves, if he, as the orthodox say, did not think even his fa- ther higher than himself. We however must not suffer ourselves as to be misled by any such orthodox interpretation; to entertain so erro- neous an idea of Christ’s opinion of himself bearing in mind that Jesus himself proclaims “« my father is greater than 1” John XLV. 28. { 25S } - No one can be at a loss to understand the difference of essence between Christ and his creator God implied in the phrase.—“ Being in the form of God;” as the distinction between ‘‘ being God” and “being in the form of God” is too obvious to need illustration. Even Pare khurst one of the most’ zealous advocates for the trinity thought it absurd to lay stress on the term “ being in the form of God” in support of the deity of Jesus Christ (see page 443.) *‘popén perhaps from the Hebrew m2 appear. ance and 7» aspect. Outward appearance, form, which last word is from the Latin forma and this, by transposition, from the Doric Hopga for- popgn see Mark XVI. 12. (comp: Luke XXIV. 13.) Philippians il. 6. 7. where the 6. verse refers not, I apprehend, to Christ’s being real and essential God or Jehovah (though that he is so is the foundation of Christianity), but to his glorious appearance, as God before and under the Mosaic dispensation.” Should any one in defiance of the common acceptation of the word “form” and of every authority insist upon its implying real essence iu the phrase, ‘ Being in the form of God = 3 he must receive it in the same sense in the fol- lowing verse, ‘took upon himself the form of a servant:” and he must then admit and be- (57 4h) lieve that Christ was possessed of the real es- sence of God and the real essence of a servant. How can we reconcile real Godhead with reel servitude, even for a moment? Nor can the phrase “ was made in the like- ness of man” in verse 7th. be admitted to iden- tity him with Jehovah. any more than we can allow that Samson is so identified by the use of the parallel expression in Judges XVI. 7. and 17. “1 shail be weak and be as a man” | ‘© and be like any man.” In the English ver- | sion, the word other is found; that is, “ be like another man;” which is uot warranted by, the original Hebrew, as Mr. Brown, aa orthodox commentator, justly reiarks in the | Dlargin, The Editor says (page 580.) “relative to Christ's being the first-born of every ‘creature, we reply with Dr, Owen, whose work on Soci- piavnism has never been answered :—lIt is not said Christ 1s peroxrisoc, first created; but mpwroroxoc, * the first born” and Christ 1s so the first born, as to be the only begotten son of God, is so the first of every creature thatis, he is before them all, above them all, heir to thei all, and so no one of them.” Altho, both ‘ first-created” and “ first-born’ from the P 3 [ 258 J common acceptation of these words,equally im- ply a created nature, vet the reason for St. Paul’s choice of the word “ first born” is obyj- ous; for when used in reference to a crea- tion not produced in the natural course, first- born siguifies superiority to other creatures of the same class, and not “an only begotten son,” as Dr. Owen and the Editor seem to suppose. I will here point out the: sense in which the word “ first-born” is nsed in the scriptures, when obviously not relating to watural birth Exodus IV. 22. We find in the mouth of Jehovah himself Israel designat- ed by the terms “ my son, even my first born.” Again Jeremiah XXXL. 9. lama father to Jsrael, and Ephraim is my first born.” Psalm LXXXIX. 27. « I will make him (Da- ~via) my jirst born higher than the kings of the earth.” Aud now I will take upon myself to ask the Editor whether Israel, as well ag David, was so “ first born” as * to be the ouly begotten son of God” and was also “ before all the creatures, above them all, heir to them all, and-so no one of them” or whether that designation was not rather applied both to the pation and to the individual because they were principal pe sous and to shew that they were respectively choseu of God above the rest of his creation, Romans VIII. 29. « For whem ee ee ee ee) eee ( 2a God did fore-know he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his sou, that he might be the FIRST-BORN among many BRE THREN.” St John defines what would be under- stood by the term “ to be born of God.” Vide™ John lV.7. “ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God and every one that loveth ts born of God and knoweth God.” Hence Jesus is cousidered and declared to be the head of the children of God. So the term ‘“‘ only be- gotten son” signifies most beluved among chil- dren whether natural or spiritual, and not an only son of a father ; as we find in Heb. XT. 17. this very term applied to Isaac though Abraham had another son by Hagar. As to his assertion ‘ Christ is no one of “them” (that is of creatures) I only quote a few passages, in which Jesus himself aud his apos- tles enumerated him as “ one of them.” Mat- thew XXV. 40. “ verily l say unto you, in as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Here it is the king and Lord sitting upon the throne of his glory at the last day, who is ree presented as styling the poor and helpless his brethren. XXVIII. 10. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go and tell my brethren that they go into Galilee ; and there shall they [ 260 } seeme’ John XX. 17. “ But go to my bre. thren; and say unto them I ascend to my fa- ther and your father and to my God and your God” 1 Cor. 1X. 5. * As the brethren of the Lord and Cephas. Heb. If. 11. “ For he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of ° one (father) for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” (12) ‘ Saying I will declare thy name unto my brethren. In the midst of the church will I sing praise uuto thee. As to the Editor’s reliance on the subsequent verses to shew that the creation of ali things was effected by Christ, I refer my readers to page 110 of this essay where I observe that the apostle Paul means in these passages only the creation of all the things in the Christian — dispensation as is explained in Ephesians J, 2!. and 22, which represent Jesus as all things belonging to the church. I need not renew the subject of revelations repeated by the Editor as I have already examined it in page 200 and 223. T have shewn in pages 193 and 194 that whatever powerJesus possessed either as man, son of man, God, or son of God, he received the same from the father of the universe; theres { 261 ) fure the assertion of the Editor that (** certain powers were conferred on Jesus, not as a man —but as the Messiah, Christ, the anointed son of God”) is I presume one of the mysteries of the doctrine of trinity. How can the Editor reconcile the passages quoted in my Second Appeal to this assertion? Let him answer what is there advanced in the course of the discus- sion of this very subject, of a few points of which I] beg to remind him. Ist. “In John XVII. 5. ‘and now O father glorify me with thine ownself with the glory which I had with thee before the world was’ with the same breath with which he prays for glory, he identifies the nature, in which he does so, with that under which he lived with God before the creation of the world.” Is not this petition to God for glory by the same person who says he was with God before the foundatien of the world? Was he before the foundation of the world a man or of a two-fold nature human and divine? If he was God almighty before the foundation of the world, how could that God implore another being for the restoration of the glory, which he at one time had but lost subsequently? 2ndly. In John VIII. 42. Jesus declares that he came notof himself, but that God sent Q 3 [ 262 ] him. Does not he avow here that his coming to this world was not owing to his own will, but to the will of another being? Was he not” entirely at the disposal of God the Most High, even before his coming into this world? In Heb. X.5. 6. and 7. the apostle declares that Jesus, at the time of his coming to the world, saith, that God had prepared him a body, and that he comes to the world to do the will of God. fad he been God before he had come to this world, how could he, in common with all other creatures, attribute his own actions to the will of the supreme disposer of all sai events of the universe? The Editor next quotes a part of Heb. I. 12. thou art the same. This I have fully noti- ced in page. The Editor disapproves highly of my asser- tion in the Second Appeal “ Christ was veste. _ed with glory from the beginning of the world.” I therefore beg to quote one or two scriptural passages, which I hope will justify that asser- tion. | John If. 13. “ 1 write unto you fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginuing Rev. III, 14. these things saith the beginning of the creation of God.” . ‘The Editor insinuates that I have contra- dicted myself by “ ridiculing the idéa of ———— | [ 263 ] Christ’s having two natures” after I had des clared that Christ “lived with God before the” creation of the world” and that ‘‘it would have becn idle to have informed them (the Jews) that in his mere corporeal nature Jesus | was inferior to his maker, and it must there- fore have been his spiritual nature, of which | he here avowed his inferiority to God.” I can not perceive what contradiction there is in the assertion that Christ lived in the divine pur pose and decree* before the worid was, and that he not merely as a man, before the assuming of the office of the Messiah, was in- ferior to his creator, but that he was so even after he had been endowed with the holy spirit in the river of Jordan, and with the power of performing miracles, which is said to be a spiritual gift—Supposing he like Adam lived with God before his coming into this world, (according to the doctrines maintained ee * On John XVUIL.5. Hehad it (the same glory) with the fa- ther before the world was, that is, in the father’s purpose and decree: In the language of scripture, what God determines to bring to pass is tepresented, as actually accomplished, thus, the dead are represented as living, Luke XX. 36—38. Believers are spoken of as already glori- fied, Rom. VILE. 29. 30. Things thatare not, are calied as though they were, Rom. IV. 17. And in verse 12. of this chapter, Jadas is said to be destroyed, though he was then living and actually bargaining with the priests and rulers to betray his master see also verse 10. Epte 1.4, 2Tim. 1,9; Rey, XIIL 8; Heb. X.34. (Improved version.) ; [ 264 ]} by some Christians) and afterwards was sent to the world in the body of Jesus for effecting human salvation, as John the Baptist was es- teemed to be Elijah, even this doctrine does not preclude us from rejecting the idea of a two-fold nature of God and man. The Editor says that when “ he (Jesus) emptied himself of his glory, did he lay aside - his divine nature of which his glory was merely — a shadow.”? and then he recommends me to reflect for a moment on what the term glory implies: ‘understood either of praise or grandeur, it is merely the reflection or indica- tion of a glorious nature :” I have reflected for some years past and do now seriously reflect on the divine nature but I find it inconsistent with any ideal can admit of the eternal and unchangeable almighty that he should empty himself of his glory, (call it praise or grandeur which you like)though for a season, and shouid afterwards offer supplications for the same glo- ry to himself, as if another being, addressing that otherself as his own father, since God is often declared to have hardened the heart of men so to disqualify them from perceiving his glory, instead of having degraded himself by setting aside his own title to praise or the grandeur which is inherent in his nature. — ——— ee [265 ] The Editor adds “if it was deserved glory it was that cf which his nature was worthy, and the father’s giving it to him, when no being existed beside the sacred three, was the father’s attestation to the son’s eternal God- head.” If the father’s giving to Jesus deser- ved glory should be acknowledged as aount- ing “to his attestation to the son’s Godhead,” we must be under the necessity of admitting the attestation of Jesus to the eternal deity of his apostles from the circumstance of his hav- ing given them the same deserved glory—Johna XVII. 22. “and the glory which thou hast given me | have given them” &c. ‘The Editor twice says that ‘‘ Micah informs us that the son is from everlasting.” 1! wish he had mentioned the chapter and verse to which he alludes, that 1 might have examia- ed. the passage. He perhaps alludes to the phrase ‘ everlas- ting” found in the English version in Micah V. 2. “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 e- verlasting.” 1 will therefore quote Par- khurst’s explanation of the original Hebrew word coy which is translated in the English as me [ 266 } version ‘ everlasting;” and then notice the translation of this very Hebrew word in many other instances by the authors of the English version; and lastly I will repeat the context, that my readers may be able to judge whether any stress can be laid on the phrase alluded to by the Editor.— First from Parkhurst’s He brew and English lexicon “m >» or by is used both as nouns and participles, for time hidden and concealed from man, as well indefinite, Gen. XVII. 8. 1 Sam. XIII. 13. 2 Sam. XHe 10, and eternal, Gen. II}. 22. Ps. IX. 8, as fix nite, Exod. XIX. 9. XXI. 6,1 Sam. [. 22, comp. ver. 26. | Sam. XX VII. 12. Isa. XX Xe Il, 14; as well past, Gen. VI. 4. Deut. XXX- 11.7. Josh. XXIV. 2. Psal. XLE. 14. CXIII. 3. Prov. VILi. 23. as future. It seems to be much more frequently used for an indefinite, than for ¢nfinite, ime. Sometimes it appears partis cularly to denote the continuance of the Jes wish dispensation or age, Gen. XVII. 13. Exod. X{il. 14, 24. XXVII. 21, and al, freq, and sometimes the period of time to the Jubilee, which was an eminent typeof thecom=— pletion of the Jewish and typical dispensation by the coming and death of Christ.” 2ndly the » author of this lexicon (though devoted to the © cause of the trinity) gives the translation of the term ©>v found in Micah V, 2 im the +. ee { 267 j course of explaining the force of the word av. Says he “ Mic. V. 1, or 2. pnsyie and his (the Messiah’s) goings forth have been from of old, myn from the days of antiquity.” Sdly from the’ English version Isaiah LXIEV. ther he remembered the ‘days of old” or Sbyy'p, exactly asis found Micah V. 2. 1 Samuel * XXVIII. 8. “those nations were of old”? for the same Hebrew term ov. Deut. XX XI. 7. “remember the days of old” for the same Hebrew word. Genesis VI. 4. “ which were of old men of renown” for the same term by Psalm LXXVII. 5. “I have considered the days of old and the years of ancient times ;” here the term 1p which js rendered in Micah V. 2. “of old” and the term by translated in the same verse ‘everlasting’ are both men- tioned. 4thly The context is verse 2, 3. and 4. ‘whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting; therefore will he give them up. uns til the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth; the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel: and he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God &c.” Can the phrases “ fis God” “‘in the strength of the Lord,” and ‘hes brethren” be consistently used for one who is the everlasting God? If so, how can £ 263 3 we reconcile to our understanding the idea of tne everlasting God’s reigning in the strength of another, having the Jews as his brethren and looking up to another superior who is de- signated by “‘hisGod”? If a body of men distin- guished for their talents, learning, and situati- on in life, from time to time, be determined to support their long established inventions in de- fiance of scripture, reason, and common sense; how can truth make it’s appearance, when so violently resisted? In fact verse the 2d. of Micah thus correctly stands. “ Out of thee” (Bethlehem) shall he (the last expected Messiah) come forth unto me that is to be ry- ler in Israel whose sources* of springing forth have been from of ancient, from the days of old.” The Editor advances that ‘‘ even son” im- plies. an eqality of nature with the father cer- tainly it does so, wheu referred to one carnally besotten, but otherwise it signifies a distins en EE ere ee * These are the seed of Abraham and that of David through which God declares by the mouths of the ancient prophets that he will raise the Messiah to save the World—vide Parkhurst’s Hebrew Lexicon ** 3, the place whence any thing comes Job. XXVIII. 1. Isaiah LVI, U1, Psalm LXV. 9. LXXY. 7 in which last passage Rvp is ased for that part of the heavens whence the solar light sy» cometh forth i. e. the east, Comp Ps. XIX. 6. 7.” Parkhurst also rejects the popular meaning saying, ‘© nothis (Messiah’s) eternal generation from the father, as this word has been tortured to signify.” Ps [ 269 } guished creature. 1Chro. XXVIII.6. “ And hé said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shati build my house and my courts for I have chosen him to be my son and | will be his father.” Job. 1. 6. «When the sons of God came to present them- selves before the Lora” &c. Is Solomon because he is called ason of God to be considered a partaker of the divine nature? Are the angels designated ‘“ the sons of Goa” considered to ke of the same nature with the Deity? The Editor however adds (page 594.) “* our author hints that in the sacred writings others have been termed the sons of God, this how- ever only proves that Christ is by nature the son of God. while all others are the sons of God by adoption or metaphorically.” Vo es- tablish Christ’s being the only son of God he quotes Rom. VIIF. 32. mn which Christ is term- edsGod’s ‘own son, and John I. 16. where he says that “the holy spirit also terms him not merely the only son but the only begotten son of the father” 1 therefore quote here verse the 321d. in question, with the preceding verse of the same chapter of Romans. “ What shail we - then say to these things? lf God be for us, who " can be against us? He that spared not his own son but delivered him up for us all, how shall pot he with him also freely give us all things ” Here St. Paul proves beyond doubt the auili- © S 3 [ 270 .