ret Library of Che Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY TH KE PRESENTED BY Samuel Agnew, Esq. 1858 BT 111 .H35 1818 Hales 7 Wr ram: Vga ye 1 aod: Faith in the Holy Prinses the doctrine of the Gospel , ¢ Li At wT ' y I i ? a aa Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/faithinholytriniO1 hale “ee. FAITH IN THE HOLY TRINITY, THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOSPEL, AND SABELLIAN UNITARIANISM SHEWN TO BE “* THE GOD-DENYING APOSTACY.” fore : i ise: Nathan A SE aD Les “ct ht Cle ign ie Mri ar tig NE ye oe it? : ¥ “ rN ¢ i - d P se '. VS Bays jG \ a Pe ee ale, oe gee ete P “ % | We * eae od ‘he q Ta 4 > nied RCT OO? Ma wt ’ - ¥ F €: Ys Le kean engelleedndlen se aien eden FAITH IN THE HOLY TRINITY, THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOSPEL, AND SABELLIAN UNITARIANISM SHEWN TO BE ‘WHE GOD-DENYING APOSTACY.” THE APHNEIOEOY AMOLTTALIALY.—Cauus. IN A CONNECTED SERIES OF LETTERS. BY THE REV. WILLIAM HALES, D.D. RECTOR OF KILLESANDRA, &c. |. . ‘SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED. IN TWO VOLUMES, ‘ | VOL. I. GLPOCPGPEEPL EGR ELIE LOIS onda : PRINTED FOR F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON, NO. 62, ST. PAUL’S CHURCH-YARD ; By R. and R. Gilbert, St. Johw’s Square, Clerkenwell, 1818. a eM oi Mk is 4 PD ee Wile “ind ¢ & F r J Hey : ) ‘ w ' a aN fi eal ee , io a | ay s ‘ . t yA" = < - y 7 . ‘ a i ie I. ee e WS) es ve - - Th ae A>. 4 » A . | : BR, . + f Pereve 16 At 48) é PATA tae ee - ‘* ~ bo 4 5 ; aes = A ao a | ene “ae to tee ree ace Mj : ia PARSE |e Re ie Bea ee es 4 4 a> ¥ J D e Serene Le da rena y ene al et a te 3 | Ce | A i 1 Petri ea © : t ; ‘ a ra t in! : 5 ‘ hu - AL, rt as yh .s : ha mr ~~ f F ds 3 ess ye he ies ea “a ee) fo pear Ww ; 4 4 } 4 ie ( i ’ iy ry PE i “ ba gas teh rt. i é foe i \ Le eee es hii Bi sea as ar kage 8 y . st x a ts . . A ¢ 2 ’ Lah a ; oi 4 en 7 ey ¥ ey = *' a 1 at ios Niall te 5 fie? . ~ Ai ae 2 ES, baa iS) 7 ivy havi ‘ “ae ! ee, . “ j Y Viele i: : ry i E 2 ‘ } ‘ 4 SE Oo Awan Sia se ‘ ote kt & 2, Z i 1 ie : r a - ’ ] § a 7 a } * ee ‘i 3 fu52 IN i de a ne 7 ‘ 44 ‘a * * Lin 2 ’ - a yy | J hay ; a 3 Fela Pied nO: ene: bal ey i oe ci cas ‘pid 4 “sie a ob oe, eat its ST epi ae bis PREFACE. THIS Work, at first, appeared in the form of Letters on the Sabelhan Controversy, in the Anti-Jacobin Review, from February 1815, to September 1816; and was origi- nally designed to counteract the proselyting spirit of the modern Socinians, or rather Sabelhan Unitarians, who hardily deny the proper Divinty and religious worship of Jesus Curist, and the personal evistence of the Hoty Guosr. Sabellian Unitari- anism indeed, when stripped of its disguise, is simple Deism. Afterwards, at the re commendation of some highly respectable friends, who had seen the Letters, and wished to procure them a wider and more permanent circulation, than that confined and fugitive mode of periodical publica- _. tion afforded ; the author has been induced to revise, and recast the entire connected vi sertes * ; to divest each Letter, as much as possible, of its original - controversial air ; avoiding all persona/ applications and sarcasms, unbecoming the dignity and gravity of the subject ; and to correct and enlarge the whole, with such alterations, additions, and notes, as tend to throw fur- ther lights upon the important, the vital doctrine itself; under the guidance of the pole star of the Original Scriptures of the Oup and New TeEstamMeENT; earnestly and anxiously endeavouring, by “ search- ing” and comparing them closely, to steer a safe and steady course of Rational and Biblical Criticism, between the “ Scylla” of Sabelanism, and the “ Charybdis” of Tri- theism; upon which “ unlearned and unsta- ble” opponents, and “ zealous but unskilful’ defendants of the doctrine of the Hoxry Trinity, too often, alas! “ have made shipwreck of the Farru, once delivered to the Saints.” ‘“ The world, by human wisdom, knew not Gop,” at any time; and still less, the profoundly mysterious and incomprehen- sible nature of. the T'rRiune Derry, or * 'Tantum se7vies juncturaque pollet. Hor. Vil « Trinity IN Unity.” Our informa- tion on the awful and inscrutable subject, we owe solely to Divine REVELATION. . But this revelation, in the Old Testament especially, is often cloathed in obscure and ambiguous, figurative and symbolical language: to search and develope the meaning of which, by critical comparison with what is more clearly and explicitly revealed in the New Testament, that in- imitable commentary on the Old ; making all due allowance for the weakness and imperfection of the human understanding in such sublime and profound specula- tions, requires indeed, no small degree of humility, caution, circumspection, patience, perseverance, skill, and fairness of mind ; all so necessary to guard against Error, and to investigate TrRurTu, so far as it 1s discernible by mortal sight; and then, to “ hold fast what is right,’ after “ proving all things,” and rejecting the erroneous, without ‘ partialities*,” or undue respect of persons, parties, or sects. * TIpocwaerndiais. “© My brethren, let not THE FaitH, which ye have in oun Lorp Jusus Curist, be blemished with partialities.” Jam, ii. 1. Hooker's Translation, Eccles. Polity, p. 32. Vill Of mistakes corrected in this edition, the principal, relates to the controversy about the three heavenly witnesses, 1 John v. 7, respecting the position of the obelus and semicircle, enclosing the three words, “ ¢ rw woavw, in Stephens’ standard edition of 1550, and the reference in the margin to seven of his manuscripts which omitted the same. For the accuracy of this posi- tion, and of this reference, Archdeacon Travis warmly contended, in his Letters to Gibbon, edit. iii. 1794, who had accused Stephens of “ mistake or fraud, in placing his erotchet,” as he ludicrously styled his semeircle. But the plausible argument of Travis (adopted in the first edition of this work), has been completely overturned by Bishop Marsh, in his Letters to Travis, Leipzig, 1795; proving satisfactorily, that the semicircle is misplaced at “ seavw,” and that Stephens himself intended it to have been placed lower down, after “ ev 79 ya,” so as to include the whole disputed clause. And some additional arguments, confirm-. ing this more fully, are introduced in the- present etter XI. IX But, notwithstanding this, the author is now, at length, perfectly satisfied of the authenticity and credibility of the disputed clause, from a more critical review of the whole of the evidence, erternal and in- ternal, for and against it: and he trusts, if is fully established, in the revised Letters XI. and XII. beyond the reach of further controversy. The sacred cause of ‘Truth and Justice, required this explicit avowal, ‘to counteract any undue weight that might be attached to the author's former opinion, that the disputed clause was spurious ; as given, 1811, in the New Analysis of Chro- nology, Vol. ii. p. 905, 906. And he re- quests the holders or possessors. of that work, to correct the erroneous passages, by reference to this; in which the subject has been more carefully reconsidered, and more maturely digested, after six years’ mterval of rumination. | The same regard to Truth and Justice, induces him also to retract his partial cen- sure of some clauses of the Creed, com- monly called the Athanasan. For he is now convinced, that his former objections were founded in mistake of the literal x ineaning of these clauses: and notwith- standing its laboured subtilty of metaphy- sical explanation, he is at length satisfied, that it contains, in general, and with perhaps a single exception, or two, a cor- rect summary of the true Afhanasian doc- trine, and a ‘* form of sound words, which, in the language of our Articles, “ may be proved by most certain warrants of Scrip- ture.’ ‘lhe exceptionable passages in the New Analysis, &c. which should likewise be corrected, are to be found in Vol. il. p. 960—971, and Vol. iu. p. 11. Among the additions of most import- ance, in the text, and in the notes, are, 1. The first three Letters ; which are recast, and generalized, from the petty Exeter Con- troversy, between Dr. Carpenter and Amicus Patria, Christianus Biblicus, &c. &c. which originally gave them birth. hey now contain a sketch of the History of the Christian Church, in its rise and progress ; and of the introduction of the principal Heresies in doctrine, and Schisms in disci- pline and government, by which it has been infested ever. since the Apostolic ave; and also, an enlargement of the Xl Canons of Criticism, furnished in the for- mer second Letter. 2. In the fourth Letter, is introduced a classical note, on the Pagan Allegory of the Fall of our first Parents; and on Hestod’s Ages of the World ; which will be found to bear a remarkable, though distorted re- semblance to the Mosaic History, and to the rectification of Sacred Chronology, pro- posed in the New Analysis ; not to the four Ages of the Latin poets, Ovid, kc. ; nor to the four Satyas of the Hendus; nor to Nebuchadnezzars dream, of the image compounded of the four metals. 3: In the eighth Letter, the review of Griesbach’s celebrated editions of the Greek Vestament; and of his scheme for correct- ing the text, by an ingenious but fanciful classification of Greek MSS. according to their several families, recensions, or edi- tions; has been enlarged by some curious additional proofs of affinity between his Egyptian and Western recensions ; which Griesbach misrepresented as distinct and independent witnesses of the genuine text, in opposition to the Byzantine or Constan- xil ‘inopolitan recension ; whose exemplars are by far the most numerous and most cor- rect; and form the basis of the standard Vulgate text. These further proofs are taken from the review of Valpy’s editions of the Greek ‘Testament, in the Critical Review, for October, 1816. 4. In the examination of the ezternal and internal evidence, for and against the authenticity and credibility of the dis- puted clause, 1 John v. 7, 8, Letters XI. XII. the merits of that prime standard edition, the Complutensian, of Cardinal Aimenes, are stated more fully than be- fore; and the internal evidence is strength- ened by additional proofs. ' 5. To the vindication of the other dis- puted texts, 1 Tim. iii. 16; Acts xx. 28; Letters IX. and X. is added a vindication of some other important texts in this edition, such as the Dozology of the Lord’s prayer, Matt. vi. 13, omitted by Griesbach; and that important text to prove the Divi- nity of Christ, Rom. ix. 5; the evidence of which Griesbach had obscured. And to the Second Volume is now annexed, from xiii the New Analysis, &c. an Appendix of two Series of Texts, from Genesis to Revelations, containing a summary view of the most remarkable prophecies and references to Christ in the Otp Testament, which are explained and enlarged in the New: evincing most fully the fundamental defect of the Sabellian scheme of theology, in neglecting so much the evidence of the Old Testament, Letter IV. The divine and human character, and the proper divinity of Jesus Curist, are proved from the great range of prophecies in the Old Testament, Letters V. VI. And from the sublime Introduction of St. John’s Gospel, Letter VII. Of which Introduc- tion, a more critical analysis and para- phrase is given, in some respects, new. The religious worship due to Jrsus Curist, and the personality of the Hoty Guost, and his distinctness from the FaTHER, are more fully proved in the last two Letters, XIII. XIV. And also Faitu in tue Hoy Trinity, shewn to be not only the Doctrine of the Gospel, but also of the Law and the Prophets, and xiv as old as the creation: Bat on the othér hand, Sabellian Unilarianism, an “ impious novelty,” invented by Heresy, against the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. And it is fur- ther shewn, that the ¢hree fundamental principles of Unitarianism, if applied exclu- sively to the Faruer, are false; but if applied to him inclusively, along with THE Son, and the Hoty Guost, are true, and fully warranted by rational and Scriptural evidence. The rage even for posthumous proselytism, that pervades the Sabellian school, has pressed into their ranks, some of the brightest ornaments of the Christian Church, Sir Jsaac Newton, Dr. Samuel — Clarke, Locke, and Grotius; and dispa- raged the profoundly learned Cudworth, as a Platonist. From the regard due to departed excellence, their characters are here vindicated from calumny, and duly appreciated. And the masterly portraits of two distinguished sceptics, Porson and Gibbon, are added from the Quarterly Review. The Unitarian Controversy, however, is but a secondary object of this work; XV the primary, is to establish that grand doctrine of our most Holy Faith, * rur Trinity in Uwity,” upon a solid, rational, and Scriptural foundation, by a more exhaustive discussion of the mo- mentous subject, than has hitherto ap- peared. Should the inquisitive reader wish for fuller information, respecting other branches of the Controversy, the Atone- ment, &c. the following selection of the most approved Trinitarian publications is recommended. Bishop Horsley’s Letters to Dr. Priestley. Howes’ Critical Observations on Books, 4 vols. 8vo. 1787. Against Priestley. Jamieson’s Vindication of the Primitive Faith, 1794. Against Priestley. Lhe Inspector, 1799. Against Priestley, Wakefield, Evanson, Belsham, &c. Dr. Pye Smith’s Letters to Mr. Belsham. ———_—-————. Discourses on the Divi- mty and Sacrifice of Christ, 1811, 1814. Hackney. Bishop Middleton on the Doctrine of the Greek Article, 1808. Against Wake- field's Translation of the 'N ew Testa- ment. XVI Falconer’s Bampton Lectures, 1811. Against Evanson. | Rennell’s Animadversions on the Unitarian Version, 1811. Laurence’s Critical Remarks on the Unita- rian Version. Naress Remarks on the Unitarian Version, 1814. Second Edition. Veysie's Preservative against Unitarianism. Against Dr. Carpenter. Wardlow on the Socinian Controversy. Glasgow, 1814. Dean Magee on the Atonement.—Appen- diz and Postscript, 1816. Fourth Edi- tion. Against Belsham and Carpenter. Bishop Burgess’s Tracts on Unitarianism. 