} mited mercy of God towards men, a8 mani- fested by his appointment of his own son to save mankind from death at the risk of the life of that son, without limiting the honour of aspiritual birth to Jesus and denying to others the same distinction, who, in common with Jesus, enjov it according to unquestionable sacred authorities. Deut. XXXII. 18. “of the rock that beoat thee thou art unmindful.”> Exodus IV. 22. Israelis my even my first born. 2 Samuel VII. 14. “ I will be his (Solomon’s) father and he shall be my son, if he coms mit tniquity I will chasten him with the rod of’ men and with the stripes of the children of men.” Did St. Paul mean to destroy the va- lidity of these as well as of many other texts toa similar effect, by representing Christ as the only being distinguished by the title of son of God and excluding angels, Adam, Isra- el, Solomon, and David from this spiritual dig- nity ? 1 firmly believe he did not. Ifa king, who-had several children, sent One of them to fight battles against those who. committed depredations on his subjects, and his son so sent, gained a complete victory in. that war but with the loss of his own life, and . if with a view to exalt or magnify the ate tachment of this sovereign to his poeple, one | ” ti ee of his subjects declares that his sovereion was so deeply interested in the protection of his peao- ple as to send bis own son, even the most be loved, to repel the enemies at the hazard of his life, and that he had not spared his own sonin securing the lives of his people: Does he confine the royal birth to that son or does he degrade other sons of the king from that dignity? 1 beg my readers will read Romans VII. 31. and 32. and reflect upon their purport—Besides we find in the original Hebrew Gen. 1}. 27. ‘God created man in his image” and in the English version “in his own image.” Did the original writer of Genesis mean that God created man in some fictitious or adop- ted image resembling that of God? Did the authors of the English version violate the original construction by adding the word “oun” to the phrase “in his image ?” Or did they add it only for the energy of expres- sion? Psalm LXVII. 6. “ God even our own God shall bless us’’-—does th2 writer here exe clade God from being the God cf the world, by the use of the word own in the verse, a- gainst the declaration of Paul: Rom. ITI. 29. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? yes of the Gentiles also.” [ 272 ] Or does heuse this word to shew the Israelites? especial attachment to God? In 1 Tim. 1. 2. Paul uses the expression ‘Timothy my own son Ww the faith” Did he thereby exciude his thousands of spiritual discipies frem being bis! sons in the faith? ) Ma In reply to his allusion to John f. 16 ine which Jesus is said to be “ the only begotten’ sou of the father.” I beg to refer the Editor to Hebrews XI. 17. “ By faith Abraham when’ he was. tried, offered up Isaac and he that had received the promises offered up his only be-\ gotten son.” Whence he may perceive that the» phrase ‘* only begotten”? implies only most he- loved among. the children, as Abraham had at that time another son beside Isaac namely Ishmael by Hagar given to him as his wife Gen. XVI. 3. and 15.. Were we to take the” word, of Juhu ‘ only begotten” in it’s literal» sense in defiance of Hebrew XI. 17, we must ' discredit the express word of God, declaring ' Israel his begotten and first born son, and * describing David to be his begotten son, wid It is worth noticing that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews applies the last phrase ‘‘ begotten ‘son” in an accommodated sense - to Jesus Heb. 1.5. I say in an accommodated © - nO sense, since in Psalm IJ. 7. it is David that declares, during the prosperous time of his reivn, ‘ The Lord hath said unto me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.” Besides how can the orthodox Christi- ans, who consider Jesus as the begotten son of God from eternity, with consistency main- tain the opinion that God had begotten bim at a particular day during the reign of David? They may perhaps apply some of their mys- terious interpretations to this passage of the Psalms; but they will of course, in that case, pardon my inability to comprehend them. I will not return to the subject of Rev. I. 8. and Hebrew I. 10., though the Editor recurs to them in this place. As to his frequent repetition of such phrases as “ Jesus is Jehovah God”—“ a tremendous being in his wrath” &c, I only say they are best calculated to work upon the minds of ibose that are brought up in the notion of the trinity, but do not carry any weight with them, in an argument subject to the deci- sion of an enlightened public. I asserted in my Second Appeal that Je- gus removed the doubt that arose with regard to the sense in which the unity should be T 3 taken in John X. 30. (“1 and my father are oue,’) by representing the unity so expressed to be such as he prayed might exist amongst his apostles, which was of course the unity of will and design and not identity of being, as is evident from John XVII. 11. “that they be one as we are” and verse 22, “that they may be one even as we are one,” on which the Editor makes the following remarks. “The declaration John XVII. 22. ‘that they be one even as we afe one’ was made ata time and to persons totally different from that in. John X. 30. ‘I and my father are one’ the latter was made to the gainsaying Jews, aud the former in prayer to his heavenly father; nor is there the least hint given that anv doubt had arisen among the disciples rese pectivg the expression ‘ "and my father are one.” It astonishes me very much to meet with a new rule laid down by the Editor that no commentary upon, or explanation of a pas. sage or phrase by the author of it can have any weight, if itis made or given at a subse- quent period in the conrse of a solemn pra- yer ‘to God, or before a body of new hearers, without an express declaration of their doubts as to the meaning of it. If this rule etand good, many commentaries aud notes by au- NT | [ 275 }. thors, on their respective works, must cease to be of use, and the universally adopted rule, that passages of scriptures should be explain- ed by their reference to one auother, must be annulled. In ch. X. 30. “Land my father are one.” Jesus declares unity to subsist between himself and God; and inch. XVII. 1f. and 22, by praying that “ they (his disciples) may he one as he and the father are une” he explains that the unity between him and the father was of the same kind as that which he prayed to be granted to his disciples; hence by the unity so prayed for cannot be meant any thing else than unity of will and design. Altho’ that unity may not be of the same degree that subsisted be- tween him and the father, vet the force of the preposition “as” shews that it is of the same kind. Jesus could not mean in praying for his apostles verse 11. an auity in nature among them, whence we might have inferred unity in nature between him and his God; since they were long before this prayer created in the one human nature: nor could he pray for a renewed spiritual nature to be given to them, (as the Editor thinks to be the case) becanse they were already endued with that spiritual union, as is evident from the passage [ 276 } of the very chapter XVII. “ they have kept thy word,”—* and have known surely that I came out from thee and they have believed that thou didst send me,”—“ they are not of the world even as I am not of the world, —*‘the glory which thou gavest me I have given them.” Bes sides unity in spiritual nature is not the same kind of unity which subsists between the individuals of one nature. Supposing unity of nature existed between God and Jesus Christ (as the Editor believes) in the same manner as it is found in one begotten by a man or anima! and his pas rents, and that Jesus actually meant by the words “‘ my father” in verse 30. to aflirm God to be his real father, would it not be quite. idle in Jesus to have declared that he as a son was of the same nature with his father, instead of saying that he was a son enter- taining the same will and design with his father, since the former circumstance is nas tural and obvious, but the latter is not ale ways found to exist, as we daily find among the children of men. Were the circumstance of one’s calling God his father received as a proof of his being actually the son of God, and, of course, of his unity in nature with the Deity, we must consider David as a real son of God , -3%7 3 atid of the same nature, (Psalm LXXXIX. 26. “he shall cry unto me, Thou art My FaTHER; my God and therock of my salvation’) and we also must esteem Israel one in nature with God; (Jeremiah III. 4.“ Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, MY FATHER ‘thou art the suide of my youth).” We must even admit all Christians to be one in nature with the father of the universe, for we are taught to pray to oUk FATHER in heaven Matthew VI. 9. ‘See also verses 1, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 18 and 32 of the same chapter: Johu XX. 17. “ My fa- ther and your father’ &c. 2 Cor. I. 3. “the father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fa- ther of mercies-&c.”” To enable my readers to take a clear view of this passage, I here quote the context, as well as the note found in the Improved Version upon it ; verses 29 and 80. «« My father, who gave them me, is greater than all: and none is able to pluck them out of my father’s hand.” ] and my father are one” that is “ To snatch my true desciples out of my hand would be to snatch them out of my almighty father’s hand ; because ‘ I and my father are one; one in design, action, a- szreement, affection. See ch. XVII. 11. 21. 22. 1 Cor. Ill. 8. “ Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one.” (Improved version) Both in the scriptures and in ordinary com- V3 { 278 Jj position, unity, when referred to two subs stances, implies invariably perfect concord of will or some other qualities and by ne means oneness of nature;a fact which my readers will perceive by a slight attention to the coms mon usage of language and also tothe fale lowing verses—Gen. II. 24. “ and he (the hus- band) shall cleave unto his wife and they two shall be one flesh” Ezekiel’ XXXVI. 19, «I will take the stick of Joseph and will put them with him, even with thestick of Judah and make them one stick and they shall be one in mine hand” 1 Cor. X. 17. “* For we being ma- nv, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” | IT vever amused myself with the thought that Christ did ‘ pray that his disciples might be one with him and his heavenly father, nor did | ever rejoice atthe idea that Jesus “a man approved of God” was: one in nature with the invisible Most High; I only observed in my Second Appeal, that if trinitarian au. thors succeeded in their attempt. to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ from a perverted inter- pretation of such phrases as “the father in me and J in him,” —* hedwelleth in God and God in him,” they would unavoidably increase the number of the persons of the Godhead much [ 279 ) heyond three, since similar expressions are frequently found applied to the disciples of Jesus—Jdohn XIV. 20. ‘* At that day ye shall know (addressing himself to his disciples) I am in my father and ye % me aud I an you XVII. 21. ‘thou father art in me and {in thee that they may be also one im us’ John VE. 56. ‘He that eateth my flesh ana drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and Liv him.” 1 Joho HV. 15. ‘whosoever shall confess that Jesus is }| the son of God— God. dwelleth in him and he }/ in God.” 2 Peter I. 4. “ that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.” _ The Editor seems displeased at my shaving declined to submit indiscriminately to my countrymen the whole doctrine of the aew Testament, because certain passages therein having undergone human distortions, occasion much dispute. 1 therefore beg to refer him to page 14 of this Essay as weil as to all church history, which sinew that my plan was conformable to the example laid down by the apostles and primitive Christians, who used to accomodate their instructions to the gra- dual progress of their followers. In answer to his question ‘“‘ haw was it that L did not feel struck’ with the absurdity eee ofa creature’s creating all things” &e, I beg oniy to reply by another question viz. how does the Revd. Editor justify the idea that one, who was in the human shape possessed. of human feelings and subject to the calls of nature, was the very God whom he defines as existing for ever, immaterial, invisible, and above all mortal causes or effects ? The Revd. Editor says that “nothing can be more incorrect than. my assertion page 26. that Jesus in John X, disavowed the charge of making himself God :—after having borne the fullest testimony to his equality with Godinch. V. and VIL, at length prevari- cates and retracts for fear of death.’ I there. fore refer to ch. V. and VIII. and now ask the Editor whether he calls the following | sayings of Jesus found in ehapter V. and VIII. the fullest testimonies to his equality with God? “The son can do nothing of himself,”—«for the father loveth the son and sheweth him all things that himself doth,”—“ so the son quick- eneth whom he will; for the father judgeth no man but hath comonitted all judgement unto’ the son,’—‘ he that heareth my word and be- lieveth on him that sent me hath everlasting life,”"—« so hath he given to theson tohave life in himself and hath given him authority” &c. ‘J [ 281 j can of my mine ownself do nothing,’ —I seek not mine own will, but the will of the father who hath sent me,’—* for the works which the father hath given me to finish &c.—f am come ia my father’s name”’—Ch. ViIL. * but he that sent me is true,” —* 1 do nothing of myself but as my father hath taught me [ speak these things.”— * But now ve seek to kill me a man that hath told youthe truth which I have Aeard of God,” — “ neither came 1 myself but he sent me,”—“ L seek nct mine owa glory,’ —* [know him (God) and keep his saying”* Do these testimonies a- mount to the equality of Jesus with hisGod and father? If so, the Editor must have in view a definition of the term “equality” quite different from that maiutained by the world. Lat the same time entreat the Editor to point outa single verse in either of these two chapters con- ~ taining a proof of the equality of Jesus Christ with God, setting in defiance all the phrases, I have now quoted from these very chapters. After reflecting upon the above cited phrases — the Editor will, I hope, spare the charge that Jesus “at length prevaricates and retracts for fear of death;” for, his disavowal of deity in ch, X. 36. was quite consistent with all the doc- trines and precepts that he taught in the evane Sage ae ae EL TE Re ‘* Asto Johe V. 23. I beg to refer my readers to the 310 quent chapter, of thie Bssay where I will examine the sam= verse fully, U 3 eilical arienyl (Vide the whole of. ‘the fie Gospels.) i . re hs The Editor then adds that “ the confession (in X. 34, 35. and 36.) which our author terms — a‘disavowal of deity, was the very confession — for which they songht again to take him, be-— cause they still thought he made himselfGod.” J-am therefore under the necessity of quoting the context to shew that the Jews seemed appeased at ‘the explauation given by Jesus himself as to their misunderstandiog of him, and that they sourht again to takehim, on aes’ count of another subsequent assertion of his ;_ The context is (32.) ‘* many good works have ' 1 shewed ‘you from my father, for which of those works do ve stone me?” (33) The Jews answered him soying, fura good work we stone — thee not; but for blasphemy and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God; (34.) Jesus answered them, is it not written in your Jaw; T-said. ve are Gods? (35) If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, (and the scriptare cannot be broken) 36. Say ye of him whom the father hath sanctified and sent’ into the worid, thou blasphemest; because £ said, [ am the son of God ? (37.) If Ido not the works of my father, believe me not » (38) but if 1 dé, théugh ye believe me not, believe the . works: that ye may know and believe that the father is in me* and Lin him: (39) therefore they sought again to take him: but he escap-+ ed out of their hand.” Does not Jesus here appeal to scripture, on the ground that if the sacred writings, every assertion of which is bat true, are justified in calling magistrates” and prophets Gods, and that the Jews in read- ing the scriptures styled those superiors by the epithet Gods in conformity to their scrip- tures, they could net in justice accuse him, the sanctified Messiah of God, of blasphemy for his having called himself only the son of God. Does not Jesus here justify the use of the phrase “son of God” for himself, in the same metaphorical sense that the term“ Gods” was used for the magistrates and prophets among Israel? Ifso, he of course relinquishes ‘his claim to the use of the phrase * God” and ‘son of God” in its real sense. [fa commoner, who holds a high situation under Government, suffers himself to be called * honourable” and consequently be accused of presumption in permitting himself to be designated by that title, on the ground that he was not actually the son of a nobleman, would he not jnsufy ® [have already in a preceding page (278) stated that such a phrase as sone is in another and the other isin him’ implies in scriptural lan- guage only unity in design and will, asit is frequently applied to the apostles i in reference to God and to their Lord and master Jesus Christ. f 284 ] himself against this charge, by saying © You call all the judges Words in their judi- cial capacity, though they are not noblemen by birth yet you charge me (who hold a more dignified situation than the judges) with ar- rogance, because I suffer myself to be addres- sed as “honourable” a title which the chil-— dren of noblemen enjoy.” In following the ex- ample of Jesus, I naw appeal to scripture and also to common sense, that my readers may judge thereby whether verses 34. 35. and 36. contain a confession of Godhead or a disavowal of deity made by Jesus him- self. It is not only a single instance, in which Je- sus omitted to correct the Jews in their mis= conceiving the phrase “ the father is in me and I in him” (verse 38.) but in many other instances, he left them in ignorance. John If. 19. and 21. When Jesus told the Jews to des- troy the temple, that he might raise it again in three days, they misunderstood him and supposed that he intended to raise the temple of Jerusalem and found fault with him from this misconceived notion before the high priest: John II. 21. “ but he spoke of the temple of his body.” As well as John VIL. 34—36. VIII. 21. and 22. as I noticed 2 Sa in eee : [; 28m } before in page 101,253. The Editor, lastly, says. that ‘Jesus at last chose to die under this. very charge rather than clear up the mistake, , if it was such. ‘This was their last and grand charge ‘we havea law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the. ‘son of God,’ which they esteemed blasphemy, worthy of death.” The Editor must be well aware that the Jews had such an inveterate enmity against Jesus that they notonly charged him with what they found in him contrary to : ‘their law, but even with wilful exaggerations: John V. 15. “The man departed and told the Jews, that it was Jesus who. had made him - whole: 16. And therefore did the Jews perse- cute him (Jesus) and sought to slay him, be- cause he had done these things on the sab- bath day ;” (to perform a cure on the sabbath day is supposed by the Jews to be a breach of the traditions of | the elders and not a crime worthy of death, yet they sought to kill Jesus under that pretence) 17. ‘ but Jesus answered them, my father worketh hitberto and 1 work: therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath but said also that God was bis father, making himself equal with God.” _Altho’ the Jews, in their own defence, called God their father, without subjecting themsel- w 3 [ 286 ] ves to the charge of blasphemy, (John VIII. 41. “we have one father even God”) yet they sought to kill Jesus on the false ground, that he equa- lized himself with God by calling God his fa- ther—It is worth observing that lest the Jews’ should infer his independence in doing miracles and wrest his words from the purpose, (“ my’ father worketh hitherto and I work”) Jesus firmly avows his entire dependence on God’ in whatever he had performed, in verse 19. (‘verily I say unto you the san caw do nothing himself &c.”) and also in the following verses ; in so much that the Jews being unable to find — any plea for his destruction, remained quiet and left Jesus in peace. Vide the whole of chap- ter Sth. In Luke XXIII. 2. the Jews charged him with having perverted the nation by re- presenting himself as their king and having | forbidden to give tribute to Cesar; a charge which was full of misrepreseatation. Let us return now to the text quoted by the Revd. Editor “ we havea law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the son of God”? Whence it is evident that notwithstanding the great hatred which the — Jews entertained towards our saviour, and the misrepresentation they were a guilty of in their accusation against him, the severest charge os Seen OE f 287 ) which they preferred under the pretence of religion was that “ he made himself the gon of God” and they would have of course accused him of having made himself God, to Pilate whom they found inclined to release Jesus and in presence of the mul titude, this being better calculated to ex- cite the wrath of the latter and horor of the former, had the Jews ever heard him declare himself God or say any thing that amounted to his claim to the Godhead. The high priest - and other chief accusers knew very well that their people were taught to consider God as their father and to call themselves the children of the Most High (correctly speaking the sons of the Most High, Psalm LXKXXII. 6.) and this idea was so familiar a- mong them, that Jesus also admitted them to be the particular children of the Deity; Mark VII. 27._ “* But Jesus said unto her let the children first be filled &c.” The Editor says (page 597.) that “our author queries on what principle any stress ean be laid on the prophetic expression quoted in Heb | from the Psalms ‘thy throne O God is for ever and ever,’ we reply merely on this prin- ciple, that it is spoken by God who cannot lie? Are not these words also “ ye are Gods’ [ 288 ] spoken by him’ who cannot lie? Is not the very verse of Hebrews ‘“ thy throne O God is for ever and ever” applied originally to Solo- mon by him who cannot lie, and in an acco- modated sense to Jesus by the apostle? I will not introduce the subject again, it havinz heen noticed in page 120. The Editor expresses his astonishment at what I say in the Second Ap- peal, that the phrase “for ever” must mean a limited time when referred to an earthly king or a creature ; and therefore it carrys no weisht in the proof of the deity of Jesus, wheu applied to him. The reason which he assigns for his surprize is, How could 1 take this phrase ina finite sense when applied to Jesus the eternal Jehovah? Did not the Editor feel astonished at the idea that he employs the application of the phrase “forever” in his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus and then employs the circum. stance of the eternal deity of Jesus, for the purpose of proving that infinite duration is un- derstood by the phrase “ for ever” when re- ferred to Jesus. As he admits that ‘for ever’ when refer. red to a creature, implies a limited time only, he therefore must- spare this phrase and try to quote some other term peculiar to God, in his endeavour toestablish the deity of Jesas, { 289 j The Editor says that the expression of Je- sus to Mary John XX. 17. ‘“‘Goto my bre- thren and say unto them, I ascend unto my father and your father and to my God and your God” was merely in bis haman nature— I wish the Editor had furnished us with a list, enumerating those expressions that Je- sus Christ made in his human capacity, and another shewing such declarations as he made in his divine nature, with authorities for the distinction. I might have in that case atten- tively examined them as_ well as their autho- rities. From his general mode of reasoning 1 am induced to think, that he will sometimes be obliged, in explaining a single sentence in the scriptures, to ascribe a part of it to Jesus as a man and another part to him in his divine pature. As for example John V. 22. and 23. “For the father judgeth no man but hath com- mitted all judgement unto the son; that all men should honor the son, even as they honor the father, he that honoreth not the son, honoreth not the father who sent me.”’ The first part of this sentence “hath committed all judgement unto the son” must have been (according to the Editor) spoken in the human nature of Jesus Christ, since the almighty in exercising his power does not stand in need of another’s vesting him with that power. The second X 3 part of the same sentence “all mea should honor the son as they honor the father” must be ascribed by the Eaitor to Jesus as God, he having been worthy to be honoured as the father is—and the last part “ who hath sent me’ relates again to Christ’s human capacity, since it implies his subjection to the disposal of another. Is this the internal evidence of Christianity on which the orthodox divines lay stress? Surely not. As to the exclamation of Thomas John XX. 28.“ My Lord and my God” it is neither a confession of the supreme deity of Jesus by him, nor is it a vain exclamation, since it is evidéut from verse the 25th, that Thomas doubted Christ’s resurrection without any re- ference to his deity, and that when he saw Je.’ sus and the print of the nails, he believed it, and being struck with such a circumstance, made the exclamation “my Lord and my God” according to the invariable habits of the Jews, Arabs, and aimost all other Asiatic nations, who, when struck with wonder, often make exclamations In the name of the deity; and that Jesus from these apparent circumstances ~ and having perceived his heart, says “ because thou hast seen me thou hast believed :” (29.) by which Jesus acknowledges the belief of sal 5 ata a” te -" morgen gGananete, 2. 4 & 23am ~) Thomas in the fact which he doubted in verse 25 ;. that is, his resurrection, for the subject in question as it stands in the context has no al- Jusion to the deity of Jesus and the form in. which a confession is made is totally different. from that of exclamation, both in the scripturgs and in ordinary language. Howcan Thomas be supposed to have meant to confess the deity of Jesus in a mere exclamation ‘my Lord and my God” without adding some phiase convey- ing confession such as “ thou art” my Lord and my God and “I believe you to be” my Lord and my God? [beg that my readers will attentively refer to the context and to the common habits of Asiatics on eccasions similar to this, and form their opiuion respecting this subject, The Editor quotes Matthew V. 87. which with its context forbid ali sorts of swearing; but what relation this has to the exclamation of Thomas in John XX. 28. I am unable to dis- cover. The Editor quotes six passages from the Gospel and the Book of the Revelations, four of which I have already e xamined and f£ no- tice now the remaining two verses. First John 1. 1. “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was Ged.” By the first sentence (“in the beginning { 293 J was the word” ) the Editor attempts to prove the eternity of the son; by the second Ne the word was with God”) his distinct personality; and by the third (‘the word was God”) his deity. : Let us first take this verse in it’s literal sense and ascertain whether or not itis, in that case, intelligible. “In the beginning”’ i. e. in the first time ; -* was the word” i. e. existed such a sound as was capable of conveying ameaning: “the word was with God” i.e. this sound existed in the Deity, since no sound can exist of itself. ‘The word was God” i.e. the word was the deity, or a deity, or being like other attributes of the deity, it was divine —The whole verse thus stands “from the beginning the word of God, or Revelation manifesting his will and command- ments, existed with him as God himself;” and by the same word God made or esta- blished all things; as the Jewish and Mohum- mudan, as well as Hindoo theologians believe, on the authority of the works respectively ac- knowledged by them, that God made and es- tablished all things by his word only. Vide Gen. I. 3. et seq. And he communicated that Revelation to the world through Jesus Christ, (as testified before hand by John the Baptist) [ 293 ] for the purpose of effecting the salvation of those that received and believed the authority of that Revelation. This is detailed throughout verses 2—12.* In verse 13 and 14. John express- ly personifies “ the word” in Jesus as the bearer and deliverer of that Revelation “the word was made flesh (or the word was flesh) and dwelt among us” &e. To explain fully this metaphort- cal representation, John designates Jesus by this name with the additional words “ of life” once in his epistle 1 John I. 1. “The word of life” and with the aretete words ‘of God” once in Rev. XIX. 13. “His name is cailed the word of God” whereby he mani- fests that Jesus, as the deliverer of the word of God, is calied by that name, and not actu- ally identified with the word, as otherwise might have been supposed from his Gospel J. 1. John I. 1. is not the only instance 4 in which an attribute of the deity is thus represented as one with God; for the very same writer identifies love with the deity in John IV. 8 and i6 oo the ground that love is of God and is manifested in the world by him. 1 John IV. 7. Se EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIEREREEED Sil “The reason for the use of the mascoline gender in these verses both in the original Gospel and in the English version is obvious as the original word Noyog siguifying the ** word’? is masculine. Vg f 294 4 Secondly, I have to notice the orthodox ex. ‘position of the verse in question; they inter- pret the word “ beginning” as signifying all e.ernity, and by the term “ word” they under- stand Jesus the son of God; that is, from all eternity the son of God existed with God dis- tinct in person, and he was also God. The in- terpretalion is, | presume, equally unscriptural as it is revolting to the understanding, and for ‘several reasons: First. As long as a passage can be consistently taken and understood in ‘it’s literal sense, there can be no apology for iaking it in a figurative one. Here we find no authority for identifying Jesus with the “word” or designating him by that term in any of the preceding Gospels ; he is only figuratively so called in Rev. by the name of ‘the word of God’ Under these circumstances, to under- stand Jesus literally and so abruptly by the term “ word” in John 1. 1., (against the esta- blished doctrine of the Jews and the rest of the oriental nations) and to assume this word as existent in the beginning and as instrumental in the hands of God in moral and physical creations, is entirely inadmissable. 2ndly. The Evangelist John in his Gospel uses the word “ beginning” in a finite sense and generally ime plying the beginning of the Christian cispensa- tion, John XVI. 4. XV. 27. VIII. 25. 44. VI. r 295 J 64. Il. 11. and not once for “ all eternity.” Hence to understand the word ‘ beginning” in an infinite sense is opposed to the sense a= dopted throughout the whole of his Gospel. 3rdly. In the first verse of Genesis ‘“ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” we find in a similar connection the same phrase “ in the beginning.” Were we to follow the orthodox interpretation and take jt in an infinite sense, (i. e. from eternity God created the earth and heavens) we should be compelled to profess the eternity of the world and become materialists. 4thly. ‘To acknow- ledge the son to be the true God and to have lived with the true God from eternity destroys at once the idea of the unity of God and proves, beyond every question, the plurality of the Deity. For, if we see, one real man living with another real man, though both of them are one in nature and Gesign, are we not compelled by the ordinary cours? of nature to apprehend the duality of man, and to say that, there are two men? Can orthodox jogenuity prove that there are not two but one man, or prevent the comprehention of the duality of man? If not, I wish to know whee ‘ther after admitting that the real God, the son, ‘exists with the real God, the father, from eter- nity, the Editor can consistently deny the ex- f 296 ] istence of two real Gods? Sthly. The exposition of the Editor must render John I. 1. direetly contradictory of Deut. XXXII. 39. “ Iam he and there is no God with me.’ Here Jehovah himself expressly denies having another real God with him in the universe, for he is often said to have had fictitious Gods with him, and therefore Jehovah's denial in this verse must be referred and confined to real Gods: Psalm LXAXXII. 1. © God standeth in the congrega- tion of the mighty, he judgeth among the Gods.” He then addressed himself to those nominal Gods of Israel, among whom he stood “I said ye are Gods.” (in verse 6) But we firmly believe that John, an inspired writer, could not utter any thing that might contra- dict the express declaration of Jehovah, though the Editor and others, froma mistaken notion ascribe this contradiction to the Evangelist, Gthly. They thus render the last sentence of the verse “‘the word was God” without the indefinite article “a” before “God,” while they translate Exodus VII. 1. “I have made thee (Moses) a God to Pharoah,” though in the original Hebrew there stands only the word conds or “God” without the indefinite article ‘*a” before it. Ifregard for the divine unity induced them to add the article “a” in the verse of Exodus “ a God to Pharoah,” why F 297 2 did not the same regard, as well as a desire of consistency, suggest to them to add the article “a” in John I. 1. *‘ the word was a God?” We may however easily account for this inconsistency. The term ‘‘ God” in Exodus is applied to Moses, the notion of whose deity they abhor, but as they meant to refer the same term in John J. 1. to Jes sus (whose deity they are induced by their education to support) they leave the word ‘‘ God” here without the article “a” and eare- fully write it with a capital G. Lastly, if eternity be understood by the phrase “ In the beginning” in John J. 1. and Jesus Christ be literally understood by the “worpb” then we shall not only he compelled to receive Christ as an eternal being but also his apostles, Since Luke (Chap. IJ. 2.) speaks of himself and his fellow-disciples as “eye witnesses and mins isters of the word from the beginning.” 