1814, 1815, 1816. Archdeacon Daubeny’s Charge, June 15, 1815. On the Unitarian Method of Interpreting Scripture. The recent disgraceful and ominous trials of W. Hone, for profane, seditious, end treasonable libels, upon the Liturgy XV of the Church of England, in his political parodies, of the Litany, the Anostolical Benediction, 2. Cor. xiii. l4.; the Athana- sian Creed, and the Chureh Catechism 3; and his strange and_ perverse acquittals, con- trary to the charges of the Judges, by London Juries, to the great and indecent joy of the multitude: furnish melancholy and portentous proof of the wide spread of Deism or Infidelity, among our citizens, Even the culprit himself, since, has indi- rectly pronounced the severest censure upon himself, his jurors, and the multitude, in a Letter addressed to the editors of the London Papers, dated Dec. 23, 1817, “ deprecating the clandestine republica- tion of his parodies ; disclaiming any in« tention himself of publishing the like in future; and earnestly exhorting all his tellow-citizens, to refrain from parodying any part of Holy Writ, or the Service of the Church of England.” Whatsoever is hallowed by Divine Re- velation, or solemnly sanctioned by the Law of the Land, ought unquestionably to be protected from the mockery of profane and impious scoffers. ‘And if the rip ee Tee a xViil | disastrous issue of these trials has proved the insufficiency of the existing laws, to guard the sanctuary of the Sacred Writings, and our evangelical Liturgy, surely the speedy enaction of some ex- press and effectual law, is imperiously required of the Legislature, to shield them from such disgusting ribaldry, and horrible profanation, in future. Villesandra, Jan. 7, 1818. SUBSCRIBERS. COPIES. fits RoyaL HIGHNESs THE PRincE REGENT. His Roya, Hieuness THE DuKE or CUMBERLAND. Her Royat HigHNEss THE Ducuess or CUMBERLAND. Earl Wuitwortu, Ex-Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Earl Tatzor, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. ARCHBISHOPS. His Grace the Archbishop of CANTERBURY. York. ARMAGH, CASHEL. Tuam. BISHOPS. The Lord Bishop of Lonpon. DuRHAM @O@O8@f-8 > *¢ @ eee aa @®Seeceono a6 BANGOR. CARLISLE. CHESTER. CHICHESTER. CLOGHER. CLOYNE. CorRK an St. Davip’s DERRY. d Ross. ee ee aeeererscern*7P ep aneeage gens DROMORE. a 2 @eeoeeen ese 10 26 RE ; . COPIES. The Lord Bishop of ELPHIN. HIEREFORD. KivpaRe “Rely vivdse st eetaveeret gree ee KULLALLA. KILMORE; LINCOLN. MEATH. OsSORY. SALISBURY « PEERS. The Right Honourable the Earl of Farnum. KERRY. LIVERPOOL. SHANNON. Countess Dowager of SHANNON. NORMANTON. The Right Honourable Viscount BARRINGTON. CARLETON. SIDMOUTH. The Right Honourable Lord CoLCHESTER. ELLENBOROUGH. KaNYUN |). 1. u paea toed ee RE DESDALE .s-cucc ccc ce ced ances The Right Hon. the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, Ireland. The Right Hon. the Master of the Rolls, Ireland. N. VANsITTART, Chancellor of the Exchequer. W. Vesey FirzGeRALp, M.P. W.C. Prunxet, M.P. Hon. Mr. Justice BAYLEY cc.ceccdscscccnccecccersceeees, be DaLy. iady Harriet DALy. Hon. Mr. Justice Mayne. Park. Scales Geb eee Oe veces en ie ee Hon. Recorder of London....cc0.. sceccceccorssssscercces Sir’ Tuomas BRRING; OLLBS OPER Rie. eas oe eae ee Sir RicharpMu serave, Dublin. Sir WILLIAM BLIZARD. Rey. Sir SAMUEL SYNGE HUTCHINSON. oO Xxi | COPIES, The Very Rev. Dean of Acnonry, Killalla. ARDAGH, Tuam. CANTERBURY, Cork. GLOUCESTER, The Rev, Archdeacon Port, of London vececsciccsscpuccess 3 CamBRipDGE, of Middlesex, OLDERSHAW, of Norfolk. Prosser, of Durham. Watson, of St. Alban’s, A. Hon. and Rev. James Agar, Rector of Carrigallan. B. George Baillie, Esq. Sherwood Park, Carlow, David Barclay, Esq. Tavistock-square. Rey. G. F. Bates, Vicar of West Malling, Kent, Rev. Dr, Beaufort, Rector of Navan. Rey. C. J. Blomfield. John Bowles, Esa. Dulwich Common .......... Det RIA CAR CI We Rey. Richard Brookes, Rector of Ballyconnel. Rev. Dr. Burrowes, Master of Enniskillen School. R. Bunbury, Esq. y Rev. J. Brewster, Rector of Egglescliffe, Durham. . Rey. Henry Brownrigg, Prebendary of St. Putrick’s, Dublin, C. Rey. 'T.Calvert, Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, Rev. E. Cardwell, Feliow of Brazen Nose College, Oxford, Rey. W. Carr, Bolton Abbey, Yorkshire, Rey. W. Cockin, Rey. John Cousins, Killesandra, ¥xIi COPIES. Rev. T. Cotton, Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. Rey. Dr. Copleston, Provost of Oriel College, Oxford. Charles Cowper, Esq. Albany. John Craig, Esq. Shrewsbury. D. Rev. Robert Daly, Rector of Powerscourt,....-vesccesssess 2 Rev. G. W. Daubeny. Mrs. M. Daubuz, Layton. Rev. Dr. Dean, Principal of Mary Hall, Oxford. Charles Derrick, Esq. ~ William Disney, Esq. Rey. G. D’Oyly, B.D, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury. E, Rev. Dr. Elrington, Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. Rey. Charles Elrington, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, Rev. Henry Elrington, Armagh, Rev. Dr. Ellerton, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Rey. W. Ellis. F. Rev. G. S. Faber, Long-Newton, Durham. Rev. Thomas Falconer, Bath. Rev. Dr. Fitzgerald, Rector of Moyle, Derry, John Leslie Foster, Esq. M. P. Rev. J. Fortescue, Prebendary of Cork. Mr. Freeman, Peterborough, Kent. G. Rev. Dr. Gaskin, Rector of Stoke-Newington, John Gifford, Esq. Penge Lodge, | Rev. John Gilpin. John Godley, Esq. XXIil . COPIE George Grierson, Esq, Purliament-street, Dublin. G. A. Grierson, Esq. . Rev. Dr. Guinness, Rector of Werburgh, Dublin. Arthur Guinness, Esq. Benjamin Guinness, Esq. W. L. Guinness, Esq. Rev. Dr, Gowen. Hi. James Hall, Esq. Rev. H. Halliwell, Rector of Clayton, Sussex. Rev. N. J. Hill, Snailwell, Newmarket. Rey. Dr. Hingston, Vicar-General of Cloyne... 22.0020: a oi Rev. Dr. Hodson, Principal of Brazen-nose College, Oxford, Rev. W. W. Holland, Chichester. Rev. Thomas Hore, Ham Common, Surry. Rev. T. W. Hornbuckle, Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. J. Alexander Jackson, Esq. M.D. Dublin. Rev. Edward James, Christ Church College, Oxford. John Johnston Esq. Captain of the 3d Regiment. Rev. John Jebb, Rector of Abington, Cashel. KK. Rey. A. Kersteman, Rector of Bermondsey. ~ LL. John David Latouche, Esq. Bank, Dublin, - James Digges Latouche, Esq. Ditto. Rey. Dr. Lee, Vice Chancellor of Ozford. Rev. T. Le Mesurier, Rector of Haughton, Durham, Libraries. Brazen-nose College, Oxford, Magdalen College, Oxford. St. John’s Colleze, Cambridge. Chapter, Gloucester. Church, Stogkton upon Lees. XXIV COPIES: John Lloyd, Esq. Merrion Square, Dublin. Rev. T. P. Lefanu, Dublin. M. Rev. R. Macdonnel, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, Rev. W. Mackenzie, Rector of Smarden, Kent. Rev. Dr. Mant, Rector, of Bishopsgate. Rev. W. Mitchell, Vicar of Llantrissant, Glamorganshire. Rev. Charles Molloy. Rev. John Moore, Minor Canon of St. Paul’s. N. Rev. H. H. Norris, Prebendary of Llandaff’........ steer SeGh 6 O. Rev. A. O‘Beime, Belfast Academy. Rev. H. C. O'Donoghue, Homerion...... See r. Rev. J. Page, Fellow of Brazen-nose College, Oxford: William Palmer, Esq. Montpelier Terrace, Danbury. Robert Perceval, Esq. M. D. Dublin. Edward Percival, Esq. M.D. Bath. J.C. Powell, Esq. Clapton. .....sceceeeee weqveesesveel gs een Baden Powell, Esq. Rev. H. Powell. James Powell, Esq. Rey. Dr. Prior, Sen. Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Rev. Thomas Pruen. William Perfect, Esq. Pontefract. R. Rev. J. L. Radford, Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. John Read, Esq. Ipsden Hans, Wallingford. H. R. Reynolds, Esq, Bedford-row. XKV . COPIES. Mr. C. Rivington, Great James-street, Bedford-row. Rev. Dr. Routh, President of Magdalen College, Oxford. Miss Russel, Whiperess, Walthamstow. . Rev. Dr. Ryan, Rector of Dromore, Wicklow. S. Rey. Dr. Sadlicr, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Rev. S. T. Sands, Ditio. Ditto. Rev. Henry Sawbridge, Rector of Newbury, Wilts. Jonathan Scott, Esq. Shrewsbury. Rev. Lancelot Sharpe, M. A. Robert Shaw, Esq. M.P. Dublin......... moe Cue eee Aay 3 Rev. Thomas Sikes, Vicar of Guilsborough, Northampton....... 4 Henry Sikes, Esq. Banker, London. | Rey. J. H. Singer, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Rev. J. H. Spry, Birmingham. Colonel Sleigh, Stockton upon Tees. Rev. Joseph Storey, Azlbnore. Rev. T. L. Strong, M. A. Rev. J. H. Smyth, Liverpool. Rey, Charles Synge. T. Rev. R. Tatham, Public Orator, Cambridge. V. John Vaillant, Esq. Montague-street.veeeeeercceeeesne crccese 2 Rey. Van Mildert, Dr. Reg. Professoy of Divinity, Oxford. W. Mr. Thomas Walker, 16, Peter-street, Dublin. Rev. C. W. Wall, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. James Wall, Esq. Solicitor, Hungerford. Joshua Watson, Esq. Clapion....... b ihcla da sieigiel a wrae's SPINE « Rev, T. T. Walmsley, B.D, Reetor of St, Martin's, Ludgate. XXVI COPIES. E. Scott Waring, Esq. Bundlecund, India. Rev. Dr. Webb, Dublin. Rev. J. Wetherall, Gloucester. Rey. Irwin Whitty, Rector of Golding, Cashel. Rev. W. B. Whitfield, Fellow of St. sohn’s College, Cambridge. Rev. Thomas Wigan. Rev. John Wilson, Lincoln. Rey. Dr. Wood, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge. Rey. Richard Wynne, Rector of Cavan. 4 63 Cerbic Young, Esq. Lahard, Cavan. CONTENTS- OF VOLUME If. LETTER Lp. 1 Purity of the Christian Church in its infancy, p. 2.— Its ensuing persecutions, p. 3.—Departure from the doctrine and discipline of the Apostles, p. 4.—Causes of this:—1. Discord between the Jewish and Gentile converts, p. 4—6 ;—2. Early Heresies and A postacies, ». 7 ;——Opposite errors of the early Heretics, p. 7 j— The Ebionites, p. 8 -—TPhe Sabellsans, p. 9;—Paul of Samusata, p. 9 ;—Condemned by the Council of Antioch, A.D. 264, p. 10;—Arius, p. 11 ;—Con- demned by the Council of Nece, A.D. 325, p. 12;— Dissentions between the Greek and Roman Churches, p. 13;—Between the Arians and Athanasians, p. 12— 15;—The Semi-Arians, p. 16;—The Eunomians, p- 16;—The propagation of Arianism, p. 17 ;—-Partly adopted by Mahomet, p. 17 ;—His grand Apostacy, and the decline of CAristiantty in the East—Causes of the rapid progress of Islamism, p. 17, 18 ;—Pope Gre- gory’s introduction of the grand Apostacy also in the West, p. 18.—Resemblance of Popery to Paganism, p. 19—21 ;—Chosen seed of the Reformation in the 6 XXVIII Albigenses, &c. 21;—Rise and progress of the Refor- mation on the Continent, p. 22;—Anabaptists of Munster, p. 25 ;—Antinomians, p. 26 ;—Reformation more femperate in England, and why? p. 23, 24 ;— Arianism revived in Socianism, p. 26 ;—Imported into England, p. 27 ;—Proper Unitarians, p. 27 ;—Their controversy with the Unitarian body, p- 27, 28;— More properly, Sabellian Unitarians, or modern Sa- bellians, p. 29 ;—Their progress since 1791, in Eng- fand, p. 30;—In Scotland, p. 31 ;—Their ‘finllanen. tal principles, p. 31 ;—Design of this work, p- 32. LETTER IL. p. 33. Primary cause of the errors, corruptions, and divisions, that have prevailed in the Christian Church, p, 33—~838 ; —Calumnies of Lucretius and Gibbon against Religion and Christianity, p.34;—Parable of the wheat and tures explained, p. 35;—Satan not the sole deceiver and corrupter, p. 36, 37 ;—Description of his emis- sartes by CuRist, p. 37;—By St. Paul, p. 37, 38 ;— Simon Magus, the earliest, p- 33;—Many Antichrists or false Christs, at the close of the first century, p. 38; ——Schisms and Heresies, their nature and kinds ex- plained, p. 39—53 ;—In the Church of Corinth, p. 39, 40;-—In the Church of Rome, p.41 ;—In the Reformed Churches abroad, p. 41—43: ;—Among the Dissenters at home, p. 44;—Constitution and regimen of the primitive Church, p. 44;—Persecution for Religion’s sake, prohibited by Crrisr, p. 48, 49 Shy settee Mh nication warranted by Him, p. 52;—Practised by the Apostles, p. 52;—Abuses of civil and religious liberty, XXIX p. 53 ;— Advantages of heresies and schisms, p. 54 :— Necessity of religious controversy, p. 55 ;— How to be conducted, p. 55 ;—CANoNS OF sACRED Criticism, p- 56;—I. Sacrifice to the truth alone, p. 563;— IT. Search, or critically compare, the original Scrip tures of the Old and New Testament, both in the iet- ter, and in the spirit, p. 57;—1IL. Expound not so one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another, p- 61 ;—IV. Adulterate not the word of God, p. 62 :-— V. Respect the opinions of the early Fathers of the Church, in matters of doctrine and discipline, p. 63 ;— VI. Abuse not the right of private judgment, p. G6. LETTER III. p. 69. Sabellian heresy in England, its superior malivniiy, p. 69 ; Industrious propagation, tending to unchristianize the land, p. 70;—ZIts leading tenets, as taught by Dr. Carpenter, p.71;—By Mr. Belsham, p. 73;—Cha- racter of their Improved Version of the New Testa- ment, p. 75;—Opens with a mistranslation of Matt. i. i. p. 79;—Its depreciation of the Introductions of St. Matthew's and St. Luke’s Gospels, as of doubtful authority, p. 80 ;—Objections to St. Matthew's Intro- duction, p.80;—1. The Ebionite Gospel wanted it ;— Convicted of forgery and anachronism, p. 80, 81 ;— 2. Chronological objection answered, p. 81 ;—3. Our Lord called the son of Joseph, answered, p. 82, 83;— Prevalence of this Introduction accounted for, p. 83, 84, 85 ;-——Positive evidence of its authenticity, p. 85— 88 ;—-Objecttons to St. Luke’s Introduction, p. 88 ;— 1, Wanting in Marcions Gospel, p. 88~90 ;—An- XXX swered by Dr. Carpenter, p. 90;—Prevalence of St. Luke’s Introduction accounted for, p. 90 ;—in the regeneration or restitution of all things, find His Rericion established any where upon earth, in its primitive purity and holiness ? On the memorable day of Pentecost, A. |b) pas» iil when 3000 bigoted and prejudiced Jews, out of every nation under heaven, were miraculously con- verted to the FarTH of that Jesus of NazarErTu whom they had crucified, only two and jifty days before; the picture drawn of the sudden and amazing regeneration wrought, by the power of Gop, in the hearts and lives of the first fruits of the Charch, in its infancy, is truly enchanting. Then indeed Christ’s ditéle flock literally formed a communion of saints, all of one Faith, one Hope, ene Baptism, one heart, and one soul: then all the believers continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doc- trine, and fellowship, or discipline +; and in che breaking of the bread, at the Lorn’s Supper ; and in prayers, private and public, at home, and in the * This, and the ensuing dates, are taken from Hales’s New Analysis of Chronology ; as being more consonant to the His- tory, than those in the margin of the Bible. + Our Lord’s special commission to his Apostles was: “ Go forth, and discipline (uaSarveveare) all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching (dd«coxevres) them to observe all things what- soever I commanded you.’’ Matt. xxvili, 19, 20. Q J ¢ 4) femple: And not one of them counted aught of his possessions as his own, but sold the whole, and laid the price at the Apostles’ feet to form a public fund; and they had all things in common to the rich and poor; and the Apostles themselves distri- buted to each, according as he had need sand all partook of the same food (wereAauBavoy Tpo@ns) with gladness and singleness of heart, without murm uring or grudging; praising Gop, and having. favour wth all the people. And tue Lorp added daily to the Church those who were disposed to be saved, (cwgouevas) Acts ii. 41—47; iv. 32; like the Sirst fruits, Acts ii. 37; “ of an honest and good heart,” Luke viti. 15. : But these halcyon days—realizing the Hymn of the Celestial Choir, at the nativity, “ Glory to Gop in the highest, on earth, peace ; good-will éowards men!” Luke ii. 14.—alas! were of short duration: the peace and tranquillity of the infant society was soon invaded and disturbed, from with- out, and within. The ruling powers, alarmed at their progress, endeavoured, but in vain, to stop it by severity: they imprisoned, and they scourged the Apostles, for preaching in the name of Jrsus. Acts iii.