3rdly. I shall now quote the interpretation of this passage by searchers after truth who have been enabled to overcome their early ac- quired prejudices. See Improved version for which the Christian world is indebted to its eminently iearned authors. ‘* The word] *‘ Jesus is.so called because God revealed himself or his word by him.” Newcome. The same title . Z3 [ 298 }j is given to Christ, Luke I. 2. For the same reason he is called the Word of life, 1 John 1. 1. which passage is so clear and useful a com- ment upon the proem to the gospel, that if may be proper to cite the whole of it. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon. and our hands have handled of the Word of life, for the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and ' show unto you, that eternal Lefe which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us, that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.” Bya similar metonymy Christ is called the Life, the Light, the Way, the Truth, and the Resurrection. See Cappe’s Dissert. vol. J. page 19.” “In the beginning.) Or, from the first 1. e, from the comm-ncement of the gaspel dispen- sation, or of the ministry of Christ. This is the usual sense of the word in the writings of this evangelist. John VI. 64, Jesus knew from the - beginuing, or from the first ; ch. XV. 27, ye have been with me from the beginning. See ch. XVI. 143 11.24; IIL. 113 also 1 John J. 1; IJ. 7.8; 2 John 6,7. Nor is this sense of the , word uncommon in other passages of the New Testament, 2 Thess. II, 13; Phil. 1V. 15; Luke I, 2.” ; - { 299 j « The Word was God.) He withdrew from the world to commune with God, and to receive divine instructious and qualifications previous= ly to his public miuistry. As Moses was with God in the mount, Exod. XXXIV. 28, so wag Christ in the wilderness, or elsewhere, to b2 instructed and disciplined for his high and ime portant office. See Cappe, ibid. p. 22.” ‘ And the Word was a God.) “* was God,” Newcom-. Jesus received a commission as & prophet of the Most Hich, and was invested with extraordinary miraculous powers. But in the Jewish phraseology they were calied gods to whom the word of God came. Jobn &. 3. So Moses is declared to be a god to Pharoah. Fxod. VIL. 1. Some translate the passage, God was the Word. q d. it was not so proper- ly he that.spake to men as God that spake to them by him. -Cappe, ibid. See John X.30. compared with XVI. 8, Ib. 16; U1. 34; Vv. Uo. XIf. 44, Creilius conjectured that the true reading was Oc, the Word was God’s q. d. the first teacher of the gospel derived his commis- sion from God. But this conjecture, however plausible, rests upon no authority.” “ Was in the beginning with Ged} Before he entered upon his ministry he was fully instrac- - ted, by intercourse with God, in the nature and extent of his commission.” { 300 3} ‘ All things were done by him.) “ All things were made be him, and without him was not avy thing made that was made.” Newcome: who explains it of the creation of the visible material world by Christ, as the agent and in- stument of God. See his notes on ver, 3. and 10. But this is a sense which the word evyevero will not admit. ywoua occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but ne- ver in the sense of create, It signifies in this gospel, where it occurs fifty-three times, to be, to come, to become, to come to pags: also, to be done or transacted, chap. XV. 7: XIX. 36. It has the latter sense, Matt. V. 18; VI. 8; XXII. 42; XXVI. 6. All things in the eng tian dipeuwaent were done by Christ, i. e, by his authority, and according to his direce tion; and in the ministry committed to his . apostles nothing has been done without his warrant. See John XV. 4, 5, “‘ Without me ye can do nothing.” Compare ver. 7, 10, 16; John AVIT. 8; Col. I. 16, 17. Cappe, ibid.” Verse 14,“ Nevertheless, the Word was flesh. ‘“Yhough this first preacher of the gospel was honoured with such signal tokens of divine confidence and favour, though he was invested with so veh 2p oflice, he was, nevertheless, a nortad man.” Cappe. In this sense the word fiesh is used in the preceding verse. Flesh,” a eS = [ 30h 7: says Mr. Lindsay, Sequel to the Apology. p.. 136, ‘tis frequently put for man,”’ Psalm LXV.., 2; Rom. Ill. 20. But it frequently and pecu-> liarly stands for man as mortal ; subject to infirmities and sufferings; avd as such is par- ticularly appropriated to Christ here, and in, other places. 1 Tim. JIL. 16; Rom. J. 3; 1X. ; 5; 1 Pet. IIL. 18; LV. 1. g Aoyoc capé eyevero, the Word was flesh, not became flesh, which is Newcome’s translation, or, was made flesh, — which is the common version. The most usual meaning of ywoua is to be. In this sense eyevero is used in this chapter, ver. 6; also in Luke. XXIV. 19. The things concerning Jesus of: Wazareth, 6c eyevero, who was, not who became a prophet. See Cappe, p. 86; and Socinus-in loc.” Now my readers may judge which of these interpretatiuns of John J. J. is consistent wtith scriptural authority and conformable to the, human understanding. The Editor denies positively the charge of admitting three Gods, though he is in the prac- tice of worshiping God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. I could wish to know what he would say when a Hindoo also would deny polytheism on the same principle, that if three separate persons be admitted to A 4 make one God and those that adore them be ~ esteemed as worshippers of one God, what obe jection could be advanced justly to the oneness of three hundred and thirty three million of persons inthe Deity and to their worship in different emblems ; for, oneness of three or of thirty millions of separate persons is equally impossible according to human experience and Greats supportable by mystery er The laine passage of John quoted by the Editor which I have not yet noticed is John XVi 30.‘ Now are we sure that thou knowest all things.” I adiii that Jesus knows all things concerning his ministry and the execution of final judgmeat but not those that bear no re- Jation to either of them as I noticed in page 119, 200, and 223, since the phrase “all things” is very often used ina definite sense, both in the oldand new Testaments. In Joshua I. 17. when the people said “ we hearkened to Moses in all things” they meant of course things with regard to the civine commandments. So in Mate thew XVII. i1. Elias is said to have “ restor- ed all things” that is all things concerning © his office as the forerunner of the Messiah. In Mark XIif. 23. Jesus said to his disciples’ ‘I have foretold you all things” of course’ “what respected their salvation. Ephesians Vi. [ 303 } 24. “ Tychicus a beloved brother, and faith. fal minister in the Lord, shall make known to» you all things” of coure belonging to their. salvation. Besides, the scriptures inform us that those who devote themselves to the con; templation of the Deity are endued with the free gift of knowing all things; but from this circumstance they are not considered to be elevated to the nature of God, nor numbered , as persons of the Godhead. Proverbs XXVIIL.j 5. “ They that the seek Lord, understand all) things” 2 Tim, 44.7. ¢ and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.” 2 Samuel XIV. 20,“ Aud my Lord is wise according to the wisdom of an angel of God to know all things that are in the earth.” The Editor quotes Panl (page 598.) “ God our saviour” and 1 Peter ‘ the righteousness of God and our saviour Jesus Christ’ and also- Jude ‘‘to the only wise God our saviour.” He in‘ends perhaps to shew that as both God and Jesus are styled. ‘* Saviours” conse- quently Jesus is God—I have fully noticed. thatseveral others, beside Jesuz, were like him appointed by Gos to save people from time fo, time and named saviours in the scriptures; but that the use of this appellation does not serve to prove the deity of any of them, vide. page 64 and 67, ‘i { 304 }J The Editor expresses his despite of Hindoo polytheism triamphing in his own pure profess sion. 1 wonder how it could escape the notice of the Editor that the doctrine of plurality in unity maiutained by him, and that professed by! Hindoos stand on the same footing, since the | Editor, as well as the Hindoos, firmly declares the unity of God while at the same time both acknowledge the plurality of persons under the same Godhead, although they differ from each other in the exact number. The follows ing passage quoted by the Editor “the Gods- who have not made the heavens and the earth, shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens” is equally applicable to several of the divine persons of botii parties. In answer to the Evitor’s query, Where does — the unity of mankind exist? Il entreat to be allowed to ask the Editor where the unity of: the Godhead exists? If he say that it is one divine nature that exists between the three sacred persons, I answer that the unity of mankind is one human nature and exists bee tween so many individual persons. In answer to his question, When were all , mankind one even iu design and will? I shall say that mankind has always been one in nature {; 305: ] and shall be one even in will and design, jn the glorious and prosperous reign of Christ; and that present difference in wil and design or in rank and situation a- mong its persons does not preclude them from unity of nature ag the Editor himself admits that ‘one equal in nature to ano- ther may yet be subordinate in office.” Be- sides, we find that the will of God the Father ~ was sometimes at variance with that of God the Son; Matthew XXVI. 39. “ O my father if , it be possible Jeé this cup pass from me, ne- verthless, not as J weil but as thou wilt.” Mark | XIV. 36. “and he (Jesus) said Abba father, all things are possible uuto thee, take away this cup from me ; neverthless not what J wiil, but what thon wilt.” The Editor appeals to common sense Say- ing that ‘‘ she sees around her every day” that one man “equal in nature to another is yet subordinate in office.’ 3 She sees so indeed; but when she sees one Man equal in nature to another, she reckons them two men, whether one is subordinate in office to the other or not. To this part of the evidence I beg the Editor will pay some attention. It is indeed astonishing that in ail bis illustra- tions, the Editor brings the Godhead to a level Ba4 [ 306 }. with any zenus including various’species under it, but feels offended, if any one should oneete this fact to him. The Editor says (page 601.) “Nor is: it true that it was the constant practice of the Saviour to pray to the Father for the power of working miracles; for he never did them in his Father’s name, as was the invariable prac- tice of the ancient prophets.” In reply to this 1 only refer the Editor to John XI. 41, to Matk VIII. 6. where we find Jesus had actually pray- ed to the father in raising the dead and breaking the bread; and especially to John XI. 42. in which Jesus by saying ‘ thou hearest me ad. ways’ avows that during the whole period of his executing the diviue commission, God heard his supplications, though in several instances of performing miracles, he had not used ver- bally the name of God, in imitation of the practice of some of the ancient prophets. See 2 Kings V. 27. in which Elisha is said to have made Gehazi a leper, without verbal supplica- tion to God and in ch. IL. 10. Elijah bestowed on Elisha his power of performing miracles, without praying verbally tothe Most High. As to the Editor's assertion that “he never did them (miracles)inhis Father'sname” Lagainreferhim — to John X. 25, “the works that 1 do en my fae [ 307.) ther's name they bear witness of me” V, 43. «I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not, ifanvther shall come in his own name him ye will receive” Here Jesus rests his divine com- mission on the name of God and rejects the claims of any one who comes in hisown name. He certainly sent hisdisciples to work miracles in his own name as the Messiah sent from God, that his apostles might procure faith in him from Jews and Gentiles, whereby they both ’ might have th-ic access to God through, him. Matt. X. 40. 41. 42. ‘‘ he that receiveth you, re- ceiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him ¢hat sent me. -He that rececveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a pro- phev’s reward ; and he that receiveth a righte- ous mau in the name of a righteous man shall seceive a righteous man’s reward, And whoso- ever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.” These shew evidently that man should be rewarded for any act that he may perform in the name ofa disciple, even in the name of a righteous man. How much more is he ¢» be approved in the sight of God if he acts inthe name of the Messiah of the Most High. { 308 ]j I do not wonder at the idea of Christ’s em- powering his apostles to work miracles when we find other prophets doing the same at their ewn choice as I have often noticed. The Editor says, “if it be declared in scripture that the Father created all things by and for the Son, - it proves only that the Son is equal to the Fa- ther” and that the passages ‘he hath given to -the son to have life in himself,-‘the first born of every creature’ ‘place the equality of the Son with the Father beyond all dispute” This” must be a new mode of proof invented for the support of the trinity founded on mystery far: beyond my understanding. For, if a creature's” being endowed with life by, or employed as an imstrument in the hands of another, puts them both on a footing of equality, then, in the E- ditor’s estimation, the clay is equal to the’ potter; the rod with which Moses performed his miracles was equal to that great prophet ; and Moses himself, by whom aud for whom God exhibited so many wonderful works, was equal to the Deity. CHAPTER V. Remarks on the replies to the arguments found in Chapter tie third of the Second Appeal. =a The Editor now comes (P. 602) “ to the last and by far the easiest part of his work,” that of meeting my objections to the seven positions formerly advanced in support of the deity of Christ. The first of these is, that Jesus was possessed of ubiquity, deduced from John III. 13. « No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man who is in heaven.” The ubiquity of Jesus is by the Editor grounded on the phrase « who is in heaven” found in the present tense while Jesus was at that time on earth. 1 in the first place observed in my Second Ap- peal (P. 32) that “ this argument might perhaps carry some weight with it, were not the frequent use af the present tense ina preterite or future sense observed in the sacred writings ; and were not a great number of other passages to deier- mine that the term “ is” in this instance must C4 : [ 310 ] be understood in the past tense: And to support this assertion I quoted several passages, a few of which the Editor has discussed, leaving the rest quite unnoticed. One of these is John VILL. 58 “ Jesus said unto them, Verily, Veri- ly, Tsay unto you, before Abrahant was, lam” To weaken its force the Editor says “ why ‘must this declaration, “ before Abraham was lam” be taken ina preterite sense? because if. it be not our author’s cause dies.” No,but because it would hear no sense unless ns un: derstood “ Before Abrabam was, J was.’ The Editor further says ‘ Did the Jews however understand it thus? So far from it: that they esteemed it a decided declaration. of Jesus's equality with the Father and tock up stones to stone him as a blasphemer.” The Jews un- derstood Jesus as declaring himself to be more ancient than Abraham, which they first inferred from his assertion ‘‘ your father Abraham re- joiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad” (Jobn VIL. 56). But there is nothing in ihe context that can convey the least idea of the | Jews having esteemed the phrase “ hefore Abraham was, Iam’ a “ decided declaration of Jesus's equality with the father,” or of their hav- ing, in consequence, taken up stones to stone him. Nor can the circumstance of, their at- tempt to stone Jesus be considered as a proof of i sue 1 their viewing the above declaration respect- ing his priority to Abraham, as blasphemy against God, for they sought to slay Jesus once on account of his having healed a man on the Sabbath day, which they considered as a breach , of their Jaw and not as a claim to equality with the Deity (Jobn. V. 16.)5 and they wanted again to destroy Jesus merely from his affirming “ t know him, for am from him and he hath sentyne” (Jonn VIL 29 and 30); and finally from, motives of political safety, as far as regarded their connection with the Romans, the Jews re-, solved to kill him (John XI. 47 & 48 53.) i? The Editor says that “Jesus himself meek and lowly as he was, although he knew precise- ly in what sense they understood him, rather chose to work a miracle for his own safety, than to'deny his divinity.” From what i bave just - stated and from all that I mentioned in p. 283,293 it obviously appears that neither the Jews under- stood bis deity from the assertion “ before Abra- ham was 1 am’’. nor was it usual with Jesus to correct them whenever they mistook his mean- ing. Tlie Editor might further perceive in John V.20 and its context, that Jesus, though charged with having a demon, omitted to correct fully their mistaken notion ; and also in John VIL. AS and 49 that on the Jews reproaching him with [. 312° J being a Samaritan, and with being possessed by a» demon, the saviour only denied the second and omitted to notice the former, which was the gros-— sest charge that one Jew could ever prefer against another. The Editor seems doubtful as to the force of the arguments he has adduced in turning the above verse tohis purpose, as he thought it proper to have recourse to ‘‘ the body of evidence pre~. viously adduced” inhis attempt to prove “ Christ’s ubiquity” but my readers may be able to judge. from a calm examinatien of this body of evi-. dence whether or not it has any weight in proof of the ubiquity of the son. The Editor now lays down a rule for those instances where the present tense is used in the. scriptures for the past, saying “ in poetry and sometimes in lively narrative, the present is with strict propriety used for the past, because the transaction is narrated as though passing before the reader’s eyes” I therefore beg the Editor to explain, conformably to this rale, the instances I noticed (Second Appeal p. 32) and: numerous other instances—John XI. 8 “ Hig disciples say unto him” instead of “ said unto him” 38 “ Jesus cometh to the grave’’ that ig came to the grave XIII—6, “ Then co- [ 313 ] meth he to Simon Peter,” that is he came to Simon Peter. Do these come under the deno- mination of poetry or lively narration? If not, the Editor’s rule must fall to the ground. If the Editor insists upon their being lively narra- tion, because the circumstances are “ narrated as though passing before the readers eyes,” how can we be prevented ia that case from taking the assertion in John Hf. 21] alse for a lively narration, on the same grouud that the circumstances are narrated in the verse in ques- tion. “ as though passing before the reader’s eyes,” although Jesus had in reality meant by present the past tense. The Editor further observes that “it is a didactic discourse, on the clearness and accuracy of which depended the salvation of a man (Ni- codemus) whe had hazarded much in coming to Jesus for instruction.” It is true that Jesus as the greatest prophet of God, (or an omnisci- ent being according to the orthodox creed) though weil aware of the slow apprehension of Nicodemus, instructed him in 4 language far _ from being clear and comprehensible to him both in the preceding and following verses. Vide v. the 3rd “ €xcept a man be bern again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” Sth « Sois-every one that is born of the spirit.” Dt Cc se | $3 ™ No mam hath ascended up to heaven but, he that came down from heaven, &c.”” 14° And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even’ so must the son-of man de lifted up %, fore-, telling him of his death on the cross by these ambixuous words.—Nay moreover he, in his, discourse with the Jews and the multitude, very, often expressed his ideas in such a manner that vot‘only the Jews but his own disciples mistook his’ meaning; but he always regulates his, in- structions as he was guided by his and our heavenly Father. lt would be therefore pre+ sumptuous in us to lay down rules for his *cou- duct maintaining that “ common humanity therefore demanded that in further discourse with him, no word should be used but in it’s direct and proper sense.” In answer to his assertion “ if then, he would: only tell us, how Jesus was regarded i in those realms of light and truth previously to his descent on earth, he would himself settle this point.” I bee to refer the Editor to such authority as no Christian can ever deny; 1 mean 1. Peter 1. 20. “ Who verily was jforeon -dained before the foundation of the wor id but was, manifested in these last times for you.” And also to 11 Ti- mothy I. 9. “ Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, [ 315 j butaccarding to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world be- gan.” If this plain explanation fall shert of con- vincing the Editor of the real sense in which the preexisitence of Jesus and of his followers was meant my endeavour to correct his notion on this head must be of no use. In erder to weaken the force of the argument I founded oa John Vi, 62 “the son of man as- cend up where he was before” shewing the ‘an- sense of Jesus from heaven while he was talking to men on earth, the Editor quotes Genesis XL. 5 XVII. 33 XXXV-. 13 in which Jehovah js stated to have moved from one place to ano- ther though possessed of Omnipresence. Bet the Editor overlooked, or thougit it judicious t© omit to notice, the real point of my argument, In the Second Appeal which I now repeat « for, the attribute of Omnipresence is quite inconsis- tent with the human notions of the ascent and descent effected by the son of man ” [tis not impossible for the Omnipresent God that he should manifest himself wherever he_ clieoses, without violating his Omnipresence ; but the ‘notion of occupying two very distant places at one time by a soz of man is of course contrary to the ideas acquired by human experience, un- less this extraordinary circumstance be ascribed f 316 J to the power of performing miracles bestowed on man by God. Jesus however took every precaution in word- ing his diseourse with Nicodemus by the use of the term man in the very same verse 13th, thus establishing his humanity ; but notwithstanding this the prejudices of a great number of his followers have induced them to infer his ubiquity and thereby his deity from the same verse. I will not recur to the examination of such passages as “ who made all things” “ who up- holds all things &c.” alluded to here by the Editor, having often noticed them in the former part of this work. Let us now come to the real point andascertain whether or not the word in the original Greek which is rendered “is” inthe English version in the phrase “ who is in heaven” actually sig- nifies the present tense, as. 2 candid inquiry imto this very point will bring us to @ satisfactory de- cision at once. ‘Fhe word in the eriginal is % a participle and not a verb, andall that F said in my Secoud Appeal may be compressed into three remarks. In the first place that the time of the partieyple is referred to the time of the verb found im the sentence, and to corrobate this : [SIT] opinion 1 quoted Bishop Middleton’s doctrine of the Greek article Part 1 Page 42 Note. « We are to refer the time of the participle to the time of the act &c. implied in the verb ; for, past present and future cannot be meant other- wise than in respect of that act*” and I also cited John 1. 48 Ovrz adov ce “ IT saw thee when thou wast,” literally “ I saw thee being,” in which the present participle implies the past in correspon- dence with the verb «3, or “ I saw,” found in the same verse. I now also beg the attention - of the Editor to the common usage of almost all the languages that have the use of a present participle, in which he will find the participles generally referring to the time of the verb re- lated to it. In English, for example, in the fol- lowing phrase (“ being ill, I could not call upon you”) the time of the present participle “ being” refers, I presume, to the verb “could net call” implying the past tense. . In the second place I quoted Leviticus Ch: VII. 23; XIV. 47, in which the present partici- _ ple is accompanied with the definite article, ob- * The Editorhas givenin p. 607 a quotation from Bishop Middleton, with some remarks of his own, but I am per-' fectly willing to leave it to the discerning reader to jadge whether it corroborates my opinion or makes against it. Ak cr 318 J serving that “ these present participles are refer- red to a time present with respect to the act of the verbs connected with them, but future with respect to the command of God ;” that is, when the definite article is prefixed in Greek to a present participle, it has reference to the verb connected with it in an indefinite manner, So we find many instances inthe New ‘Testament simi- lar to those quoted from Leviticus. In the third place I said: “‘ Moreover, we frequently find the present participle used in a past tense even without reference to the time of the verb: John XI. 25. rugnos wy apes Brzaw * being blind, now I ‘see; ” that is “ Having been blind, now I see.” The Editor omitting to notice the second and third arguments adduced by me, makes re- marks only on the first, saying, that “ were this criticism (‘‘ being in heaven” instead of “ is in © heaven’’) perfectly correct, it would not be of the least service to our author, as he being in heaven, is precisely the same as he who is in heaven.” —I positively object to the accuracy of this assertion of the Editor, for the verb “ is,” generally affirms an act or a state at the time present when spoken ; but the present participle ey, or ‘‘ being’ even when preceded by the defi- nite article 6 or “ the,” implies time indefinitely, though the article 4 is often rendered by a rela- t Pa ‘ i ? [ 319 J tive pronoun “ who” or “ which” and the parti-- ciple by a verb, for the sake of elegance in Eng- lish composition. 1 beg'to refer the Editor first to those texts quoted in my Second Appeal. Leviticus VII. 23. 6 apocdepav—avrw cova § Bparsoy ® Sefios “* The offering (person,) for him shail be the right shoulder.” Although the participle ‘ offering”’ is found here in the present tense, yet it indisputably implies, that at any time in future in which the offering may be made, <‘ the offerer shall be entitled to the right shoul- der” Lev. XLV. 47 $ coSwv—rruverra aria auto «« The eating (person) shall wash his clothes.” The word “ eating” though found here in the present’participle, preceded by the definite Greek article § signifies any part of the future in which the act of eating shall take place. The phrase « the eating (person’) is rendered in the English version, “ he that eateth,’” conform- ably to the idiom of the English language ; but this change of construction does not produce any change in the real meaning conveyed by the original Greck, As this phrase: “ he that eats,” bears no allusion to the support of the doctrine of the Trinity, no one will, I presume, scruple to interpret it in its original sense; that is, he who eats at any time future with respect to ‘the commandment of God, shall wash his clothes. { 320 ] Secondly, I refer the Editor to the passages he quoted in p. 608 to save me the trouble of selecting them: John III. 4. “How can a man be born when he is old,” literally “ being old ;”_ that is, at any point of time, no man being old can be born: y. 15 “ that no man believing on him should perish” that is, no one who may be induced to believe Jesus at any time even up to the last day should perish 18. “ He not be- lieving is condemned already ;” that is, he who rejects me at any time is condemned already in the divine decree 20 “ Every one doing evil hateth light” at any time whatsoever. 29 “ He having the bride is the bridegroom” at any pe- riod of time. 3!1—* He being of the earth is earthly” at any period of time: Again Ch. V. 3 ** In these lay a great multitude of folk impo- tent” &c. In the original Greek the verb “to lie” is in the imperfect tense and consequently — the participle may be thus rendered ‘ who were impotent up to that time.” 5.—* And a certain” man was there who had an infirmity thirty and eight years.” In this verse the participle is not preceded by the article: This however sig- nifies that a certain man had an infirmity when he was present at the pool—not at the time when St. Jobn narrated this circumstance.—But with a view to expose my argument to ridicule, the Edi- tor puls his own words into my mouth, Saying [ sa) (P. 608) “In this Chapter v. 4 we have ‘how can aman be born whenheis old’ Jiterally ‘being old’ on our author’s plan ‘having been old and now not being so;” andsoon in all the above stat- ed verses. But I wonder how he could mistake what I have advanced in my Second Appeal in explanation of a present participle preceded by the article & in the following words: ‘“ The offer- ing (person) for him shall be the right shoulder; —the eating (person) shall wash his clothes. These present participles are referred to a time present with respect to the act of the verbs con- nected with them, but future with respect to the commandof God.” Now, my reader may judge whether I confined the meaning of a present participle to the past tense as the Editor, no doubt inadvertently, misrepresents my arguments, Thirdly. I beg to refer the Editor to the trans- lation of that verse by the celebrated Dr. Camp- bell. ‘ For none ascendeth into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the son of man whose abode is heaven” in which the sense of the participle is referred to an indefinite time; for, a person whose abode is in London, may have his temporary residence in Paris. Fourthly. [beg also to refer to the explanation of the article > before a participle, given by Parke. AF Ls f 224 hurst “ XL. witha participle it may generally be rendered by who, that, which, and the parti- ciple as averb. Thus ] John IL. 45 rcyay he who saith i. e. the (person) sayings John I. 18 8 wy Who is or was,” As to the assertion of the Editor that were the time of the participle “ being’? found in the’ phrase “ being in heaven’” referred to the verb _* to.ascend up to heaven,” it would completely prove the ubiquity of Christ or involve perfect absurdity, [ presume there would be neither of these difliculties, in the event of the participle being referred tothe verb mentioned in the verse ;. for, one’s being in heaven or having his abode in heaven does not render his ascent to. heaven impossible, nox does, it tend to prove his deity. Let us apply these circumstances as they stand iterally to Moses and Elias, who descended from their heavenly abode and appeared with Jesus” Christ to his apostles; Mathew XVII. 3 and again ascended, would it prove their ubiqui- ty or involve absurdity ? But is there any thing. roore absurd than an attempt to prove the ubi-. quity of a son of man capable of occupying on= Jy a certain small space on earth? In reply to his assertion, that “when John wishes to describe a past state of action or being,, cm cathe i es f 323 J he chuses some past participle.” f only beg to remind him, that in the Greek language there is no past or future participle for the verb aps to be, and consequently the present participle is used for those tenses under the specific rules.* As to the second passage which he quoted to demonstrate the ubiquity of Jesus (Mathew XVIIL. 20 “ for where two or three are ga- thered together in my name, there am Tin the midst of them”) I observed in my Second Ap- peal “ Is it not evident that the Saviour meant here by being in the midst of two Gr three of his * The true explanation of the verse is given in the Improvep Version as follows: ‘* Now no man hath as- cended up to heaven but he who came down from heavent even the Son of Man [whois in heaven. |= + He who camz down from heaven.) This clause is correlative to the preceding. Jf the formier is to be understood of a local ascent, the latter must be interpreted of a Jocal descent, But if the former clause is to be understood figuratively, as Raphelins and Doddridge explain it, the latter ought in all reason to be interpreted figuratively likewise. ? If ‘to ascend into heaven,” signifies to become acquainted with the truths of God, * to descend from heaven,” is to bring down, and to discover those truths to the world. And this text clearly explains the meaning of the phrase, wherever it occurs in thisevangelist. ‘Coming down from heaven” means coming from God, (see ver. 2) as Nicode- mus expressed if, who did not understand this of a local descent, but ofa divine commission. So Christinterprets it ver. 17” Sn. + Whois in heaven] This clause is wanting in some of the best copies. If its authenticity is allowed, it is to be understood of the Knowledge which Christ possessed of the Father's will. See John I, 13; [ 324 ] disciples, his guidance of them -when joined tn searching for the truth, without preferring any claim to ubiquity >— We find similar expressions in the scriptures wherein the guidance of the prophets of God is meant by words that would imply their presence. Luke XVI. 29 “ Abra- ham said untohim, They have Moses and Pro- phets, let them hear them.” Noone will suppose that this expression is intended to signify that the Jews actually had Moses and the prophets in person among them,-or that they could hear them speak in the literal sense of the words; nor can any one deduce the omnipresence of Moses and the prophets from such expressions.” The Editor, to avoid entering into the main argument puts the following questions to which I shall now reply. “ Ist. If Christ guided them, must he not have been with them for that purpose?” . Yes, he has been with them in the same manner as Moses and the prophets have been with the Israelites, as is evident from the above quoted passage of Luke; as well as from another which I shall now cite. I. John III. 24+. “ And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him and he in him, und hereby we know that he abideth in us by the spirit which he hath given us.” 2dly If there were only two such little companies searching for the truth at the [9325] ‘game moment, must he not have possessed ubi- ~quity toguide them both?” I reply, by two other questions. —If the Jews of Galilee and of Jeru- ‘salem “ have Moses and the Prophets” at the same time for their guidance, are Moses and the Prophets to be supposed to have been pos- sessed of ubiquity? After Elijah went up to heaven (2 Kings I1— 11) and his spirit was seen resting on Elisha who remained on earth (15), does the circumstance of Elijah’s being in heaven and being with bis servant Elisha on earth in spirit at the same time, prove the ubi- quity of Hijab? Srdly The Editor asks, “ If he (Jesus) was with Christians to guide them, has he left them now?” IL reply, neither Jesus nor Moses and the Prophets have now forsaken those that sincerely seareiy into truth and are not fettered with early acquired human opinions. Ath. “ How then can he be the same yesterday, to-day and. forever.” My reply ishe has been the same in like manner as David has beeny in « keeping the law continually forever and ever; (Psalm CXIX—44) dth: “Does our author need to be told that this meant the writings of Moses and the Prophets. » reply, that this expression means their words preserved forever by. means of writing as the statutes of God. Psalm CXIX 152 « Concerning thy testimonies | have known of old that thou hast founded them forever.” iG [ 826] 89 « Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heay- en; and Deut. XXXII. 