—v. A. D. 32. Stephen was stoned, and the disciples were dispersed abroad; all but the Apostles, Acts vi—viii. 2. A. D. 34 But the persecution reached them too, in A. D. 44, when James was slain with the sword, by Herod Agrippa; who imprisoned Peter also, intending to have sa- crificed him to the Jews; but he was miraculously B % ot a delivered, by an angel; and then withdrew out of Herod’s dominions to another place, Antioch im Syria. Acts xii, 1-17; Gal. ui. TI. These Jewish persecutions were succeeded by ten Roman persecutions. In the first of them, under Nero, A. D. 63, the apostles Peter and Paul obtained the crown of martyrdom. The tenth, under Diocletian, A. D. 303, the longest and severest of all, lasted ten years; until, at length, the Christian Religion was established in the Roman empire by Constantine the great, A. D. 323: And if we review its internal state, that “‘ single ness of heart,’ which marked its first institution, was soon succeeded by duplicity and hypocrisy. In A. D. 32; Ananias and Sapphira, his wife, se- creted a part of the sale of their possessions, from the common fund; and were miraculously struck dead on the spot, for lying against THE HoLy Guost, by wilfully and deliberately denying the fraud ; as a fearful warning to the Church, Acts v. i—11. And not long after, A. D. 33, their ori- ginal “ gladness of heart” was exchanged for mur- murs of the Hellenists, or Jewish converts, who spoke the Greek language, against the Hebrews, who spoke the Syro-chaldaic or vernacular tongue, because their widows were neglected in the daily administration. This abuse was remedied by the institution ef seven Deacons: of whom six, from their names, appear to have been Hellenists. Acts vi. 1—6. : 5 © 3 ) The conversion of the home Gen¢iles in Judea began with the signal case of Cornelius, the Roman centurion, A.D. 41. Acts x. xi. 1—18 ; and was followed in A.D. 42, by the conversion of the neighbouring Gentiles of Syria, at Antioch ; where the converts were first distinguished by the honour- able appellation of ‘* Christians,” while they were denominated by the Jews, in contempt, “ Naza- renes.” Acts.xi. 1926; xxiv. 5, These conversions, indeed, brought a numerous accession of disciples to the Church, but sowed at the same time the seeds of division and discord, be- tween the Jewish and Gentile branches: each la- bouring incessantly, to introduce and establish their peculiar tenets, and deviating, alike, from “ the Apostles’ doctrine, and discipline.” The first ate tempt was made A. D. 49, by a Pharisaical, or Judaizing party in the mother Church, to impose circumcision, and the observance of the Mosaical law, especially in the article of clean and unclean meats, upon the Gentile Churches, as necessary to salvation. This innovation was strenuously resisted by them ; especially by St. Paul, who withstood. St. Peter to his face, publicly at Antioch, because he was to be blamed, for his dissimulation, in sepa- rating from the Gentiles, with whom he formerly ate, for fear of offending the Judaizers. And a deputation was sent from the Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, to the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, to protest against it. There, Peter nebly repaired his fault, and manfully supported ee 9 the freedom of the Gentile Churches from the yoke of the Mosaical law ; the Judaizers were censured, and a decree was passed in favour of the Gentiles ; only with the exception of such meats, as were pro- hibited by the Zevitical and Patriarchal institu- tions: which afforded great joy to those Churches. Acts xv. 1—31 ; Gal. ii. 11—14. But, unhappily, this wholesome decree was neglected ; which proved a constant source of discontent, and variance, throughout all the Churches ; and forms a leading topic, in St. Pauwl’s epistles to the Galatians, Co- rinthians, Romans, &c. And this state of things lasted till the close of the first century; as appears from Christ’s censure of the Church of Zhyatira, Rev. ii. 20, 21; and of the Nicolaitans, Rev. ii. 6, 15. who, according to Lreneus, “ practised adultery and fornication; and ate without scruple of meats offered to idols ;’ and, according to Gicu- menius, were “ most impious in their doctrines, and most licentious in their life :’ They were suc- ceeded by a multitude of mischievous heretics and apostates, who distorted the Faith, and corrupted the purity of the Holy, Apostolic Church. To recapitulate all the various and absurd, im- pious and licentious errors and corruptions which sprouted up, like the rankest weeds, in the Church, till the establishment of Christianity by Con- stantine the Great, would far exceed the limits of this letter. I shall only notice a few of the prin- cipal, subsisting during that period. C # ) The leading errors of the first three centuries may be reduced to two opposite classes: namely, of those who held the divinity, but denied the humanity of Jesus Curisr; and of those who denied his divinity, but maintained his hwmanity. Of the former class, were those of Simon Magus of Samaria, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Bar- desanes, Cerdon, and Manes. Al\ these held, that Christ possessed a divine nature, but only appeared to be man ; that he had not a real body, and was neither born, nor suffered, nor rose from the dead. Hence, they were called Docete, from dixew, “ to seem,” and Gunostics, from yveoss, “ knowledge ;” affecting to be wiser than the rest of the world. Of the latter class, were those of Cerinthus, Ebion, Montanus, Artemon, Noetus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata; who all maintained that Jesus Christ was a mere man, the son of Joseph and Adary ; but they admitted his title of the Son of God, as given him on account of the eminence of his office, as the AZessiah ; the excellence of his gifts and miracles ; his glorious reserrection ; the sovereign authority and dominion to which he was advanced by the Father in reward of his obedi- ence. | Ot these opposite errors, the former, sprung from the reveries of A/agism, or oriental philosophy, soon expired, and sunk into oblivion; but the lat- ter, founded in the infidelity of Judaism, survived their authors, and were propagated for ages. ca 2 Ot these latter, the most noted were the Ebio- nites, and Sabellians ; who, therefore, are entitled to a more particular account. The £biomtes derived their name either from their founder, or from their poverty. They seem to have been the descendants of that Judaizing faction who disturbed the peace of the Church, in A. D. 49 ; and who still persisted in their opinions, notwithstanding the Apostolic censure, Acts xv. 24; 1 Jolin ii, 19. They held indeed the divine . mission of Christ, as the prophet like Moses; but regarded him as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Afary. ‘They likewise asserted, that the cere- monial law, instituted by AZoses, was obligatory not only upon the Jews, but also upon all others, and that the obseryance of it was essential to salvation. ‘They observed both the Jewish sabbath, and the Lord's day ; and in celebrating the Lord’s supper they used unleavened bread, like the Jews at the Passover. They rejected the Old Testament, and curtailed without scruple the New, wherever it clashed with their tenets; rejecting the accounts of the Afiraculous Conception, and those parts of Matthew's and Luke’s Gospels which contained it. Traces of this sect appeared so late as the fourth century. But they have been long since extinct ; until they were revived lately, by Dr. Priestley, and his followers, Lindsay, Belsham, Carpen- ter, \SiC. Sabellius was a presbyter, or, according to others, a bishop, who broached his opinions at Pto/emais, ae a city of Pentapolis, in Libya, about A. D. 953. He and his followers, according to Lpiphanius, taught, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were one and the same ; that they were only three denominations in one subsistence (rpess ovomacsas ev pac vrocrace) or like body, soul, and spirit in man. And Beausobre thus states their opinion respecting the Logos: ‘* The /Vord never proceeds from the father, but as our reason proceeds, I may say, out of ws, when it makes known, by words and com- mands, what are our thoughts and desires. Thus the /Vord that was in Jesus Christ, was no more than a declarative word, which manifested to Jesus the knowledge of salvation: and an operative word, which conterred upon him miraculous power. It was only an operation of the Deity, a full effusion of the divine wisdom and power in the soul of our Lord.” The errors of Sabellius were combated by Dio- © nysius, bishop of Alexandria ; and were condemned by pope Damasus, in a Council held at Rome, A. D. 263. And the great Basil considered Sadbei- lianism, as Judaism in disguise, foisted into the Church, under the name of Christianity ! Sabellius was followed, shortly after, by Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, A. D. 260. He taught, thatthe Son and Holy Ghost subsist in God, in the same manner as the faculties of reason and activity subsist in man; that Christ was born a mere man, but that the veason or wisdom of the father descended into him, upon earth; and by C @ Dd him, a3 an instrument, wrought miracles, and za- structed the nations: and that, on account of this union of the divine Word with the man Jesus, Christ might, though improperly, be called God. Mosheim, Kccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 248. For maintaining these opinions, Pau! was sum- moned to appear before the first Council of dn- tioch, A. D. 264, one of the most respectable Coun- cils of the first three centuries ; which was attended by Lrnulian, bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadecia, ‘who presided ; Gregory and Athenodorus, bishops of Pontus ; Helenus, bishop of Tarsus; Nicomas, bishop of Lcomum; Hymeneus, bishop of Jerusa- lem; Theotecnus, bishop of C@sarea, in Palestine ; with many others, besides Presbyters and Dea- cons. At this Council Paul retracted his errors ; but having relapsed a little time after, a second Council was held against him at Antioch, A. D. 270, attended by seventy-two bishops. Having been convicted of his errors, he was deposed by the Council, who elected Domnus bishop in ‘his stead ; but Paul refusing to resign, in obedience ‘to their decree; the Council referred the case to the Emperor Aurelian, who, with the approbation of the bishops of Rome and Italy, expelled him with the greatest disgrace. A remarkable instance of a Pagan emperor supporting the jurisdiction of a Christian Council ! » On this occasion, the Council published a Pro- fession of Faith, in opposition to the Sabellian , tenets, in which they thus state their doctrine res- pecting Christ: “* We profess and preach, that Jesus Curisr is the begotten Son, the only begotten Son, the image of THE INVISIBLE Gop, the first born of all crea- tion, the Wisdom, and /Vord, and Power of Gop, the Son or Gop; as we learn from the Old and — New Testament.” See the original, Labbe: Conc: Tom. i. p. 843. or Routh’s Reliquie Sacre. Happy would it have been for the peace and tran- quillity of the Church, had succeeding Councils followed this admirable pattern of close adherence to the language of Scripture; not affecting to be mise above what is written! that they had more cautiously abstained from the use of Scholastic terms, the accommodation of which to the myste- ries of Religion bred endless disputes about words, to the great detriment ae Christian Faith and Charity. : Early in the fourth century, drivs, a presbyter of the Church of dlevandria, about A.D. 315, maintained, that the Son of God was totally and essentially distinct from the Father ; that he was begotten by the Father, before time, before the world; but he was not, before he was born, (e« x» apo te yevndnvar) for there was a time when he was not (nv wore xx mv); however, that he was the first and noblest of all God’s creatures; the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the Universe; and therefore in- ferior to the Father both in nature and’ dignity. a iis opinions about the Holy Ghost are not so well known; but his followers, the Jdacedonians, 1¢ld- that the Holy Spirit was a ray or emanation of the Deity, or a divine energy diffused through~ out the universe, and not a distinct person. Arius therefore seems to have steered a middle course between the extremes of JZagism, and of Judaism or Sabellianism; and his scheme was better ac- commodated for general reception. Accordingly, he had many adherents, even among the bishops, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and others; and his opi- nions spread rapidly and extensively in Lgypt and Asia. Ata Council, however, held at Alexandria, of near a hundred Egyptian Bishops, A. D. 321, he was excommunicated ; but next year, in a Council held in Bithyma, A.D. 322, the Bishops of his party declared his opinions orthodox; this pro- duced a second Council of Alexandria A.D. $24 in which nothing was decided. The emperor Con- stantine therefore, to settle the dispute, convened the first General Council of the Eastern and Wes- tern Bishops, at Nice a city of Bithynia, in July, A.D. 325, in the second year of his reign. At this Council Hostus, bishop of Corduba in Spain, pre- sided, and upwards of three hundred Bishops attended; and it was held in presence of the emperor. Arius was confronted and questioned by the celebrated Athanasius, then a deacon of the Church of Alevandria. His opinions were unanimously condemned, and the Nicene Creed was framed in opposition thereto, in which the (a3) Scholastic word suoscios, “ of the same substance” with the Father, was introduced, to exclude all ambiguity respecting the nature of the Son's God- head. All the Bishops, except Secundus ot Ptole- mais, and Theonas of Marmarica, signed this Profession of Faith. Eusebius of Cesarea refused to sign it at first, objecting to the term omozcsos ; however his scruples were removed, and next day he signed it. The “ procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son,” in the Creed, also offended the Hastern Church: because his proces- sion from the Son, though implied, was not er- pressed in Scripture. And this contributed to promote the final separation of the two Churches*, * The seeds of dissent were early sown between the Greek and Roman Churches. Near the end of the second century a controversy broke out between them about the time of cele- brating Easter, whether on the fourteenth day of the pascal ‘moon, according to primitive usage; or on the fifteenth, as decreed by a Council at Rome, A. D. 198, held by Pope Victor. And this controversy subsisted till the first General Council of Nice, A.D. 325, when the emperor Constantine decided in favour of the Romanists; although they were taxed with jguduizing, by their opponents, in celebrating the feast rather with Cazaphas, than with Curisr! This controversy was renewed with great fury, under Pope Gregory the great, in England, about A.D. 599, when a British Council held there decided in favour of the fourteenth day; which so provoked Austin the Abbot, and the Romish Monks, sent by Pope Gregory I. to convert the pagan Saxons, that they stirred up a persecution against the British Church, which produced the Massacre of 1200 Bangorian Monks, not long after, about A, D. 620, | ( M-) about the middle of the ninth century. The sun- shine, or rather gleam, of prosperity, which suc- ceeded the civil establishment of the Church, proved more detrimental to its spiritual welfare, than the storms and ¢empests by which it had been hitherto buticted during the domination of Judaism and Paganism. The zeal and authority of the emperor Constantine brought a prodigious influx ot hypocritical and false brethren into the pale of the Church, from the great mass of Jews, and The next controversy was about rebaptizing Heretics, after their conversion to the Faith, about A. D. 255; for the pro- priety of which the Asiatic and African Bishops contended in opposition to Stephen, Bishop of Rome. During the Athanasian and Arian controversy in the East, the Western Church took part with Athanasius, and con- demned Arius, in a Council held at Sardica, in Iilyricum, A.D. 347. This produced the first breach between the two Churches. The rivalship between the Bishops of Rome and Constanti- nople, after the translation of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople, was a permanent ground of dissention, In the second General Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381., the Bishop of Constantinople was allowed to be second in rank; and in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451., was decreed to be egual to the Bishop of Rume. And after- wards when John the Patriarch of Constantinople assumed the title of @icumenicus, or Universal Bishop, conferred on him by a succeeding Council of Constantinople, A-D. 588., he was reprehended for “ the use of so profane an expression,”? by - Pope Pelagius 11. and his successor Gregory the Great. The Schism was completed, by the contending Councils of $58, in which Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, was de-. posed ; and 861, when he was restored. (#42 ») Pagans. The authority of the Nicene Council, however, proved insuflicient to repress factions in- the Church: and the LZomooustan controversy, as it was called, raged with great fury between the Athanasians and Arians. In vain did the emperor Constantine endeavour to restrain it in his excel- lent Letter to Alerander the Bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, the chief leaders: He told them, that ‘“ this was not a fundamental Article of faith, but the very least, vain, and by no means necessary te salvation ; and, therefore, ought to be no obstacle to their holding one and the same faith, and returning to mutual friendship and charity; and thereby restoring peace and tranguillity to the whole body of the empire; and enabling himself to pass the remainder of his life without great disquietude.”