1 Moses exclaims “ Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak, and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth; my doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew” &c. 6th. “ Did Jesus mean that they had his writings with them?” I reply, he meant of course that they had his lowly spirit, and his words which were afterwards published and pre- served in writing. 7th. ‘ Where were the writings of Jesus at that time?” I said not a word of his writings in my Second Appeal: why the Editor puts this question to me I know not. It is however evident that Jesus himself while on earth, like other prophets of God, never omitied to express his doctrines and pre- cepts, which lave been handed down in writing up to this day. SECOND POSITION. The Editor quoted Mathew XI 27. “ No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,”—to shew that Jesus ascribes to himself a knowledge and an incomprehensibility ‘of nature equal to that of God. 1 consequently asked the Editor in my Second Appcal * if he, by the term “in- [ 37 ) comprehensible,” understands a total impossibi- lity of being comprehended in any degree, or only the impossibility of attaining to a perfect knowledge of God? If the former, we must be under the necessity of denying such a total in« comprehensibility of the Godhead ; for the very passage cited by the Editor declares God to be comprehensible not to the Son alone ; but also to every one who should receive revelation from the Son—andin John XVE. !6and 17, Jesus ascribes to his disciples a knowledge of the Holy Ghost whom the Editor considers onc of the persons of the Godhead, possessed of the same natere with God.—But if the Editor understands by the pas- sage he has quoted the incomprehensibility of the -yeal nature of the Godhead ; | admit the position, but deny his inference that such an incomprehen- sibility proves the nature of the object to be die vine, as being peculiar to God alone, for it ap- pears evident that a knowledge of the real nature even of acommonleaf or a visible star surpasses human comprehension. The Editor although he filled one page (610) in examining that part of the reply, yet made no direct answer to the foregoing question but repeats his in- ference from these passages, “ that Jesus him- self can comprehend the nature of the Fa- ther and that his own nature is equally insera- table, but the verse in question does not con- (T ‘386 5 vey one or other of these positions.’ As to the» first, we find the latter part of the sentence (“ néither knoweth any mah the Father save the | Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal. him”) declaring an exception to the general assertion, made in the former part of it: (6 nei- ther knoweth any man the Father’) that is, the — Son and those to whom the Son reveals God, were the only individuals that knew the nature of che Pether. Would not this exception be — chstinctly coatrary both to the sacred authorities and to common sense? As the scripture declares ‘ positively that the nature of God is incompre- . hensible to men.—Job XXXVI 26 “God is great, we know hin not ;” and common sense tea- ches us every moment that if the real nature of the works of God isincomprehensible to the human intellect, how much more must the nature of God himself be beyond human understanding ? As to Sy the second, if the circumstance of the Son’s de- _ clariug himself (according to the Editor) to be. inscrutable in nature, be acknowledged as equa- lizing him with God, similar declarations by his Apostles would of course raise them to the same Tooling of equality with the deity, 1 John— Jil. |“ Therefore the world Knoweth us not, because it knew him not,” coroborated by Joha- XVIl 23 “O righteous Father: the world hath not known thee” &c. Jt is therefore Evie [ 39 J dent that neither can an impossibility of com: prehending God, in any degree, be meant by. this passage, the apostles having known God by revelation; nor can the comprehension of the real nature of God be understood by it, as such a knowledge is declared to be unattainable by mankind. The verse im question must be thus understood ; as the meaning evidently is, that no one but the Father can fully compre- hend the object and extent of the Son’s com- mission; and no one but the Son comprehends the counsels and designs of the Father with re- spect to the instruction and reformation of man- kind, itis impossible that Jesus can be speaking here of the person and nature of the Mather ; for this he did not, and could not reveal, being es- sentially incomprekensible. Neither, therefore, does ‘he mean the nature and person of the Son. Woat Christ knew and revealed “was theFather’s. will’? corresponding to this; that which the Fa- ther and the Father only knew, was the nature and extént of the Son’s commission” ImMPRovep V ERSION. . THIRD POSITION. - As the Editor expressed his opinion that * Je- sis exercised in an independent manner the prerogative of forgiving sin, which is peculiar to God, founding this opinion upon the authori- A il [ 330 ] ty cf Mark Tk 5 Matthew 1X. 2 “ Thy sins be forgiven thee” I enquired in my Second Appeal “ Does not this passage (‘ But when the multi- tude saw it, they marvelled and glorified God who had given such power unto men,” Matthew 1X. 8) convey an express. declaration that Jesus was as much dependent on God in exercising the power of forgiving sins and healing the sick as the other prophets who came forth from God before him?” To which the Editor rephes ‘‘ we answer ; only in the opinion of the multitude who knew him not, but took him, for a great pro- phet.’””” ; I feel surprized at the assertion of the Editor that it was the ignorant multitude who knew not of the nature of desus that made the following declaration. “* who bad given. such power to men’; since it is the Holy Spirit which speaks by. the mouth of the Evangelist Matthew saying «< when the madléitude saw it they. marvelled and glorified God who had given such power unto men.” E wonder how tle Editor could allow his zeak in support of the Trinity so far to bias his mind that he has attempted to weaken the authority of the Holy Evangelist by ascribing his words to the ignorant multitude of Jews. I wonder still f 331 } -Mmore.to observe, that notwithstanding the Editor declares the apostles and primitive Christians, (whom he dees not estecm as persons of the God- head, but admits to ke mere men), to have been possessed of the power of pardoning sins through, the influence of Jesus, yet he maintains the opi- nion that none except God can forgive sins even through the gift of the deity himself. The Editor says “ Not however in the opini- on of the scribes whe were better acquainted with their own scriptures and who although they glo-~ rifted him not as God, could not restrain them- selves from acknowledging the display of his Godhead by accusing him ef blasphemy on that very account.” The Jews were so ill-disposed towards Jesus that this is not the first instance in which they sought a pretence for destroying him under the charge of blasphemy ; for in John V. 16 they resolve to slay him merely on pretence of his hay- ing healed a man on the sabbath day as { notic- ed before; and in chapter X If. 10-11 they came to a determination under the cloak of religion to kill him and Lazarus also whom Jesus raised after death, though they knew that many of iheir prophets raised the dead, without offending God or the peeple. And they also very fre- f 339 j _ quently mistook his meaning. But Jesus often forbore to repel their charges, some instance’ of which I have already pointed out in page 252. As to Jesus’s knowledge of the human heart as far as it respects his divine commission and fa- ‘ture judgement and his power of performing wiraculous deeds even sometimes without verbal reference to God, having often noticed these mat- ters inp. 109 & 221 Ishall not recur to them here. The Editor denies the apostles, having been impressed with a belief that. it was the almighty Father that empowered Jesus to forgive sinus and to perform miracles. [therefore refer the Edi- tor to the very phrase ‘who had given ‘such power unto men” and to Acts XXXILS2 “ Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a prince anda saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (XIL 58) “ thro’ this man (meaning the Saviour) is preached une to you the forgiveness of sins,’ Do not, these verses shew beyond a doubt that Jesus received from God the power of forgiving sins on sincere repentance ? . The Editor makes no direct answer to Luke XXIII 34, in which Jesus prays to the father for the pardon of the murder perpetrated by the Jews upon him, nor to Luke Xf. 4 Mat- thew VI. 14, which I quoted in my Second Ap- [ 333 J ’ : oe peal page 40. The Editor alludes to the impor tance of the expression “ that thy son may glo- rify thee.” But by referring to the scriptures he will find that simifar terms areas common in the language of the Jews in their address to God as any other expressions of reverence for the deity. ‘FOURTH POSITION. With a view to substantiate his fourth positi- on that Almighty power is claimed by Jesus in the most unequivocal manner, the Editor thns comments on the passage John V. 19.—36. quo- ted hy me in my Second Appeal. “Jesus, when persecuted by the Jews for having healed a man on the sabbath day, said, ‘ my Father worketh hitherto, andl work.’ This provoked the Jews still more, because he had now said that God was his father, making himself equal with God”, The Editor adds, “ this observation shews us that not only the Jews but John himself uader- stood Christ’s calling God his Father, to be making himself God.” It would have been a correct translation of the original Greek, if the Editor had said. ‘ making himself equal with, or like God,” instead of ‘making himself God” (vide the original Greek). It is obvious that one’s calling another his Father gives apparent ground to understand that there is an equality of nature 41 { sty pr likeness of properties between them, either i in quantity or quality of power in performing works. But toknow what kind of equality or likeness should be meant in Ch. V. 18. we have luckily before us the following texts, in which Jesus de- clares, that his likeness with God consisted in doing what he saw the Father do, and quickening the dead; avowing repeatedly at the same time his cette to and dependence on God, in so plain a manner that the Jews who heard him, abstained from the measures of persecution that they had intended to adopt, although the Savi- our continued to call God his Father through the whole of the remaining chapter in the hear- ing of the Jews. Nay, further, from the whole of his conduct and instructions so impressed were the Jews with his dependence upon and confidence in the Father as his God, that when he was hanging on the cross they fixed upon this as a ground of taunt and reproach saying “ He trusted in God ; let him deliver him now, if he will have him, for he said ‘ 1 am the Son of God,” Matt. X XVII. 43. The Editor then proceeds to say, “ this (charge of equality) Jesus neither denies nor corrects, but adds ‘ the son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do’ which must necessarily be the case, if, as our author r ‘335 J affirms, the Father and the Son are one in ee and design.” I ask the Editor, whether this be the Janguage of one who is Almighty? If the Father and the Son be equally Almighty, why should the Son wait until the Father acts and then imitate him? If a subordinate officer having been accused of equalizing himself with his superior, thus declares “ I cannot march a single step myself, but where I see him march, 1 do march,’—would this be considered an avowal of his equality with his superior! My readers will be pleased to judge. The Editor then says that “Jesus adds further, ‘for what- everthings he doth, these also doth the Son like- wise,’ a more full declaration of equality with the, Father cannot be imagined: How could the Son do whatsoever the Father doth, if he were not equal to him in power, wisdom, truth, mercy, &c.” The Editor here omits to quote the very next line “FOR the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doth ” in which the preposition ‘ for’ assigns reasons for the Son’s doing what the Father doth i. e. since the Father loveth the son and sheweth him his works, the Son is enabled to do what he sees the Father do. ‘To the E:ditor’s query “ what finite being could understand all that God doth, if shewn him?” I reply: divine wisdom will of ‘course not show any thing to one whom it has { 336 -] not previously enabled toc omprehend it. How could the following passages escape the memory of the Editor when he put the question: .Amos Hl. 7. « Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but revealeth his secret unto his servants the Prophets” Psalm XXV. « The secret of the Lord is with them that ss him, and he will shew them his covenant.” Did not they under- Stand all that was shewn and revealed unto them? If they did, were they, in consequence, all infinite beings; as the Editor argues from this circumstance elit is! The Editor proceeds to say, “ Jesus adds, ‘For as the Father quickeneth the dead, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will, Here then he declares himself equal with the Father in sovereignty of will, as well as in almighty power.” ‘The Editor again omits a part of the ° sentence which runs thus:—“* So the Son quickeneth whom he will; F O R the Father’ judgeth no man but hath committed all judg- _ ment unto the Son.” Does not the latter part of the sentence shew c'early that the power — which the Son enjoved in quickening those whom he chose, was entirely owing to the com- - mission given him by the Father? In order to weaken the force of verse 22nd. the Editor says, “ the Father however, whose it is equally .f[- 4 with the Son; commits all judgment 4o the Son as the incarnate mediator between God and man, because he is the son of man.” My rea- ders may observe that if Jesus received ali pow- er of judging men in bis human nature, be must have quickened whom he pleased as the conse- quence of that power in his human capacity; how, then, could the Editor infer the deity of Jesus from one circumstance, (quickening the dead) which entirely depends upon another (the power of judging) enjoyed by him in his human nature, Lest it should be supposed that individual instances of the dead being raised by Jesusis here meant, 1 may just mention that he exercised this power in common with other Prophets. As tohis assertion that the work of judging mankind belongs by nature equally to the Son and to the Father, I only refer the Editor to Matthew XiX. 28 and Luke XXII. 36. 30.in which the apostles are represented as invested with the power of judging the ‘Twelve Tribes of Israel and to 1 Cor. VE. 2. which ascribes the power of judging the world to righteous men; : and { hope that the Editor witil be convinced from these authorities that the “ work of judg- ing mankind” does not * istic by nature to the Son and to the Father.” He introduces iv AK { 338 j the course of this argument John VIIE. 58. and Rev. 1. 8. which I have often examinéd in’ be preceding pages, 310. 150; He at last comments on verse 23, “that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father” saying that, ‘“ to this glorious declara- tion of the Son’s Godhead, ourauthor merely ob- jects that this means likeness in nature and quality, and not in exact degree-of honour. But what are the nature and quality of the honour paid to God the Father? divine honour of the highest kind and such as can be given to no crea- ture?” The pharses “ to honour God” and “to adore God”’ are used in quite different senses; the latter being peculiarly applicable to God, but the former generally implying only such manifestation of reverence as one may bestow on his Father or on another worthy of respect: Malachi I. 6. “ A son honoureth his father and aservant his master; if then I be a Father where is mine honour’? &c. Here God requires the same kind of honour to be paid him as is due toa Father. Does God here bring himself, in consequence, to a level with a parent? 1 Sa- muel II. 30. ** But now the Lord saith. Be it far from me; for them that honour me, I will - honour.”—Here the .manifestation of honour between God and men is reciprocal ; but in any, { 339 J .sense whatsoever no worship can be reciprocal- ly offered by God and his creatures. The Edi- tor again advances that “the fact is that this phrase “ as” really refers to degree as well as to nature; see Mathew XX. 14. ‘1 will give unto this last-even as unto thee’ that is, pre- cisely as much as one penny.” I deny the ac- curacy of this rule of the Editor, since “ as” in almost all instances refers either to degree or nature or to some kind of resemblance, a few of which I shall here notice, Gal. 1V. 15. Paul says to the Galatians, “ but received me as an angel of God even as Christ Jesus.” Did Paul | permit the Galations to receive him with’pre- cisely the same kind-of honour both in kind and degree as was due to Christ Jesus? Matthew X. 25. « It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master and the servant as his Lord,” &c. Did Matthew mean here precise equality in kind and degree between a disciple and his master, anda servant and his Lord? XIX. 19, « thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Did the Saviour mean here that precisely the same quality and degree of love which one en- tertains towards himself should be entertained towards others? Genesis HII. 22. “ Behold the man is become as one of us.” Did Adam then become both in nature and degree equally wise -with the Omniscient God? Now my readers [ 340 ] will judge whether or not such a phrase as «© man should or may ‘honour the Son as they honour the Father” ‘equalizes the Son in nature and degree with the Father? As to the verse above quoted (Matthew XX. ¥4).: It implies Sameness in degree and not necessarily sameé- ness in kind, for the same sum may be given in different currency. Fhe Editor quetes Feb. Iik. 3. 4. in order to shew “ in what sense the Prophet to be sent was like Moses.” As ¥ examined. this verse in page 153 1 will not recur to it again. E only remind the Editor of Deut. XVIFL. 15. and 18, where he will perceive in what sense Jehovah hintself drew a likeness between the Saviour and Moses, which passage is repeated in Acts HI. 22. and also of St. Matthew XVII. 3. as well as of Mark IX. 4. wherein they express a wish to manifest the. same reverence to the Saviour as to Moses and Elias, but it is quite optional with the Editor to treat Moses in any manner he pleases. In answer to his inquiry ‘ why should’ it of- fend our author; that when the Son for the suf’ fering of death took upon him the form of a servant,” &c. my reply is that it does not offend me in the Feast > but F must confess that such an= expression as when God “ for the suffering of death took upon him-the form of-a servant,” [ 341 J seems to me very extraordinay, as my, idea of God is quite at variance with that of a being subjected to death and servitude. The Editor overlooked several other passages quoted by me among which there was Matthew XX. 23 “to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give but to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” He perhaps hesitated to rely on the sophistry used by the orthodox, that Jesus denied being possessed of Almighty power only in his human capacity: The Editor, it is possible, perceived that as the g7/¢ of all power to Jesus, mentioned in Matt. XXVIII. 18, is explained by the or- thodox of his human capacity ; the denial of al- mighty power could not therefore be understood of that very human nature in which he is said to have possessed it. FIFTH POSITION. ‘The Editor says that “ our author’s objections to the fifth position that Jesus’s having all judge- ment committed to him, proves his omniscience, have been so fully met already that scarcely any thing remains to be added.” In answer to which, I have only to say that the arguments adduced by the Editor having been previously noticed, it is therefore left to wy readers Lo examine them and to come to a 41 f 342 ) determination whether they tend to prove the. omniscience, of, the,, Son, or, mot, . The Editor however adds here, that omniscience is essential to the act of judging mankind: as I bave already dwelt much on this subject in the preceding paragraph page 136 and also in page 191, 1 beg to refer my readers to them, wherein they -will find that the Son’s knowledge of the events of ihis world extends no farther than as respects the office of judging mankind; that others are declared to be vested with the power of judg- ing the world as well as the Son; and that the Son positively denies his omniscience in Mark Xill. 32. The Editor concludes by saying, that “ his (Father’s) giving him “to have life in himself’ refers wholly to his being the mediator in buman flesh.” It settles the question af once that whenever and in whatever capacity Jesus is declared to have had life, he, had it as a gift of the Father, and the object of our inquiry and reverence is the Son endowed with life aud not one destitute of it. 24 SIXTH POSITION. The Editor begins by observing that “ to the sixth position that Jesus accepted worship due to God alone, our author objects, ‘ that the word «© worship” both in common acceptation and scriptural writings, 1s used sometimes as imply- [ 343 j ing an external mark of religious reverence paid to God, and at other times as signifying merely the token of civil respeet due to superiors; that those who worshipped Jesus did not believe him to be God or one of the three persons of the Godhead, and-Jesus in his acknowledged human’ capacity, never prayed to himself or directed his followers to worship or pray to bim:’Granting that « worship” in English and aposxndo in Greek are sometimes used to denote civil respect and that the worship paid hy the servant to his mas- ter Matthew Ch. XVIII. 26. and by the people to David meant merely civil respect, stil the no- sition is not touched in the least degree.” Tne reason which the Editor assigns for this position not being touched, is that “ whether the blind man, the lepers, the mariners and others, knew what they did in worshipping Jesus, is not so much the question, as whether Jesus knew ; for if he suffered them even through ignorance, to yield him divine worship, when Peter did not suffer it in Cornelius for a moment, unless he were God, he must have had less discernment or-less piety and concern for the divine honour than his own disciples.” P. 618. As the Editor agrees that the term “ worship in English and gposxudw in Greek are sometines used to denote civil respect,” it is of course [ 34 4 necessary to ascertain whether the blind man &c. knew what they did in worshipping Jesus : that is, whether they meant to bestow civil res- pect or to offer religious reverence. But from all the local circumstances which [ pointed out in the Second Appeal P. 49. it is evident that they as well as Jesus knew that they were ma- nifesting civil respect only by worshipping him, in the same way as it is evident, from the cir- cumstances of David’s not declining to receive worship from the people, and Daniel from King Nebuchadnezzar, that the people and King intended merely civil respect to them. As to- Peter’s rejection of the worship offered him by Cornelius, it may easily be accaunted for, Since as Jesus was endowed with the power of knowing things connected with his divine commission ; so Peter had the knowledge of secret events concerning his apostolic duty. From the lan-— guage which the blind man and others used and from his knowledge of their thoughts, the Saviour like other ancient prophets gave a tacit consent to the worship (or properly speaking civil reverence) offered by them, while Peter re- jected the worship offered him by Cornelius, knowing that he meant it as an external mark of religious reverence, which was due to God alone, as is evident from the language of Peter, “ pressions as “ God will send the Holy Spirit,” » «the Holy Spirit will teach you,” ‘the Holy Spirit will reprove the world,” “the Holy Spirit will glorify me,” the spirit be acknowledged a separate person of the deity, what would the Editor say of other attributes such as mercy, wrath, truth, &c. which are also ina similar manner personified in various instances? Psalm. LVII. 3, “God shall send forth his Mercy and Trath.” LXXXV. 10, “ Mercy and Truth are. met together; righteousness and peace have ’ kissed each other.? LXXXIX. 14. * Mercy and Truth shall go. before thy face.” XCIV. 18. «* My foot slippeth, thy Mercy O Lord, held me up,” “Thy Mercy O Lord, isin the heavens,” «« For there is, wrath gone out from the Lord’’, (Num. XVI. 46.) In the course of citing the above verses. of, John and Acts, the Editor quotes Acts V. 3, «« why hath Satan filled thine, heart. to lie to the Holy Spirit,” “ Thou ‘hast not lied) unto men but unto God” whence he concludes that he that lieth to the Holy Spirit lieth to God, and conse- quently the Spirit is God. On this inference I 4P [ 338 j/ have already observed in my former Appeal, that? any sin or blasphemy against one of the attributes” of God is of course accounted a sin or blasphemy against God himself. But this admission amounts neither to a recognition of the self-existence of the attribute; nor of its identity with God.” I then referred the Editor to Matthew X. 40. “He that receiveth you receiveth me” and now I beg his attention to I Cor. VIH, 12. “ But when ye sin so against the brethren and wound their weal conscience, ye sin against Christ.” Do these passages identify or equalize the apostles, of Jesus with himself? Nothing but early acquired and long established prejudices can prevent any literary character from perceiving such a gross error. As to Acts X. 20, if the speaker be ad- mitted, according to the Editor, asa seperate per- son, he must inks be identified either with the spi- rit of Cornelius who had actually sent the three men mentioned in v. 19. as is evident from Vv. 8, or with the angel of God who ordered Cor- nelius to send them to Peter. (v. 5th) a con- clusion which would not after all suit the purpose of the Editor. I intreat the Editor to take notice at least of some of my arguments against the per= sonality of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Chapter VI. of the Second Appeal p. 87 —90 or if he de- clines adventuring on this point of Theology, let him candidly reduce the supposed persons of the * { 39 J Godhead from a Trinity to Duality, and this point being gained, I may then continue my efforts with renewed hope of reducing this Dua- lity to the Everlasting and Indiyisible Unity. The Editor concludes his Essay with saying (p. 624) “« The deity and the personality of the Sonand the Holy Spirit being established,the doc- trine of the Ever-blessed Trinity needs no fur- ther confirmation: it follows of course. We shall therefore close our testimonies from Scripture, by, laying before our readers three passages, which bring the sacred Three fully into view. The first we select from Isaiah XLVIIL in which one is introduced who previously declares « My hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, &c.—’ and whom therefore we are at no loss to recognize. He however declares verse 16 ‘and now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me.” Now supposing the person who declares himself in verse 16, to have been sent by the Lord God and his Spirit is one of the persons of the Godhead, whose hand hath laid the founda- tion of the eacth according to the Editer; this admission would be so far advantageous to the cause of the Editor as respects the plurality of ~ persons in the deity ; but it would be totally fatal io his grand object, since it would substitute Jsaiah asa. divine person in the place of Jesus { 360 3 Christ. Isaiah the Prophet is the grand speaks er throughout the whole of his book; _who dedares himself often to have been sent by God as a messenger to Israel. _ He often speaks abruptly in behalf of God, as if God were speak- ing himself in the course of his own discourse as, I noticed in _p. 98 and sometimes again he suddenly introduces his own sentiments, while he is announcing the words of Jehovah, without makipg any distinction... I mention here only a few instances: Isaiah LXIUII. 6. « 1 will tread down the people in mine anger and make tiem drunk in my fury, &c. and I will bring down their strength to the earth” (7): « I. will men- tion the loving kindness of the Lord and the praises of the Lord according to all that the Lord hath bestowed on us.’”’ Does not the Pro- phet entroduce himself in verse 7, most abruptly, while speaking himself in behalf of God in v. 6? Ch. L. 3.1 clothe the heavens with blackness and I make sackcloth their covering.” (4) « The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learn- ed, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary, &c.” Here the Pro- phet introduces himself ia v. 4, in the same ab- rupt manner without intimation of any change of person. aan. T now cite the context of the very verse of — Isaiah quoted by the Editor to enable my: rea- { S01 ders to judge‘how far “it, brings the sacred three fully into view.” (14) All ye (the inhabi« tants of Judah) assemble yourselves, and hear; who among them (Israel) hath declared these things? The Lord hath loved him (Cyrus* of Persia the conqueror of Babylon.) He (the Lord) will do his pleasure on Babylon and. his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.” (15) “Leven! have spoken; yea, I have called Aim (Cyrus) I have brought him and he shall make his way prospe- rous.” (16) “ Come ye near unto me (says the Prophet) hear ye this, I have not spoken in se= cret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I (that is, from the first time of these events:) and now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me.” 17. Expressions similar to the phrase: “ From the time that it was, there am I’ are often used by the Prophets. Vide Jeremiah t. 5. ‘‘ And before thou comest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, andl ordained thee 2 Prophet uste the nations;” and so Isaiah XLIX. 1. No one | presume that ever read even with common attention the book of Isaiah, * ® Isaiah XLIV. 7. And who, as I, shall call and shail dectare it, &c. (28) ** That saith of Cyrus, he is my shep- jerd and shall perform all my pleasure” XLVi. 11 “ Call. ing a ravenous bird from the east, the man that execulteth my counsel from afar country, yea I have svoken ic, L will alse ring él \o pass, L have purposed it * ~#!! alsode wt.” AN { 362 y (in which speakers are introduced” without any: distinction more frequently than in the other Scriptural Books,) would attempt to prove the Trinity or the deity of Jesus Christ, from the passage quoted by the Editor unless he is pre- viously biassed by some human creed, and thereby absolutely prevented from: oe a aah ae aps one Jeger with the other. . The Editor perhaps means the cere and the deity of the Holy Spirit -by the phrase “the Lord God and his - Spirit hath sent me,”* (verse 16) seemingly representing the’ Spirit of God as a co-operator with himself.© He might: in that case on the same ground endeavour to establish the personality and the deity of Righte- ousness, another attribute of the deity, as being represented with God as an agent in Isaiah L1 Xe * Therefore his arm brought salvation unto him and his Righteousness it sustained him; and he micht also attempt to prove the personality and deity of the breath of God which is in like manner represented as a €0-operator with the Spirit of God “Job X HL. 4. beh Spirit of * In the original Heb. the last phrase stands thus :— The Lord Jehovah hath sent me and his Spirit” which bear two constructions ; first “ the Lord Jehovah hath sent me and hath sent his Spirit’’ I'he secoudis, ‘* the Lord Sen hovsh and his Spirié hath sent me.” Ce) God hath made me. and the breath of him hath given life.” Is this the best of the _proofs of the. Trinity with which the Editor. closes his testi- monies? If such be his proofs, Iam at a loss to guess what his illustrations will be. ‘The se- cond passage quoted by the Editor is what I have just examined in p. 343-352 The third is 2 Cor, XII. 14. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” Here the apostle prays that the guidance of Jesus Christ, the love of God and the constant operation of the holy influence of God may be with Christians, since without the guidance of Jesus no one can be thoroughly impressed with the love of the deity under. the christian dispensation, nor can that love of God continue to exist unless preserv- ed by divine. influence. A fact which I have demonstrated. page 354-356 in examining Mat- thew XXVIII. 19. But what has this passage to do with the proof of the deity of Jesus and the personality of the Holy Spirit? Does not Paul call the Phillipians partakers of his own grace. Phil. I. 172. Is not every man pure in heart declared to be possessed of the grace of his lips ; that is, verbal instructions? Pro. XXIL. 11. Is not in Psalm XXIII. 6. the communion of goodness and mercy desired for all the days of life? Can such expressions be also considered { 364 j as proofs of the deity of Paul orof the personas hity of these attributes? I hope and pray the Edi- tor may take all those circumstances into _— serious consideration. IT now examine the remaining few of those passages, which I intended to notice in a sub- sequent Chapter of this Essay. ‘The first is- Zechariah XIT. 10. ‘ In that day they shall look upon me whom they have pierced’? com- pared with John XIX. 37. “ They shall look on him whom they pierced,” To shew the error m the translation of the verse in the English version, I quoted in my Second Appeal the verse in the original Hebrew and a translation ‘hereof from the Arabic Bible, and another from: the Septuagint, with a literal English translation; which I repeat ‘ and they shall look toward me: on account of him whom they have pierced.” But in order to destroy the validity of the Ara- bic Bible and that of the Septuagint, the Editor says that * the Greek and Arabic versions are _ nothing to the original text itself.” I perfectly” agree with him in this assertion, but I amcon= vinced that the Editor must he better acquainted than myself with the prevailing and continued practice among Christian theologians to have recourse to the versions especially to the Septua- gint, when a dispute arises in the interpretation [...865 +} of any text of the Old Testamcot and to give preference to the authority of the Septargiat, éven over that of Jerome’s, which the Editor “quotes in opposition to the Arabic and Greek versions. As to the original text, the Editor first observes that “as to the particle NS eth which the best Hebrew Grammars define a particle marking the accusative case governed by active verbs, or ‘an emphatic particle denoting the very thing itself.” I therefore think it proper to quote Parkhurst’s opinion on the particle AX eth from his Hebrew Lexicon, that my readers may judge whether or not the above rule laid down by the Editor is founded upon. good authority. Par- khurst (p? 48) “ The Lexicons say, that when joined with a verb, it (eth) denotes the accusative case, if the verb be active; see Genesis I. 1. and al. freq but the nominative if the verb be passive or neuter. Genesis X XVII. 45, Deut. XX. 8, Josh. VII. 15, &c. al. freq. But in truth it is the sign of no particular case, that distinction being unknown in Hebrew. See Josh. XXII. 17, Ezek. XXXV. 10. Num. XX. 2,1. Sam. XVII. 34. 