* See the Original in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, and a translation of the whole, in Ben Mordecai’s Letters, p. 1173—1178. But his mediation proved fruitless: he became exasperated against the Arians, and persecuted them. His son Constantius was furious against the Athanasians ; so that both parties were perse- cuted in turns. One Council was summoned to rescind the acts of another; and having lost sight of the Scrirprurgs, in their Afetaphysical subtilties and distinctions, they converted the Church into a great slaughter-house ! In the year A. D. 354, a melancholy picture is drawn of the state of the Church, by Hilary: “Since the Micene Council,” says he, “ we do ( 16 ) nothing but write creeds, and while we disputé about words, while we raise questions about sovel- ties, while we fight about ambiguities, and strive about parties, while we anathematize each other, scarce any one is Curist’s!”—Even Ammianus iVarcelinus, a heathen Historian, of that time, sarcastically remarks, that in the reign of Constan- tus, the partizan of the Arians, “ the Bishops, gal- loping in troops, to-attend the Councils, jaded all the post-horses, and wore out all the public car- riages of the empire!” And this remark is also confirmed by fiilary. The Arians themselves soon split into parties, of which the principal were the proper Arians, as we have seen; the Semi-Arians, who held that the Son was opowosos, of “ Like substance’ with the Father; and the Aetians or Hunomians, who main- tained that the Son was avopoios, “ unlike,” and etepasios, Of a “ different substance” from the Wather ; and the Holy Ghost, of a different sub- stance also from the Father. ‘These last scarcely differed from the Sabellians. The Arian faction, while it was in power, per- secuted Athanasius and his party incessantly for jorty years; until the second General Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, who formally condemned the Arians, and confirmed the decrees of the first General Council of Nice. And soon after, Theo- dosius the great, in A. D. 383, published an edict under pain of death, prohibiting the Arians, Euno- mians, and Macedonians, from holding assemblies ( ePr) for worship, either in public, or in private. But Arianism, when banished from the Roman empire, was harboured by the barbarous Northern Nations who subdued it. The Vandals carried it into Africa; and the Goths into Asia; where it was partially adopted by Mahomet: who about A.D. 612, formed his new religion Islamism, a hetero- geneous compound of Arianism, Judaism, and Ma- gism. The artful impostor culled from these corrupt sources, his leading principle of the simple Unity of God; his rejection of Mysteries in Reli- gion; and his sensual and licentious doctrines and precepts, and, unhappily, this Son of Belial has divided the world with Curisr: pandering to the prejudices, passions, and reigning vices of the world, with his Koran, in the left hand; and wield- ing the sword of persecution, in the right hand. No wonder then, that Christianity withered, as a sickly plant in a dry soil, under the Saracen and Lurkish desolating despotism; while Islamism flou- rished like a noxious weed, in his rank and luxu- rious Paradise, or “ Garden of delights!” We may date the rise of this grand Apostacy from the genuine Pa/riarchal and Christian Faith, which this false prophet professed to restore to its primitive purity, from his establishment at Medina, in what he called the “ accepted year,” A. D. 620, when he was formally recognized by his adherents there, as “‘ the prophet of God,” and received alle- giance, as their sovereign. No wonder then that Christianity declined in the VOL, 1: c ( 16 ) East. The seven Churches of Asia Minor lost their lamps, as threatened in the Apocalypse, for. their idolatries and corruptions, and are now nearly, extinct. The Greek Churches in Asia, under the. Lurkish sway, are in a drooping state, infected with the idolatries and superstitions of the Za¢in Church. The purest of their Churches is the Nestorian, which flourishes still in the Persian empire; and has rejected many superstitious notions and corrupt practices that prevail among the rest. It was. founded by Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople, . about the beginning of the filth century ; who op- posed the extravagant veneration of the Virgin ‘ary, then styled by the Orthodox, in their dis- putes with the Arians, @rorexos, “ Mother of God” ——which he contended should be changed into Xpic- zoronos, “ Mother of Christ,’ and for which he was excommunicated by Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, in the third general Council at Ephesus, A. D. 431. The grand Apostacy in the West, or Latin Church, was principally introduced by Gregory the great, both Pope and Saint, A.D. 590. This pious, superstitious and ambitious prelate, though under the mask of the profoundest humility, styling himself servus servorum Dei, “ Servant of the Ser- vants of God:” framed a Ritual and Liturgy, which soon prevailed throughout the Roman, and Latin Churches. He established the invocation _ of Saints and Angels, the veneration of Relics, the use of Jmages in Churches; he prescribed absti- nence from meat, milk, and eggs, on fast days; he ( 19 ) maintained’ the doctrine of purgatory, and he en- joined the celibacy of the Clergy. He was indeed the grand Innovator in the times and laws of the Primitive Church, foretold by Daniel, vii. 25; and by Paul, 1 Tim. iv. 1. blending Christianity with Paganism. “ Diana of the Ephesians,” Acts xix. 27; was now succeeded by the Virgin Mary, the “ mother of God,” “ the gucen of heaven,” &c. Whence Mahomet shrewdly remarked that. the Christian Trinity consisted of “ the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mother of God!” to whom her votaries offer up ten Ave Maries for one Pater noster ; and a hundred, nay a thousand, prayers to her, for one to the Holy Ghost !! So nearly has her worship superseded his, at least among the vulgar, The Pagan Demi-gods and Heroes, or Demons, were now succeeded by the Romish Angels and Saints, and the Saints’ days of the former (dies fasti) converted into the Romish Holy days. The Pagan sacrifices to their zdols were exchanged for the sacrifice of the Mass, and the adoration of the Host, &c. &c. And this base and dishonest policy of associating Curisr with Belial, 2 Cor. vi. 15. in order to gain proselytes, among the Pagan con- querors of Rome; was avowed by Gregory himself, in his letter to Mellitus ;— For that they are wonte to kill oxen in sacrifice to the Divells, they shal use the same slaughter now, but chaunved to a better purpose.” S¢apleton’s Translation of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, b. i. c. 30. The Ecclesiastical Offices of Pontifer Maximus, c 8 ( 20 ) and Chief Augur, had been jointly held by the Roman Kings and Emperors, for a thousand years, from Romulus and Numa, down to Gratian, A. D. 375.; when this pious Christian prince relinquished it, as incompatible with our allegiance to Christ, “ the Chief Priest of our profession.” Heb. ii. 1. In an evil hour, this profane title of Chief Pontiff, when laid down by the Emperors, was taken up by the Popes! who along with the title, gradually usurped all the functions of the Pagan Pontiffs and Diviners. In all matters pertaining to religion the power of the pontiffs was supreme; their persons were sacred; their decisions infallible ; they could dispense with religious rites and ceremonies ; judge of oracular books, &c. Thus when dugustus Cesar became chief pontiff, he burnt upwards of two thousand prophetic books, which he considered as spurious, aid retained only a selection of the Stbylline Oracles. The authority of the 4ugurs or “ Diviners,” on the other hand, was supreme in the state. They were invested with power to rescind a /aw irregu- larly passed; to put a stop to any public business, by their prohibition; and “ xo act of the Magis- trates, at home or abroad, was valid without their approbation,” as we learn from Cicero, in his Ora- tions Pro domo sud ad Pontifices, ad Haruspices, and his book De legibus. 2. Hence, the chief Pontiff and chief dugur, when both offices cen- tered in the Roman emperors, was justly styled by Festus, Judex atque arbiter rerum humanarum divi- 5 ( at ) narumque. ‘‘ Judge and Arbiter of human and divine affairs.” Such were the enormous powers attached to the Pagan Pontiffs and Augurs, which were gradu- ally usurped by a succession of artful and enter- prizing popes; along with their dress and magni- ficence, adopting the /ituus of the dugurs, under the new name of the Pastoral staff or Crozier ; and instead of the College of Pontiffs, substituting the College of Cardinals, &c. And we need not wonder at the facility with which the Laity in general submitted to such usurpations: they had been trained to it, by their old habits, their blind submission to Pontifical and Augural Authority, and a slavish fear of questioning its znfallible dic- tates! And thus, by the subserviency of the civil powers, and also of General Councils, to their decrees and bulls,—of Lateran, A.D. 1139, 1179, and 1215; of Constance, A.D. 1414; of Basil, A.D. 1431—the constitution of the modern Church and see of Rome was modelled ; and it was finally established by the Council of Zrent, A.D. 1545— 1563, the last, the most slavish, and the most dege- nerate of all; and ratified by the succeeding Creed of Pope Ps IV. the infallible standard of Modern Romish Faith. During this woeful period of the AMilitant or suffering Church, harassed, oppressed, and perse- cuted on all sides, by the eastern and western Popes, and their partizans; there still remained a chosen seed of faithful witnesses of the Jaw and of ( 22 ) the Gospel, in the western world. Such were the Albigenses and WValdenses in France, about A.D. 1200; the /Vicifjites and Lollards in England, about A. D. 1360; the Hussites in Bohemia, A. D. 1405; surviving all their persecutions and massa-< eres; and they were followed by that blessed ReFoRMATION, which emancipated the Protestant Churches from the Spiritual and Ecclesiastical tyranny of the Church of Rome, and its abettors; ~ after lasting for a thousand years, from the mas- sacre of the 1200 Bangerian monks, about A. D. 620; until Luther introduced the Reformation in Germany, A.D. 1517; Zuinglius, in Switzerland, 1519; Calvin, in France and Geneva, 1529;— that memorable year in which the Reformers assumed the name of Protestants, as “ protesting against the errors and cor ruptions of the Church of Rome ;” Petri, in Sweden, 1530; Browne, in Ire- dand, 1535; Cranmer, Ridley, ae Fagius, &e. in eotae 1547; Knor, in Scotland, 15603 pce and LEpiscopius, in Holland, 1566: ; in the short space of half a century! And in opposi- tion, every where, to the ruling powers, excang in England. All this opposition produced its natural but mis- chievous effect upon the minds of the Reformers: it led them to retaliate upon their persecutors ; and in resentment for the active interference of the Romish prelates against them, they were led to abolish the order of /piscopacy, and to substitute a Preshi ytery in its stead; in. violation of the Apos- ( 23) tolical constitutions, and of the usage of the primi- tive’ Church, in its first and purest ages. Thus introducing a fatal innovation. in Ecclesiastical discipline or regimen, in all the Presbyterian Churches, founded by the Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, &c. ie Fortunately in England, the Reformation was favoured by the ruling powers, civil and ecclesi- astical, in Henry VU. Edward V1. and Queen Elizabeth’s reigns; with the short interruption of her sister, Queen J/ary’s, who attempted to restore the Romish Religion, by persecution of the Protes- tants. Hence the Reformation in England was achieved in a more moderate and temperate spirit, and brought to a higher degree of perfection. Our illustrious Reformers, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. who sealed their faith with their blood, like the primitive martyrs, Justin, Leynatius, Polycarp, &c. while they reformed the errors of the Church of Rome, respected her regimen, and retained the Episcopal order aud dignity: which, under Divine Providence, has contributed much to that sober and rational piety, and morality, for which the Church of England is so eminently distinguished; and has preserved her hitherto from much of that turbulence and disorder, so congenial to Democratic institu- tions, ecclesiastical and civil. At the Synod of Dor?, held in 1619, the Bishop of Landaff, one of the English divines who attended it, openly controverted a proposition inserted in the Calvinist Confession of Faith: that Curis'r estab- ( 24 ) lished an equality among ministers of the Gospel. He said, that Christ chose twelve Apostles, and seventy Disciples; that the Apostles had inspec- tion and authority over all the other ministers of the Gospel; and that the Church had preserved the same subordination, constantly and without inter- ruption; for