2Sam. XV, 23. Neh IX. 19.34. 2 Kings VI. 5.” Parkhurst gives also the second meaning of this particle— “2, with, to, towards, Exodus 1. J. Deut. VII. 8,” which the Editor also par- tially admits. AR “L366 4 ' The fact is, this particle denotes an accusative case as well as other cases and also stands for the English prepositions “with,” « for,’ “ to- wards, ’’ &c. and therefore the verse in question as it is found in-our Hebrew copies of the Old Testament, should indisputably be. thas read in consistence with its context; 31 “ And they shall look towards me for, (or on account of) him whom they have pierced” or “they shall Jook upon me with him whom they have pierced.’”’* rh The Editor quotes, to my great surprize, (in p. 546) some verses in which the particle TS requires an accusative case and consequently no preposition “ for,” “to,” or “vith,” can be properly placed. But I beg to ask the * Newcome reads and they shail !ook on him whom they pierced”’ His note on this translation is as follows; “on him.] Thirty-six MSS. and two ed. read poy: three other MSS read so originally ; six perh aps read so; six read so now; and eleven have pox iu the margin, as Kveri. And yet soy on me, may be traced in the ancie it versions and Chald. pox was also noted as a various ete tion by R. Saadias, who lived about the year 900. See Kenn, diss. gen. §. 43. * Citant pos Talmudet R. Saadias Maggaion. Poc. Append, in- Mal.” Secker. Dr. Owen shews that Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Barnabas favour. the reading of ) ON Inquiry —Sept, version Sect. LY.” [ 367 J Editor how he can turn the following verses to his purpose, wherein no accusative case after the particle MS can be at all admitted. Exodus I ls“ Now these” are the names of the chil- dren of Israel; which came into Ezypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.” Would the Editor thus render the particle here requiring an accusative case,—** every man and his household came Jacob?” Would the verse in this case bear any sense? Genesis XLIY. 4 SYM MN IY A “« They were gone out of the city.’ There the particle stands for “ out of” or “from.” IV 1 * [have gottena man from the Lord.” Here the preposition ‘ from’ is substituted for this very Heb. particle. In Deut. Vile8, we have “CODDS TWD DAANRD 1D” teraily “on account of the love of God for you” though thus rendered in the English yersion, «© Because the Lord loved you.’’* In the course of examining this subject, the Editor quotes, * Thy throne, O Jehovah, is for ever and ever.” — I shall feel obliged, if he will kindly Jet me know from what book of the Old or New Testament he has selected this verse, # Archbishop Secker in Newcome has the following :es maik ‘ Potest WWR IAN. notare eo quod, ut vertant @ Ch. vel. quem. “| Vid. Nold. Ec sic post Dativum adhis betur Jer, RMX XViIL 9.” [ 368 } containing the term, “ Jehovah” in the firs part of the text. | re Jisivisd gus As to my remarks on Zechariah XIIE 7s * Awake O sword, against my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of Hosts; smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered,” the Editor agrees partly with me, saying, “ No one doubts that the Saviour plac- ed himself in subjection to the Father, when he condescended to become subject to death.” He however wishes to prove the deity of Jesus Christ by the application of the word fellow ( my.) to him. He here quotes Micah “ whose goings forth were from everlasting” and John, “ And the word was with God? which have no relation to the term mny or fellow found in the verse in question; and as these quotations of the Editor have been examined in p- 265 & 291 I shall not recur to them in this place. He lastly quotes Parkhurst to shew that Noy “implies a neighbour, a member of the same society.” Is not this quotation, defining the Hebrew word May as “ a neighbour,” directly against the object of the Editor? If Christ is re- presented either in a real or figurative sense as standing on thé right hand of the deity, taking precedence ofall those that believe in him as the promised Messiah sent from God, would it be [ 369 ]j inconsistent in itself or an acknowledgment of his deity to use the word FY or neighbour for Christ? My readers will observe from the following quotations that this very term MDY which is rendered fellow in the verse in question, is translated “‘ neighbour’ by the very authors of the English version in many other instances. Leviticus VI. 2, << or hath deceived his neigh- four.” The last word is a translation of the term MWY: XLX. 17. « Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy “neighbour” or gumeeth : Ch. XXY. id and 15. The Editor, in speaking of Christ, repeats now and then the phrase, «‘ God blessed for ever” perhaps alluding to Romans IX. 5.—Among all the interpretations given to this text, for or against the Trinity, there is the Paraphrase of _ ‘Locke of whose name the literary world is so justly proud, which I here first quote.—* Had the patriarchs, to whom the promises were made, for their (the Israelites,) forefathers; and of them, as to his fleshly* extraction, Christ is come, he > who is over all, God be blessed forever, Amen.”’ Secondly i shall cite here some scriptural pas- gazes to shew that it was customary with Jewish writers to address abrupt exclamations to God, Vide v the 3rd of the same Chapterin which Paul speaks _efhis “ kinsmen according to the flesh.” 4S [ 570 J while treating of some other subjects, that my readers may be convinced that the sudden intro« duction of the phrase, ‘ God be blessed for ever,” inv, 5 by St. Paul, was perfectly consis- tent with the style of the sacred writings: Psalm LXXXIX. 51. 52. “ wherewith thine enemies have reproached, O Lord, wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine anointed : bless-. ed be the Lord forever more. Amen and Amen.” CLV. 35. “Let the sinners bé consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more: bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye the Lord.” if St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians and in that to the Ephesians, declares positives ly that the Father is the only Being who has the right to the epithet ‘‘God” under the Christian dispensation, he could not, as an inspired writer, be guilty of so palpable a contradiction as to ap- ply this very epithet to the Christ of God on an- other occasion. I Cor. VIII. 6. ‘* But to us (Christians) there ts but one God the Father,’ Ephe. f. 17 “ That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory,” &c. IV. 5and6 « One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism: One God and Father of all, who is above all, through aif and in us ail.” Respecting I John v. 20, I beg to refer to the rule laid down by Bishop Middleton (of [STE J "whom the Editor speaks highly and justly (in p. 535) in his work on the Greek article p. 79 « When two or more attributives joined by a copulative or copulatives are assumed of the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted; before the remaining Ones it is omitted.” In the passage under con- sideration there are two attributives joined by a . copulative, and in order to ascertain whether they are assumed of the same person or of di/fer- ent persons, it is only necessary to observe that the article is inserted not only before the first attributive, but also before the second; and that consequently “the true God” is one person, and ‘the eternal life’ is another. This per- fectly corresponds with the preceding part of the verse in which “ he that is true” and “ his Son Jesus Christ” are separately mentioned. Finding the practice of the primitive Chris- tians during the first three centuries unfavour- able to his sentiments, the Editor prudently keeps it out of view altogether, merely observ- ing (p. 625) into that “we do not even in- quire, Paul tells us that even in his time ‘the mystery of iniquity’ had already beoun to work and John adds that ‘many Antichrists’ had al- ready gone out into the world.” The Editor must be well aware that those in whom the E872 4] mystery of iniquity was found, and who were detected as Antichrists were not in the fellow- ship of true Christians, and consequently Church Histories treat of the practice of the latter en- tirely distinct from that of the former; and it is therefore evident that the practice and professions of primitive Christians, who were generally the contemporaries of the apostles or their disciples, are worthy of inquiry for the reculatien of the conduct of the Christians of these days. As to Mosheim, the Editor says ‘‘ even Mo- sheim, suspected as he is of being unfavourable to the truth, establishes their faith in Christ’s deity in the very passage quoted p. 103 by our author against this doctrine.’ It appears from ihis quotation that they when baptized “ made solemn profession of their confidence in Christ.” The Jews as well as almost all the Gentiles pro- fessed their belief in God ; but the thing which was required of them by the apostles was that, they should make profession of eonfidence in Jesus as the Christ of God in the rite of baptism. Ifsuch a profession of confidence in Christ is ad- mitted by the Editor as a sufficient acknowledg- ‘ment of his deity; why should he be so hostile to those (whom he styles Unitarians) who are baptized in the name of Jesus and also profess their solemn confidence in him? ‘Siill further 192 am I surprized that when the apostle John ex- pressly wrote his gospel to pkove “that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” (Ch. XX. 3h) ‘the Editor, so far from being satisfied with those who receive Jesus in the character expressed by these terms (‘ the Christ the Son of God,’’) in the sense which they uniformly bear in the Scriptures, requires them moreover to believe, that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God, and thus not only defeats the object of the apostle, but even contradicts him in express language. The Editor then proceeds to say “ respect- ing Locke and Newton, our reply is precisely the same; their opinions in divinity are no- thing to us.” The Editor elated by the ge- neral prevalence of the orthodox system, elfect- ed only by perversions of the sense of the divine writings, attempts to turn the autho- rities of these great men also to his own purpose. «If (says he) Locke, as our author affirms, (p. 161) really thought that the faith which makes men Christians includes their receiving Jesus Christ for their Lord and King; Locke knew that this included the belief of his omni- science and omnipresence, as without this, his being their King was only a solemn mockery.” The Editor prudently quotes here only a part of the sentence of Locke quoted by me, which he aT a thought might give him an opportunity of mak> ing comments favourable to his creed, but it is fortunate for us that his works being written and printed in English, are not liable to much critical perversion. Locke says, “that the be- lieving Jesus to be the Messiah" includes in it a receiving him for our Lord and King PRO- MISED AND SENT FROM GOD.” The phrase chosen by that celebrated author “sent Jrom God” denies the deity of Christ beyond doubt, since one sent by another is of course different from him who sends him. To ayoid every miscoustruction being thrown upon his definition, Locke chose the term “ God” in- stead of any other term in the above phrase, that Jesus might be understood separately from God without the least room for the sophistry that might represent him as God the Son sent from God the Father. We however are not at a loss to discover what Locke meant by the terms Lord and King” when referred to Jesus, as he fully explained them in his Paraphrase on the epistles to the Corinthians. As tothe term “ Lord” I refer to the note on verse the 2nd of Ch. I. of I. Cor, «what the apostle means by Lord, when he attributes it to Christ vide VIII. 6.” Paraphrase on VIII. 6. “ yet to us Christians there is but one God,the Father and author of all things to whom _ alone we address all our worship and service; [86 Y ‘and one Lord viz. Jesus Christ by whom all things come from God to us and by whom we have access to the Father.” As to the term King J quote his Paraphrase on Ch. XV. v. 24. which clearly represents his sovereignty as finite “ af- ter that shall be the day of judgement, which shall bring to a conclusion and finish the whole dispensation to the race and posterity of Adam, in this world: when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father which he shall not do till he hath destroyed all empire, power, and authority that shall be in the world besides.” ; The Editor says of Sir Isaac Newton, “ His belief of Christ’s deity appears as clear as the light, from our author's own quotation ; when he said that Christians of all ages are represented as worshipping God and the Lamb.’ Newton was too circumspect to leave his word liable to perversion by the popular opinion. He explains the sense in which Christians worship God and also the sense in which they worship Jesus, thle one as directly opposed to the other as the West to the East. Newton says “ God for his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb for his benefaction in redeeming with his blood; God as sitting upon the throne and living for ever, and the Lamb exalted above all [ 3% 4 by the merits of his death.” The worship offered) to the latter is therefore merely a manifestation of civil reverence as I pointed out in p. 342. To equalize abeing exalted and worshipped for his meritorious death with the eternal Su« preme Sovereign of the universe is only an ats tempt to bring the nature of the deity on a level with a mortal creature and by no means serves to elevate that creature, to the rank “of the deity. Ifthe Editor consider these quotations from Locke and Newton really orthodox, how Inconsistent he must be in condemning those whose sentiments as to the person of Jesus Christ are precisely the same; to wit, that he is the anointed Lord and King promised and sent from God, is worthy of worship for his me= diation and meretorious death, but by no means as a being possessed of a two-fold nature, diving and human, perfect God and perfect Man. As to my remarks on certain abstruse reasons ings resorted to by the orthodox, the Editor further says, that he needs them not; thereby avowedly relinquishing reason in support of the Trinity, but happily he asserts at the same time that “to us the scriptures are sufficient.” J therefore entreat him to point outa single scrips tural authority, treating of a compound God of y (str 1} three persons, and of a compound Messiah, one of these three persons, constituted of a two fold nature, divine and human. The Editor alludes to the term ‘* Antichrists” found in the epistle of John; but Lam glad that we most fortunately are furnished with the defi- nition of this term by that inspired writer, which decides at once the question who are the real subjects of its application. 1. John 1V. 3. “ Eve- ry spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God and this is that Spirit of Antichrist.” We accordingly res joice to confess that Jesus Christ, who camein the flesh is OF GOD and that not only he, but his apostles also were of God, (1. John 1V.6. V. 19.) But we feel sincerely for those who violate this standard, either by falling short or going beyond it, by denying that Jesus Christ is OF GOD, or by affirming that Jesus Christ is God hime self; since both these assertions, to wit, “ Jesus Christ is Nor of God” and “Jesus Christ 1s God” are equally incompatible with John’s proposi« tion that “ Jesus Christ is OF GOD.” Forex. ample. The Prime minister by the law of the Jand is appointed by the King, and consequently is acknowledged to be or THE Kine, to say there- fore that he is not of the king would be to detract from the minister’s dignity; but to say 4U I 373 that the prime minister is the King is not only inconsistent with the assertion that the prime minister is of the King; but would be pronounced high treason, in like manner as delfying the Christ of God is both an affront to God, and an Antichristian doctrine. t Lastly, I tender my humble thanks for the Editor's kind suggestion, in inviting me to adopt the doctrine cof the Holy Trinity; but I am sorry to find that I am unable to benefit by this advice. After I have long relinquished every idea of a plurality of Gods or of the persons of the Godhead, taught under different systems of modern Hindooism, I cannot conscientiously and consistently embrace one ofa similar nature, though greatly refined by the religious reforma- tions of modern times ; since whateverarguments can be adduced against a plurality of Gods strike with equal force against the doctrine of a» plurality of persons of the Godhead; and on the other hand whatever excuse may be pleaded in favor of a plurality of persons of the deity, can be offered with equal propriety in Merona of Polytheism. I now conclude my Essay by offering up thanks to the Supreme disposer of the events of this universe, for having unexpectedly delivered [. 372.4 this country from the long continued tyrrany of its former Rulers, and placed it under the Go- ~ yernment of the English, a Nation who not only are blessed with the enjoyment of civil and poli- tical liberty but also interest themselves in pro- moting liberty and social happiness, as well as free inquiry into literary and religious subjects, among those nations to which their influence extends, FINTS. 7 Ng ; or en u NG 80H ere, , ah - res < RO ROKE : Pie: ' ' * . ‘ ~ * . ‘ ' . A y - ; . “ % < “4 ’ oe + x ;