which he appealed to all antiquity, and to all the /earned at present; and challenged the Synod to prove the contrary. And it was very remarkable, that not one member of the Synod under- took to answer him. Conversing afterwards with some of the most learned members of that’ assem- bly, ‘‘ I told them,” said he, “ that the troubles of Holland proceeded from their want of Bishops, who might have curbed factious men, by their power and authority ; that every body in that country was at liberty to say and write what he pleased; and that the Churches of these provinces would never be quiet, unless Bishops were appointed to govern the Clergy.” | They answered, that ‘ they highly esteemed the good order and dbscipline of the Church of England, and heartily wished the same order was established in their country: but they could not hope for it in the present posture of affairs.” They added, that “ they hoped Gop would assist them with his grace, and that they would contribute, with all their might, to the establishment of that good order *.” * Daillé, a leading advocate o Presbyterian discipline, thus “pologizes to the Church of England : ( 25 ) See his Appello ad Cesarem, or Brandt’s A bridg- ment, Vol. il. p. 509. Unhappily, the “‘ Glorious liberty of the Gos- 3 PEL,” which emancipated our ancestors from their spiritual thraldom to the Church of Rome, was converted into a “ cloke of licentiousness,” by some of the early reformists. The fanatical and turbu- lent sects of the Anabaptists and Antinomians, sprung up, like ¢ares, among the wheat of the Re- formation in Germany, and committed dreadful outrages and excesses. The former, headed by Storch, at Zwickaw in Saxony, A.D. 1521, pro= fessed to root out all the Ungodly, and to set up the fifth monarchy, or kingdom of the Saints, fore- told by Daniel ; or the kingdom of the New Jeru- salem in the Apocalypse: Accordingly, at Munster, “The Church of England is so admirably purged from exotic, depraved, and superstitious rites of worship, and from impious or dangerous errors in doctrine; she has been approved by so many and so illustrious martyrdoms; and has so abounded in prety towaids Gop, in charity towards men, and in the most praise-worthy examples of good works; and has flourished with so plentiful a harvest of the most learned and the wisest men, from the beginning of the Reformation until the present times; that I have held her hitherto, and shall hold her, while I live, in the station and rank that I ought. ‘ Her honour, name and praise shall always remain in my memory.” [ could produce witnesses, neither few nor despicable, of the high estimation in which I hold her: an@ therefore since these have been my sentiments, I cannot but consider myself as very injuriously treated by those that represent me as ill disposed to the British Church, or to her Reformation.” (( 268 ) and wherever else they prevailed, they pulled down all magistracies and civil government, abolished private property, and held all things in common; alledging the example of the first Christians. But their new kingdom of AfLunster was destroyed in 1524; and their ringleaders all perished by the sword, or the halter: Luther, when he found they could not be reclaimed by reason or argument, exhorting the magistrates to destroy them, not for their opions, as Heretics, but for their misde- meanours, as perjured and seditious rebels and robbers. These were followed in 1538, by the Antino- mians, or “ enemies of the Law of works,” a vile and profligate sect, headed by Agricola; who held, that it mattered not how wicked a man was, if he had but faith. Luther also vigorously opposed them, and had the merit of reclaiming Agricola, ind bringing him back to his senses and_ his duty. In 1531, Arianism was revived in the west by Servetus ; who was burnt as a heretic by Calvin, in 1553. After his death, a new system of Arianism was formed at Geneva ; whence its pro- fessors removed to Poland; and there assumed the name of Socintans, about 1565, from Lelius and Faustus Socinus, or Sozzini, uncle and nephew, their founders ; but especially the latter. In 1658, they were banished from Poland, by the Diet of Warsaw. | Socinianism was introduced into England by C 27 ) John Biddle, who formed an independent congrega- tion in London, where he openly avowed his tenets ; for which he was prosecuted, and died in prison, A. D. 1662: the governments. of Europe at that time, not being disposed to tolerate or license a sect whose members denied the azvinity of Curis. The Socinians dittered from the Arzans princi- pally, in denying the pre-evistence of Christ, and totally divesting him of his divinity; they con- tended that he was a mere man, and that the Holy Ghost is no distinct person, but cenotes only the power or energy of God. ‘They agreed, however, with the Arians, in retaining the religious worship of Jesus Christ. ‘Towards the close of the last century, Socintanism was revived under a new form, by Dr. Priestley, and his associates, Theophilus Lindsey, &c. who are usually styled, Afodern Socinians, but impro- perly, because they disclaim the religious worship of Jesus Christ. Their present leaders, therefore, Mr. Belsham, Dr Carpenter, &c. justly reject the title of Soctntans, and assume that of “ Proper Unitarians.” This assumption, however, has been warmly resented by the Unitarian body at large, among the Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist classes of Dissenters ; and their advocates, Dr. Eishn, My. Frend, Mr. Jevans, &c. contend, that since the term Unitarian is general, extending to every class of religionists, from dthanasians, down to Mahometans, who believe in the Unity of God; no particular class has a right to usurp the general € # title. They further remonstrate against Mr. Bel- sham's unauthorized imposition of his own Articles of Faith, upon them, when he lays down as the creed of “ Unirartans, that they reject the doc- trine of the Trinity, of the creation of the Universe by Jesus Christ, of the Incarnation, of the Atone- ment, of Original Sin ; and oTHER popular doc- trines connected with these.” They contend, that ‘“ he has no right to fasten upon them a creed re- jecting doctrines, every one of which, evcept that of the Trinity, is received by some among them: insomuch, that if, from the body of Unitarians were to be excluded all those who do not believe accord- ing to his negative creed, he would be left in a very inconsiderable minority.” Mr. Belsham, and his party, notwithstanding, still persist in the obnoxious appropriation of the term to themselves: thus assuming a general, and uninvidious appellation, so well fitted to serve as a decoy for proselytism. This is, indeed, admitted by one of the number, Mr. Aspland ; who recom- mends the retention of the ambiguous term, which has already done so much good to the cause in which they were united, “ to clear the world of the Trinitarian doctrine :” adding from the shrewd Dr. South*, that “he who would set up for a skilful * The following pithy observation of Dr. South is earnestly recommended to the serious consideration of all whom it may concern: Mre A. Mr. B. Dr. C. Mr. Ey Mr. F. Mr. G. Dr, and Mr. R. Mr. Vie &&C. &c. C 2 ) manager of the rabble, so long as they have but ears to hear, needs never enquire, whether they have any understanding whereby to judge; but with two or nree popular, empty words, well tuned and numoured, may whistle them backwards and forwards, upwards and downwards, till he is weary; and then get upon their backs, when he is so.” heir policy in this instance resembling that of the Papists, who, by an equal impropriety, style themselves, not Roman Catholics, but ‘‘ Catholics” in general, to the exclusion of all Protestant Ca- tholics, of the Reformed Churches. This intestine controversy is curious, and worthy of attention. It is to be found in the tenth volume of their organ, The Monthly Repository, for the year 1815. Of which a masterly abstract is furnished by the learned and acute Dean Magee, in his Postscript, pp. 352—361. The proper title of the party, however, is Sabel- lian Unitarians, or Medern Sabellians, to distin- guish them from their Arian, Semi-Arian, and Socinian brethren, Dr. Price, Mr. Wakefield, Dr. Farmar, &c. And this is candidly admitted by Dr. Carpenter, one of their leaders, in the west of England ; who rejects the appellation of “ Modern ** Compare the harmlessness, the tenderness, the modesty, and the ingenuous pliableness, which is in Yourn; with the mischrevousness, the slyness, the craft, the impudence, the falsehood, and the confirmed obstinacy found in an Acrp, long practised Sinner.” Suzrmons. ¢ 30) Socintans,’ and avows, that ‘‘ he considers the Sa- bellian scheme, as Gnitarianism under a different name, and using a different language.” Sadel- hanism considers “ Father, Son, and Spirit, as names merely for one Intelligent Agent, one God.” See his Unitarianism, the doctrine of the Gospel: 2d Edit. pp. 19, 142. This Sadedian sect, in the year 1791, formed an association in London, the professed design of which was to promote Religious Knowledge and Virtue, by the distribution of Books. In 1806, they enlarged their scheme; and instituted a fund for the following purposes: “ARTICLES OF. THE Unirarran Fonp, in- stituted March 4, 1806, Chapel, Parliament- - court, Artillery-lane. “Art. I. This Society shall be denominated the Unitarian Fund for promoting Unitarianism by means of popular preaching. “ Art. I], The uses to which the fund raised by this Society shall be applied, shall be “1. To enable poor Unitarian congregations to carry on religious worship. ‘9. To reimburse the travelling and other ex- pences of teachers who may contribute their labours to the preaching of the Gospel on Unitarian prin- ciples. C 3b) * 3. To relieve those Christian Ministers, who by embracing Umtarianism subject themselves ta. poverty.” Never, surely, were articles more concisely or. cunningly framed by any sect to propagate their principles among the lowest of the people; to en- courage I¢inerant preachers; and to invite and reward proselytism among the Clergy of the esta- blished Church ! Upon this model, associations were formed else- where throughout England. And the exertions of Dr. Carpenter to establish one at Eveter, gave birth to that controversy, which suggested, and pro- duced this work in its original form. In Scotland also they have lately instituted a - general Association of Unitarians, of which an account is given in their Unitarian Repository, Vol. x. p. 398. The leading points at. issue between Sahellian Unitarians and Trinitarians, are thus concisely stated by Dr. Carpenter, in his. Exeter Contro- versy: Letter III. “ I. Whether rue Farner be THE ONLY TRUE Gop? | “ II. Whether He be the onLY PROPER OBJECT OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP? _“ TII. Whether He be the souz source oF GosPEL BLESSINGS ?” The discussion of these fundamental principles shall form the subject of the ensuing Letters > which Rie | ( 32 ) are frankly designed “ to clear the world of the Sabellian doctrine ;?> and to prove, that there is indeed a genuine UnrraRranism, combined with Fairn in THE Hoxry Trinity, which is ¢he doctrine of tHE Law and of THE GOSPEL. LETTER I. : Primary cause of the errors, corruptions, and divistons, that have prevailed in the Christian Church—Calumnies of Lucre= ézus and Gibbon against Religion and Christiantty——Parable of the wheat and tares explained==Satan, not the sole de. celver and corrupter—Description of his emissares, by Curist—by St. Paul—Simon Mugus, the earliest—-Many Antichrists, ov false Christs, at the close of the first century— Schisms and Heresies, their nature and kinds, explained—in the Church of Corinth—in the modern Church of Rome—in the Reformed Churches abroad—among the Dissenters at home—Constitution and regimen of the primitive Church— Persecution for religion’s sake, prohibited by Currst— Excommunication warranted by H1m—practised by the Apostles—Abuses of civil and religious Liberty—~Adtantages of Heresies and Schisms—Necessity of Religious Controversy —How to be conducted—Canons of Sackep Crivicism— I. Sacrifice to the truth alone—Il. Search, or critically com. pare, the original Scriptures, of the Olid and New T estament, both in the Letter, and in the Spirit—III. Expound not so one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another-— IV. Adulterate not the word of God—V. Respect the opinions of the carly Fathers of the Church, in matters of Doctrine and Discipline—=V1. Abuse not the right of private judgment. WHEN we have surveyed the errors, corrup- tions, and divisions, in faith, morals, and discipline, that disgraced and harassed the Christian Church; we find that they woefully fulfil our Lord’s para- doxical prediction: “ Think not, that I came te VOL. I. | D ey sive peace upon earth, [at my first coming, in the flesh| I came, not to give peace, but a sword, [persecution] and division.” Matt. x. 34, 35; Luke xii. 51-—53. And this, indeed, has furnished a trite objection to the Sceptic and the Jnjfidel, against its DIVINE origin*; and a subject of sur- prize to the Fuithful:—“ Didst not THou sow good secd in tuy field? Whence then hath it tares 2? | The solution of this perplexing question, is fur- nished in the admirable parable of the wheat and the zares, Matt. xin. * The mischiefs of Religion, and the corruptions of Chris- fianity, have furnished a copious theme of declamation to infidel poets and philosophers, from the days of Lucretius to Gibbon. Szpius olim ReLicio peperit scelerosa atque impia facta-— Tantum ReLicio potuit suadere malorum ! Lucret. i, 83-102. And the great artifice that runs throughout the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is that, of making Curistianity responsible for all the crimes and all the absurdities, pourtrayed therein, with malignant and ostenta- tious diligence. ‘The fact is, Lucretius confounded RELIGION, pure and undefiled, in the patriarchal times, with the gloomy Superstition and Bigotry which succeeded. And Gibbon con- founded CrurrisTIANITy, in the Apostolic age, with Popery, in those dark ages cf increasing barbarism, which unfortunately succeeded, until the Blessed RerormatTion ;—Both “ erred, tgnorantly, through disbelicf.”— A little learning is a-dangerous thing ! Drink déep, or taste not the Pieriaa spring. ( 35 ) The wheat represents the good seed, or the chil dren of the kingdom, sown by our Lord, in his Jield of the world. The tares; or bad seed, the children of the wicked one, sown by the Devil among the wheat, privily, while men slept: who then departed, unobserved: for the servants, or ministers of Christ, knew not when, or by whom, the ¢ares were scattered among the wheat; neither did they dis- tinguish them, at the first budding ; nor till the fruit was formed, or the wheat in the ear: but then appeared the ¢ares, in their native shape and hue. Surprized and alarmed, at this unexpected discovery, they came to enquire of their Master the cause: Diédst not thou, &c. And when he told them the author, the enemy of God and man ; they zealously and officiously offered to root out the fares forthwith, without further delay : “ /Vilt thou that we go, and gather them up?” But he refused, “Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.” The tares were spared for the sake of the wheat: and so likewise, the bad are now spared in mercy to the good : because they are so intermixed together in the common intercourse of the world, that the present destruction of the dad, would involve the good in one general, indiscriminate calamity *. But a final separation is to be made at the harvest, or end of * Abraham interceded with the upright Judge of all the Earth, for the guilty Sodomites—* Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked!” Gen. xviii. 23. D 2 GSB ) the world, by our Lorp himself: when he shalt say to the reapers, his holy angels, “ Gather ye tovether first the ¢ares, in bundles, to burn them in hell fire; but gather the wheat into my granary, in heaven.” And this is more fully unfolded in his awful and scenical representation of the fimal destinies of each, after their separation, in the general judgment : Matt. xxv. 31—46. From this awakening parable+and surely, so intended by our Lord—‘ He that hath ears te hear, let him hear,”—we learn: That the prime author of all mischief, specula- tive and practical, is the Devil or Satan.~ It is he - that clandestinely introduces “ all offences, or ob- stacles to the true Farru, into Christ’s Church or kingdom ; and all workers of «niquity.” Matt. xii. 41. To him, we see, St. Peter expressly ascribed the hypocrisy and fraud of Ananias: “ Why hath Satan filled thine heart, to /ie unto the HoLy Guost, and to keep back part of the price of the land>” Acts v. 3. And St. Paui thas warns the Corinthians: “ I fear, lest by any means, as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, (Gen. iii. 13.) so [he should beguile you, and] your tninds should be corrupted trom the simplicity ot (the Gosper] respecting Cunist.” 2 Cor. xi. 3. The same Apostle warns the Ephesians, against. the © methodisms of the Devil,” (ras petodeas row ~ $aGoaov) Eph. vi. 11. And Curisr himself warns the Church of Thyatira, against the “ depths of Sutan,” or his false doctrines, Rev. ii. 24: these, ¢ ) re plants in the room of the genuine word of God , which he plucketh up, and taketh away, when sown by Christ, in the hearts of the hearers; that they should not believe and be saved. Matt. xiii. 19; Mark iv. 15; Luke vill. 12. But Satan acts not singly. His emissaries are equally vigilant and active in his service: such, are the false Christs, who come in his name; and false prophets, or teachers, hypocrites, and wolves in sheep's clothing ; who shall deceive, if it were possible, even the elect; as our Lord forewarned his disciples. Matt. vil. 155 xxiii, 13—-34; xxiv. 11—25. St. Paul further warns the Corinthians, against their Jalse teachers: “ Such, are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into Apostles of Christ; and no wonder; for Satan transforms himself into an Angel of light, [probably at the temptation of Christ, Matt. iv. 11; Luke iv. 6:] It is no great [ wonder] then, if his ministers also transform themselves as ministers of righteousness : whose end. shall be according to their works.” 2 Cor. xi. 13—15. And he represents his adver- saries there, as “ preaching another Christ, whom the Apostles preached not, ‘and a different Gosped from that which they received from himself.” Ver. 4, 5. 7 And he thus emphatically warns the Galatians, to reject with abhorrence, “ some that troubled them, and wished to pervert the Gospel of Christ,’ — meaning the judaizing faction, who wanted to im- pose on them circumcision, and the observance of (C7eBY) the law of A/oses, as necessary to salvation :— “ But if even we (the Apostles, alluding perhaps to Peter's dissimulation, Gal. ii. 11—14.) or an angel from heaven, should preach another Gospel to you, than that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (avaSe40): as we said before, so say J now again, if any one preach another Gospel unto you, than that which ye received, let him be accursed” (avatewa)., Gal. i. 6—9. The first of the false Christs on record, was Simon Magus, A. D. 34, who bewitched the people of Samaria, boasting that he was the great power of God ; Acts vill. 9—11. And St. Jerom quotes these expressions from his writings: “ I am the worD of Gop, I am the beauty of Gop, I am the Comrorter, L[amthe ALmicury, I am the whole essence of Gon ;” thus blasphemously assuming the characters of the whole Zrinity / St. John declared, that in his time, there were many Antichrists,” or false Christs, 1 John ii. 18; and he thus warns the faithful, “ Beloved, believe not every spirit (or spiritual teacher), but try the spirits whether they are of Gop: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” iv. 1. He then proposes the following test:— “ Hereby know ye the Spirit of God, [or the teacher from God] every spirit that confesseth, that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that Spirit of Antichrist, of which, ye have heard €é ¢ 39 ) that it is coming ; and now is in the world already.” Ver. 2, 3. | The bitter fruits of such pernicious ways, in the Church of Corinth, St. Paul thus censures : “ T hear that when ye assemble together in the Church, there are schisms among you, and I be- lieve it in some measure: for there must needs be even heresies among you, in order that the approved among you may become manifest.” 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. | This is an important passage, and requires fuller explanation, because the meaning of these technical terms has been frequently misunderstood, and fatally perverted. The word cxyispa, “ schism,” signifies a rent, as in a garment, Matt. ix. 16; and also, a division, or difference of opinion ; such as prevailed among the Jewish multitude respecting the character of Jesus ; John vii. 43; ix. 16; x. 19; but here, and else- where, 1 Cor. i. 10; xii. 15; it signifies dissent, or non-conformity with the established order and discipline of the primitive Church. Schisms, in this technical sense of the word, are either partial or total. Partial, like those in the Church of Corinth, censured by the Apostle ; such as, 1. Their disorderly celebration of the Lord's Supper ; for though they assembled together, in the same place of worship; the rich and the poor partook not of it in common, but apart. In conse- quence of which, {some were hungry,” the poor Ge 48 > not being. able to bring provisions ; “ others were ‘drunken ;” the rich bringing a superfluity, which they nen to share with their poorer brethren, in violaticn of the primitive usage. 1 Cor. xi. -20—29, 2. Their disorderly mode of preaching ; all speaking together, in unknown tongues ; and ostentatiously exhibiting their various gifts of the Spirit ; so that a stranger, coming into their place of worship; would: tip them i | Cotuaal: 25-—30 ; xii. 9--40. 3. Their splitting into par- LieS 5 at holding the ead Christ, but classing themselves under different leaders: ‘‘ one saying, Tam of Paul ; another, I am of A pollos ; another, Tam of Maric. or Peter ; another, I am of Christ.” But the Apostle indignantly asks, cu Is Cunist divided [into leaders of parties]? was Paul cruci- fied for you? ‘or were ye baptized into the name of Paul, {as the author and finisher of your faith] >?” ——“ Who then is Paul? who is Apollos? are they any more than ministers, by whose means ye be- lieved : Seu as Curist gave [success] to each? 1 (Paul) p lanted, Analan watered, but Gop gave the increase.” 1 Cor. i. 1J—1 3.2 au. 3—7. These partial schisms, the Apostle seems to have denoted Be the expression, [xara] wep» su, “in some measure,’ as it may more correctly be rendered, than “ partly.” Vie site schisins were not confined to the Church of Corinth ; unhappily they were too general ; and still soa Pa in the Christian Church. Thus, the ¢ 41 ) modern Church of Rome™ is schismatical: 1. in refusing the wine to the Laity, in the Lord’s Supper, contrary to Scripture, ‘* Drink ye all of it,” Matt. xxvi. 27; “ Ye cannot drink the cup of rue Lorn, and of devils,” 1 Cor. x. 21; “ As oft as ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord’s death, till He come,” 1 Cor. xi. 26. 2. In praying every where, in Latin, an unknown tongue, not in the vernacular tongue of each coun- try. 3. In usurping supremacy over the universal Chureh; founded on mistranslation of our Lord’s declaration, Matt. xvi. 18.—claiming it from “ Ke- phas,” or Peter ; not from “ Curist:” by con- founding werpos, “a stone,” with x werpn, “ the rock,” whence it is hewn :—the speczes, with the genus. Nor are the Reformed Churches free from par- tial schism, in classing themselves under their re- spective leaders, Luther, Calvin, Fuingle, Armi- nius, &c. The propensity of mankind to erect their fa- vourite teachers into Apostles, or founders of their faith, is finely exposed by the profound Hooker, in his prefatory Address to ‘‘ Them that seek (as * The character of the Church of Rome is thus concisely and energetically drawn by Primate Usher, and the Irish pre- lates, who protested against the establishment of Popery, in Treland, A.D. 1627. ‘ The religion of the Papists, is super- stitious and idolatrous; their Faith and Doctrine, erroneous and heretical; their Church, in respect of both, Apostatical.”— Usher’s Life, p. 28, ( 42 ) they term it) the reformation of the laws and orders ecclesiastical in the Church of England.” ‘* Loth ye are to think, that they whom ye judge to have attained as sound knowledge in all points of doctrine as any since the Apostles’ time [such as Calvin, in his admired Institutes and Expositions of Holy Scripture] should mistake in discipline. Such is naturally our affection [or disposition] that whom in great things we mightily admire, in them we are not persuaded willingly, that any thing should be amiss. The reason whereof is, that as dead flies putrify the ointment of the apothecary, so a little Jolly him that is in estimation for wisdom. (Eccl. x. 1.) This in every [religious] profession, hath too much authorized the judgment of a few |fa- vourite leaders]: This, with Germans hath caused Luther, and in many other churches, [in France,. Geneva, Scotland, &c.] Calvin, to prevail in ali things. Yet we are not able to define [or deter- mime] whether the wisdom of that Gop, (who set- teth before us in Holy Scripture, so many admirable patterns of virtue, and no one of them without something noted wherein they were culpable ; to the end that to Him aronz it might be acknowledged, THou onty art Hoty, Tou onty arr gust!) might not permit these worthy vessels of his glory, to be in some things blemished with the stain of human frailty, even for this cause: Lest we should esteem of any man above that which behoveth.”— Eccles. Polity, Pref. §. 4. This is not the lan- Ca ) guage of a Calvinist, as Hooker has not seldom been misrepresented; but of a meek and lowly Christian, conforming stedfastly to the Church of England ; which is truly Evangelical: neither Lu- theran, Calvinistic, nor Arminian, in her Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies; but ‘* holding the Head Curist, in all things.” Col. ii. 19; Eph. i. 22; IVeld: Total schism is expressed by dixocracse, ‘* sepa- ration,” or anostacia, ‘* apostasy,” “ departure,” or “ secession.” It takes place wherever separate places of worship are set up, in opposition to the mother Church; or where the discipline or regimen of the primitive Church is violated. Thus, the modern Church of Rome is apostatical, in assuming to be “ the mother and mistress of all other Churches,” (see her supernumerary Articles of Faith, contained in Pope Pius IV. Creed,) con- trary to the decisions of the primitive Church, in the first four, and purest of the General Councils ; which Gregory the Great professed to reverence as the four Gospels*! in which, Jerusalem’ was heid to be the mother Church; and Antioch, the first Gentile Church, founded by St. Peter before he went to home ; and these, along with the other Metropolitan Churches, of Rome and Constanti- nople, were all deemed to be equal in jurisdiction, by these Councils. * See the Apostasy of Gregory's Ritual, expressly foretold, 1 ‘Tim. iv. 1. and described in the first Letter, G@ 44 ) Nor are the other Reformed Churches abroad, nor the Dissenters at home, exempt from this charge: by setting up separate places of worship, and by rejecting Hipiscopacy ; the latter especially. Lhe three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in the Christian Church, corresponded to the Chief Priests, Priests, and Levites, in the Jewish. The Apostles, as bishops at large, exer- cised a general superintendence over the Churches which they planted. So St. Paul had “ the care of all the Churches” in his district. 2 Cor. xi. 28. And they administered the concerns of these Churches, by the presbyters*, whom they ordained * Much confusion and perplexity has been introduced inte the controversy between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, by the ambiguity of the word, apecBurepa, ‘ Presbyters,” in the Jewish and Christian Churches. The Jewish Council, or San- hedrim, was composed of the chief priests, the scribes, or doc- tors of the Jaw, and the presbyters, or elders of the people. — Matt. xvi. 20; xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 55. The chief priests were the heeds of the four and twenty courses of the priests, 1 Chron. xxlv. 7—-18; the scribes or doctors of the law, were also priests or Levites; and the presbyters, were the seventy princes, or heads of families, in the several tribes, associated with the ecclesiastics, as lay-elders of the people, Numb. xi. 4— 25. The same, probably, who attended Moses, Aaron, and his two sons, to Mount Sinai, to see the glory of the God of {srael, Exod. xxiv. 1—11. : The Christian Council, or first Synod at Jerusalem, A. D. 49, was composed of the Apostles, the presbyters, and the brethren. Acts xv. 23. But these presbyters were clerical, or priests; (not layeelders) corresponding to the scribes, in C 45) priests, by the «wnposition of their hands, with prayer and fasting ; Acts xiv. 23; 2 Tim. i. 6; and the Deacons, likewise; Acts vi. 5, 6. Hence, these clerical presbyters, were styled bishops, by St. Paul. Acts xx. 17, 28; Phil. i. 1. But when Churches multiplied, the Apostles deputed special bishops as their coadjutors, 1. to superintend the concerns of the several Churches; and &. to ordain priests and deacons therein. Thus St. Paul conse- crated Limothy to be his coadjutor ; who was after- wards, first bishop of Ephesus. (1 Tim. i 3; 2 Tim. 1. 6. and superscription at the end of the second Epistle.) And Vitus, likewise; afterwards first bishop of Crete, (Tit. i. 5, and superscription) and licensed him to ordain presbyters in ever be city, within his diocese. Tit. i. 5. find that special Bishops were soon appointed throughout all the Churches, we learn from the Apestolicat and succeeding Fathers. Jenatius, the Jewish Council; as the Apostles corresponded to the chief priests: and the brethren corresponded to the presbyters, or day-elders in the Jewish Council; and as the high priests, for the time being, presided in the Sanhedrim. Matt. xxvi. 62Q— 66. So St. James, the Lord’s brother, or cousin-german, pre- Sided in the Syned. Acts xv. 13-21. This analogy between the Jeaish and Christian Councils is curious, And this ecclesiastical constitution served as a pat- tern to the primitive Churches, in their Synods, till the Refor- mation: when the ancient regimen was violated by the suppres- “sion of the Epzscopal order among the Dissenters, abroad, and at home. rae) Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 107, thus exhorts the Church of Smyrna :— Follow ye all the Bishop, as Jesus Cunist, THE Farner ; and the Presbytery, as the Apostles ; and respect the deacons, according to Gop’s com- mand. Let no one do any ecclesiastical functions without the Bishop.” Ireneus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, A. D. 178, declares, “‘ Curist, at the last day, shall judge those that fabricate schisms, who are lawless; and not having the love of Gop, but preferring their own interest, before the unity of the Church, for slight and trivial causes rend and divide the great and glorious dody of Curist, and, as much as in them lieth, slay it. Speaking peace, but waging war ; straining at a gnat, but swallowing a camel.” Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in Africa, A. D. 248, declares, ‘“‘ From no other source do schisms spring up, than that the Bishop is not obeyed.”— ‘“¢ Thus schismatics, idly imagining to please them- selves, through swelling pride contemn their presi- dent. ‘Thus they secede from the Church, they erect a profane altar without; thus they rebel against the ordination and unity of Gop.” And he calls them schismatics, who set up a particular Church in a particular Church ; and acting in op- position to the lawful Bishop thereof, draw away the inhabitants of a parish from their legal minister ; setting up separate conventicles for themselves, (conventicula sibi diversa constituunt.”) And he further declares, that ‘‘ the Devil invented heresies 9 C 47 ) and schisms; to subvert the faith, corrupt the truth, and divide the unity *, | 4, Lactantius, A.D. 306, in like manner de- scribes the origin of schism or apostacy; as thus excellently translated by Hooker :— “ Men of a slippery faith they were, who en. ing, that they knew, and worshipped Gov; but eon only, that they might grow in wealth and honour ; affected the highest priesthood: where- unto, when their be¢ters were chosen before them, they thought it better to leave the Church, and to draw their favourers with them, than to endure those men as their governors whom themselves de- sired to govern.” Eccles. Polity, B. vii. §. 23. This was early noticed in the Apostles’ days. St. John thus censures sharply, one of his own - presbyters :-— ‘“ I wrote unto the Church, [to receive some of the brethren] but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth: prating against us with malicious words ; and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren ; but even forbiddeth them that would: and casteth them out of the Church.” 3 John 9, 10. * See a fuller account, Hales’s New Analysis, &c. Vol. If. p- 1686-1092. These select authorities of Ignatius, Ireneus, and Cyprian, are abundantly sufficient to establish the distinct ness of the Episcopal order in the primitive Church, and its Tse. Ce The spirit of insubordination indeed, and of sepa- vation, which began to harass and vex the Church so early, still continues to the present hour; and must needs continue, (with other “ works of the flesh,” among which these are reckoned, Gal. v. 20.) until the regeneration, or restitution of all things. — JVoe unto the world, because of offences: for it must needs be that offences should come”—it is rmpossible that offences should not come—“ but woe unto that man by whom the offence cometh!” Matt. xviii. 7. Luke xvii. 1. Offences (cxavdarx) properly signify any stum- - bling blocks, or impediments in the way of believers, which may occasion their fall; or may prevent the conversion of unbelievers. A woe is denounced against the seduced; but a severer woe 1s de- nounced against the seducer. ‘Thus, several of the disorderly communicants among the Corinthians were punished with disease and death. 1 Cor. xi. 30. And the hypocrites, Ananias and Sapphira, were struck dead on the spot. Acts v. 5, 10, 11. When therefore, the servants, or ministers of Christ, in the parable, were prohibited from plucking up the tares, forthwith ; it by no means follows that the bad are not to be “ judged of tHe Lorp,” in this life. But the prerogative of punishing such offences, he reserves to himself: ‘‘ Vengeance is mine, L will repay, saith tHE Lory.” And when his own dis- ciples, James and John, in their zeal against some schismatical and inhospitable Samaritans, wanted permission to call down fire from heaven to con- ( 49 )- sume them; as did Eljah, the messengers of Ahaziah, sent to apprehend him. 2 Kings, i. 10, 19. Our gracious Lord rebuked those ‘* Sons of thunder,” and said unto them, ‘*‘ Ye know not what manner of [persecuting] spirit ye are of: for the Son oF MAN came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save. And they proceeded [peaceably] to another village.” Luke ix. 52—56, — Happy indeed, would it have been for mankind, had the Ministers of Christ both Ecclesiastical and Civil, in every age, “ known what manner of spirit they were of !’—The Christian Church would not then have been converted into a great slaughter- house ! | Lhe word, aipesss “ heresy,” signifies “ choice ;” but 1s more frequently used in a technical sense, to denote a sect, or party, holding and maintaining peculiar opinions, in Philosophy or Religion. It frequently occurs in heathen classics, Arrian, Epictetus, &c. to denote the various sects of the Stoics, Epicureans, Academics, &c. among the Greeks ; aud in the New Testament, the Pha- risees, Sadiucees, and Nazarenes, among the Jews.. Thus St. Paul professed himself of “ the strictest sect of the Pharisees,” before his conversion to Christianity. Acts xxvi. 5. But in 1 Cor, xi. 19. it is evidently used as a term of reproach; so Heresy is generally under- stood; and it is considered as worse than Schism, in this place, “ for there must needs be even here- sles among you.”—And accordingly, an error in VOL Te E 9 ( 80 ) doctrine i is more mischievous than an wrregularity in discipline *. It is not, however, every error in doctrine that constitutes Heresy ; for 1. It must be fundamentalt, affecting some of the essential doctrines or precepts of religion; such as a denial of the droimety of Christ, and his atonement ; the reality of his zncar- nation, resurrection, and ascension; the resurrec- tion of the dead; the Gospel liberty of Christians, and their exemption from Circumcision, and the Ceremonial Law of Moses, &c.; the personality of the Holy Ghost, &e. 2. It must-besides, be wilfully, deliberately, and le persisted in, after re peated admonitions. Accordingly, St. Paul thus warns Titus: “ A heretic, after one or two admo- nitions, reject; knowing that such a one is pers werted, and sinneth, being self-condemned:” or con- victed by his own conscience, of resisting evidence. Tit. ili. 10 _ Heresy therefore, in the Apostolical sense of the word, may be defined: The broaching, or publishing fundamental errors in Faith or Morals, wilfully and obstinately. On | * Schisma in Heresim eructat, said one of the ancient Fa- thers: “ Schism breaks forth intu Heresy,” and vice vers, Heresy engenders Schism. + The pious and learned Jeremy Taylor, considers as Heresy, all such doctrines and precepts, as are opposite to an article of the 4postles’ Creed; that are enemies to good hfe, or that weaken the hands of government. See his Life by Bonney, 1815. p. 59---62. A ( 51 ) "this, was evidently founded Augustine’s memorable profession: Errare possum, Hareticus esse nolo. ‘« I may err,” involuntarily ¢ “ but I will not be a Heretic,” by persisting therein, after admonition. And in his controversy with the Manicheans, he thus explains his sentiments, more fully: “ Those persons who maintain an opinion though false and perverse, without pertinacious animosity, and wha seek THE TRUTH with cautious solicitude, and when they have found it, are reddy to be corrected ; arg by no means to be classed among Heretics.” The punishment of convicted Heretics, who in- troduced Heterodow doctrine (irspodsdacnarsa) repug- nant to the GosPEL, as taught by Curisr and hig Apostles, was agicraco, * separation,” or avaSenc, excommunication from the Church. 1 Tim. i. wes vi. 3—5; Gal. i. 6—9. And this, we further learn from St. Paul himself; “ Grace be with all, that love our Lorp Jesus Curist, uncorruptedly*, (ev agdapriw).” Eph. vi. 24.— If any one love not ‘the Lorp Jesus Curist [uncorruptedly|, let him be (accursed), (avaSeua).” 1 Cor. xvi. 98, Here, the Apostle explains the technical expression, avasena, anathema, by the Syriac phrase, wapav aSe, maran atha, signifying ‘“ accursed be thou,” which was the Jewish form of excommunication. So when * Not adulterating the Gospel with false doctrine, as the Judaizers did.” Newcome.—sy aPIacoia, put for apaeras. Schleusner. And accordingly, more correctly rendered, ‘* y+ corruptedly” in the Unitarian Version, 4th Edit, E &, ( 52 ) the Pharisees contrasted themselves with the multi» tude who believed that Jesus was the Christ :-— “‘ Have any of the Muders, or of the Pharisees, believed on him? But this multitude, who know not the law, are accursed (enixaraparos).” John yii. 48, 49.—And further, when the man born blind, to whom JEsus gave sight, professed his belief that *« Jesus was of Gop,” or, the Son or Gop, or THE Curist, from this stupendous miracle; the Pharisees, blind to this decisive evidence, replied in the abusive language of pride and bigotry, when foiled by argument: “ Thou wast altogether born an sin, and dost thou teach us?—And they cast him out” [of the Synagogue}, or excommunicated him. John ix. 22, 32—A41. This rejection, separation, or excommunication, of convicted Heretics, from the pale of the Church, even in the Aposties’ days, was founded upon our Lord’s instructions—to hold such, “ as heathens and publicans,” Matt. xviii. 17; and was a just and necessary measure of self-preservation, to pre- vent the flock of Christ from being corrupted by “ those false teachers” whose “ discourse corrodes like a canker, such as Alevander the Copper-smith, Hymeneus and Philetus,” 2 Tim, 1.17.3 Iv. 14; and their successors, now in the Christian Church ; resembling the false prophets among the people of Israel; who, as St. Peter foretells, ‘ shall privily introduce (wageoakzow) heresies of destruction, even denying the SOVEREIGN (deomornv) who bought them, [with his precious blood}: bringing upon them- 7 ( 53 ) selves speedy destruction. And many shall follow their destructive ( heresies]: through whom, the way — of tHE TruTH, shall be dlasphemed. And through covetousness, they shall barter [men’s souls] with plausible speeches ; (ev TALOVEFIN, TWAATTOLS AoYors Umas tumopevoovras) whose judgment, foretold of old, lin- gereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not.’ 2 Pet. ii. 1—3, | This is a gloomy, but a faithful picture, by anti- cipation, of the present state of the Christian Church; and especially in this enviable land of religious and civil Liberty: now alas! degenerated into Licentiousness ; through neglect of the whole- some discipline of the primitive Church! And as the woes denounced by our Lord against the corrupt Jewish Church in his time, Matt. xxiii., were dreadfully fulfilled, in the destruction of Jerusalem and the desolation of Judea, by the Roman armies, under Zitus, A.D. 70. and Adrian, A. D. 135.; so, there is abundant cause to apprehend that the last woe, in the Apocalypse, has already com- menced; and that the ) “« Prince of the power of the air.” Ephes, ii, 2. ¢ TY5 ) (the Trinitarian) regards Satan as a personage independent on the Atmreuty, and perpetually employed in resisting his authority ; and he attri- butes, with some Unitarians also, all his evil thoughts to Satanic agency. His error, [in the latter case] I should think likely to do him some moral injury ; but I should not think it likely to continue long, in opposition to philosophic or even experimental acquaintance with the workings of the human heart. And as to those views of Satanic influence, which invest the Devil with Gétle short of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, many Unitarians think them scarcely-worth discussion : as they must inevitably fall before such authori- tative declarations as these: « I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: —I Jenovau do all these things.’ (Isa. xlv. 7.) Spoil’d principalities, and powers, triumphed In open shew; (c) and with occasion bright, Captivity led captive through the air, (d) The realm itself of Satan long usurped, Whom he shall tread (e) at last under our feet.” fp Oe ee ene Met BEBE SEaEarS Meee 2 Oh) Melt eee Coen eee ER ETA g (c) « He, (Curist) having spoiled principalities and powers, made a shew of them openly : triumphing over them on it, [the cross,” ] Coloss. rT ood Be (4) “ He ascended-on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.’ Ephes. iv. 8; Ps. Ixviii. 18. (e) * Tue Gop or psace shall bruise Satan shortly under your feet.” Rom. xvi. 20; Ps. xci. 13; cx. 6, (f) “ For He, (Curisr) must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet.” 1 Cor. xv. 25; Rev. xx. 2—10. Milton, therefore, both as-a scholar and a scripturian of the first rate is a powerful authority in support of the PopULAR BELIEF. LY @ He ) Whois he that sayeth, and it cometh to pass ; when JEHOVAH commandeth it not? (Lam. iil, 7.) ‘ Of Him, and by Him, and to Hi are all things.’ (Rom. xi. 36.) ‘These sublime truths, when taken in their full extent, involve the grand, I should rather say, the sole difficulty of religion, viz. the evistence of evil. And if any reader do not yet feel his mind prepared for them, let me intreat him to leave them for a while, and to dwell upon those views of Revelation, which represent the heart of man as the spring of good and evil conduct [Proy. , 23, &e. &c.] And which shew it to be an un- Wicbla decree of Divine Jusrice: ‘ He that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corrup- tion; but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting.” Antijacobin, Ja- nuary, 1815, p. 9], 92. This pregnant paragraph contains as many mis- representations as sentences : The well-informed Z’rinitarian does Not rest his persuasion of the personal existence of Satan, on pgetic imagery, or popular belief, directly or indirectly ; but on the whole tenor of Hoty Writ, carefully compared, and critically expounded. 2. He does nor regard Satan as a personage independent on the ALMicuty, nor invested with _httle short of the Divine attributes ; on the contrary, he considers him as a creature of the Almighty, acting entirely under his controul, and with limited powers ; from those very texts adduced by Dr. C. and many others, unnoticed by him. G Be) 3. He regards the existence of evil, though a grand, yet Nor the sole difficulty in religion ;— a difficulty, however, which he thinks reconcileable with the divine goodness, upon scriptural and phi- losophic grounds. But why does Dr. C. wave the difficulty, and suspend the enquiry Why does he dwell on a trite and well-known subject, the work- ings of the human heart, and the retributions of divine justice; and call off the attention of the reader, who is “ not yet prepared,” nor yet initiated in the depths of Unitarianism, from the grand diffi- culty? 4, The Zrinttarian does Nor attribute all his evil thoughts to Satanic agency ; he concurs with Unitarians so far, as to attribute many of them to the evil propensities of the heart itself ;—both from woeful experience, and from the word of God :— ‘* for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, mur- ders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies,” Matt. xv. 19. Compare | Sam. xvii. Oni me kerri 9 59Philaied gs. (Jam, 1.2 TAeTss 1 Johnie 16,.&c. &c. 5. By his Baptismal covenant, the Trinitarian is bound to “ renounce the Deve/, and all his works,” &c. his error, therefore, if it be such, is less likely todo him moral injury, than that of the Unitarian, who hardily denies the existence and agency of a foe, the more formidable because he is invisible. The Trinitarian, if he lives up to his principles, is bound to take more heed to his ways, to work out his salvation with fear and trembling : whereas, the ¢, ae) Unitarian, having no apprehensions of “ the craft and subtilty of the Devil working against us,” con- tinually, is.thrown off his guard, and may be un- done in the midst of his security ; he may be rouzed from his lethargy too late, when he opens his eyes in the torments of Hell ! 6. But Dr. C., with the Unitarian school, com- passionately endeavours to alleviate his fears of futurity! Hell, according to him, is a state of pu- nishment, for a dong and indefinite, but not infinite duration: for though he admits, that the same term, aiwvios, “ eternal, or everlasting,” is applied to the happiness of the righteous, and to the punishment of tne wicked, hereafter, (Matt. xxv. 46.) and justly maintains, upon scriptural evidence *, its absolute endlessness in the former case ; yet he rather inconsistently, and in violation of a primary rule of criticism, “ to use the same term, and in the same place, in the same sense,” denies it in the latter: And why does he deny it? “ Because he cannot sit down contented, with an opinion which represents HIM «ho ts LOVE, as creating a world, of whose inhabitants, hundreds and thousands of millions, nay, even the great majority through all ages, would, (as his Ommniscience must know) be doomed to misery without intermission, alleviation or end, for the sin of a few years!” Antijacobin, —p. 94 “In the Supreme Berne, benevolence cannot be imperfect, or misguided, and can have * “ See e.g. 1 Petei. 4; Luke xx» 305 Reve xxi. 4.” qi tao) for its ultimate object, nothing but the promotion of happiness ; and his justice can only be that mo- dification, or branch of benevolence, by which the plans of his moral administration are sanctioned by the suitable distribution of rewards and punish- ments.” Unitarianism the doctrine of the Gospel, p.273. , How different from such precipitately-positive, aud presumptuous assertions, (which it is painful to transcribe) are the following modest.and diffi- dent, humble and pious, reflections, of that pro- found philosopher and enlightened /)vine, Bishop Butler. “ Perhaps, Divine Goopwess (or BENEVO- LENCE) with which, if 1 mistake not, we make very free in our speculations, may not be a bare single disposition to produce happiness, but a disposition to make the good, the faithful, the honest man happy. Perhaps, an infinitely perfect mind may be pleased with seeing his creatures behave swet- ably to the nature he has given them ; to the re/a- tion which he has placed them in to each other ; and to that which they stand in to Himserr; that relation to himself, which, during their existence, is ever necessary, and which is the most wnportant one of all. Perhaps, I say, an infinitely perfect mind may be pleased with this moral piety of moral agents, i and for itself; as well as upon account of its being conducive to the happiness of his Crea- tion. Or, (rather) the whole end for which God made, and thus governs the world, may be uéterly ( 120 ) beyond the reach of our faculties. There may be somewhat in it as impossible for us to have any conception of, as for a blind man to have any con- ception of colours.” Butler's Analogy, &c. p. 49. And this solid and cogent reasoning is abun- dantly confirmed by the whole tenor of the Provi- dential History of Mankind, and by the express declarations of Holy Writ. 1. When the pious Sethites, “ the seed of the woman, who are called “ ¢he sons of God,” were seduced by the fair “ daughters of men,” of the Cainite race, the seed of the serpent, about the sixth generation from Adam ; and the whole world grew corrupt, full of dws¢ and violence, and alienated from Gop; insomuch, that in the tenth generation, only one righteous family was left: God destroyed the whole world of the ungodly by the deluge, but saved Noah and his family in the ark, to re-people the earth. 2. Again, in the tenth generation after the de-. luge, when a general corruption of mankind had taken place, God destroyed the abominable cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c. by fire and brimstone from Heaven ; but he spared righteous Zot, and the righteous part of his family. 3. When the /sraelites, his chosen people, whom he had brought forth from the abominations of fgypt, with mighty signs and wonders, and planted in the land of Caxaan, in the room of the impious and devoted inhabitants ; in process of time, had relapsed, themselves, into the idolatries and abo- ¢ Rey -) minations of the neigbouring nations; God first punished them with repeated servitudes to those very nations; afterwards with the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities ; and at length, when they had filled up the measure of their iniquities, by crucifying their Mrssran, or Curist, the promised seed of the woman, He punished them “ with great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sick- nesses, and of long continuance,” Deut. xxviii. 59, in the Roman captivity, of very long continuance, indeed ; and dispersed them into all countries of the earth; and they have so continued ever since, for seventeen centuries, unto the present day. Affording a standing monument both of Divine mercy, in their preservation as a distinct race, and of Divine vengeance in their exemplary chastise- ment. The description given of the Divine Cuarac- TER, and this by Gop himself, is most engaging, but, at the same time, most awful. ‘“ And THE Loxp passed by before him, (M/- ses) and proclaimed, The Lorp, the Lorn Gon, is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abun- dant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands *, forgoing iniquity, transgression, and sin: But who will by no means clear [the guilty] ; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the chil- * This ought rather to be rendered for the thousandth [gene- ration] of the obedient, as in -Deut. vii. 9; Ps. cv.8; and finely contrasted with the third or fourth generation of the dis. obedient. ( 192 ) dren, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and unto the fourth [gencration.” | Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7. With this text full in his view, which he partially cites, omitting the latter clause, p. 277, how could Dr. Carpenter persuade himself, or attempt to persuade others, that “ nothing appears through- out the whole of the Scriptures, to countenance the belief, that the exercise of God’s justice, in any way limits the exercise of his benevolence.” “I can only say, (says he) that I know of no expres- sion, in any way countenancing this idéa.” P. 275, 276. Surely the latter clause, ‘ He will by no means clear the guilty,” evidently implies some limitation ; and serves to explain the former part, which he re- cites in capitals, “‘ FORGIVING INIQUITY, TRANS- GRESSION, AND SIN;” not absolutely, indeed, or unconditionally, (as he insinuates,) but on the in- dispensable terms of repentance and reformation, or ‘* amendment of heart and life,” as he himself admits, p. 271. And he strangely perverts our Lord’s declaration, Matt. v. 44—48, which, says he, “ represents the benevolence of God as com- plete and unlimited, extending even to the wnthank- Ful and disobedient.” P. 276. It certainly is com- plete and unlimited as to its objects, in the present — dife; extending the xatural bounties of his provi- dence to all, without excluding any; “ for He maketh Hrs Suz to shine upon the evil and the good; and sendeth rain upon the just and the ( 4@3 .) wijust /” But a wide distinction, in point of retri- bution, will be made hereafter, at the geveral judg- ment: the wxthankful and disobedient, who abuse the goodness and long-suffering of God, are often spared, in this life, when they deserve punishment, for the sake of the good and just, with whom they are necessarily intermixed in the social intercourse of this world; as explained in the instructive pa- rable of the wheat and tares: “ Lest, in gathering the zares, the wheat also should be rooted up with them.” Both are suffered “ to grow together till the Harvest.” But then, the zares will be burned, and the wheat gathered into God’s granary. Matt. Xlli. 24——30. For, to the disobedient, ‘‘ who refuse to hearken to rH Speaxer,”—at first from Mount Sina, and again, from Heaven ; delivering divine oracles, (xpnuartovre) “ Our Gop will be a con- suming fire,” both here and hereafter. Heb. xii. 25—29. “ Behold the goodness and severity of Gop !"— Rom. xi. 22. “ There is mercy with Ture, there- fore art thou to be feared!” Ps. exxx. 4. This seeming paradox is admirably explained by the sa- -gacious Bishop Butler. “ { Mercy, or] Goodness is the natural and just object of the greatest fear to an evil man ; Malice may be appeased, Humour may change; but Good- ness is a fixed steady principle of action: if either of the former holds the Sword of J ustice, there is plainly ground for the greatest of crimes to hope for impunity ; but if Goodness, there can be no ( 124 ) possible hope, while the reason of things, or the ends of Government, call for punishment.” But- ler’s Sermons, Pref. p. xxi. But, blessed be Gop! in the gracious dispensa- tion of our Repemption, by the Divine seEp or THE WoMAN, “ Alercy and Truth are met toge- ther; Reghtcousness and Peace have kissed each other.” Ps. Ixxxv. 10. Gon’s mercy or benevo- fence, and his truth or justice, which seemed to be at variance, are met together in mutual harmony : His righteousness or holiness, and the peace of a guilty world, which seemed to be irreconcileable, have kissed each other in token of the fondest re- conciliation. Compare Luke ii. 14. “ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of Gop! How unsearchable are His judgments, and untraceable His ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lorp? Or who hath been His counsellor? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, all things [exist], To Htm be glory for ever. Amen.” Rom, xi. 33—36. | Here is another end of the Divine dispensations, beside mere Benevolence; namely, the Glory of Gop, in the government of the Universe. A glory, which He shares with THE Son oF HIS LOVE*. Numerous are the incidental references in the Old and New Testament, to the temptation and fall of our first parents; considered as acknowledged facts, *iCompare, Johny. .235.xily 283 xvii.) 13 Phil. iiy Lis Rev, ve 13, &e. &c ( 125 ) not requiring proof, handed down from primitive tradition. Of these I shall select the following : 1. “ Gop created man to be immortal, and made him an image of his own eternity: Nevertheless, through envy of the Devil came Death into the world, and they that hold of his side do find it.” Wisd. 11. 29, 24. 2. “ Of the woman came the beginning of sin ; and through her we all die.” Ecclus. xxv. 24, 3. “ If I covered my transgressions, like Adam ; by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom [or hiding place]. Job xxxi. 33. 4. “ Wispom preserved the first-formed father of the world, who was created alone ; and brought him out of his fall, and gave him power to rule all things.” Wisd. x. 1,2. Here, Wispom personi- fied, as the eternal Son or Gop, Prov. viii. 22—235, brought Adam out of his fall, by the promised seed of the woman, and reinstated him in his original privileges. 5. “ The Serpent beguiled Eve through his sub- tilty.” 2 Cor. xi. 3. 6. “ For ddam was first formed, then Eve: and Adam was not deceived ; but the woman having been deceived was in the transgression. Neverthe- less, she shall be saved by means of the child-bear- ing, [as well as Adam] if they remained in faith and love, with sobriety, [for the rest of their lives].” Penn ried 47. B53 7. “ Forasmuch then, as the children partake of flesh and bloed, Jesus also himself took part of the | 9 ( 196 ) same; that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil.” Heb. ii, 14. | 8. “ He that committeth sin is [a child] of the Devil ; for the Devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose was THE son or Gop manifested [in the flesh] that he might destroy the works of the Devil.”” 1 John ii. 8. 9. “ For rue Gop or peace, [the Prince of Peace, Isa. ix. 6.] will bruise Satan under your feet, shortly.” Rom, xvi. 20. 10. “ Ye are of your father the Devil, and ye wish to do the works of your father, [to ill me, and to reject the truth:] he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him: when he speaketh ¢he Ue, he speaketh of his own, for he is a apt and the father of it.” John viii. 44—46 ; 19, Il. “ Ye serpents! ye balitisian mney wipers { (ye children of the Devil !) how can ye escape the damnation of Hell!” Matt. xxiii. 33. 12. “ Depart from mE, ye cursed, into ever- lasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels!” Matt. xxv. 44. ; Surely this “ cloud of witnesses,” this combined and connected mass of scattered, independent evi- dence, is abundantly sufficient to remove the in- credulity and satisfy the scruples of the most obsti- nate Scepiic, and most determined Allegoriser ! May it have its due weight with Dr. Carpenter ! And I trust it will, from his own unequivocal con- 6 ( a7 ) cession, on another important subject: ‘“ He re- gards St. Paul's single declaration, (Acts xvii. 31.) as a complete proof, that THE MAN Curist JEsus is to be our Judge” at the general judgment. P. 902. And must he not regard these numerous declara- tions of Prophets, Apostles, and Curisr himself, as furnishing still more complete, and irrefragable proof of the reality of the fall, and of the personal existence, and future punishment of the Dewi and - his seed ? Should Dr. C. unhappily for himself, and for his followers, still persist in denying this doctrine, he will furnish, alas! “ A singular and striking proof of the effect of pre-formed opinions in warping the judgment of men of learning and abilities.” I will not say with him, of ‘‘ eveat learning and abilities,” such as Doctor (now Bishop) Adiddleton, to whom ~- he misapplies the remark, p. 175, because “ men of the greatest learning and abilities,”’ surely, main- tain the doctrine. This mysterious doctrine, indeed, is of infinite importance to the world; for the whole scheme of our redemption by Curis is built thereon, and must either stand or fall therewith: a figurative fall requiring only a figurative redemption. Even the sceptical Lord Bolingbroke justly rejected the allegorical mode of interpretation: “ It cannot, (said he) be admitted by Curistrans; for if it was, what would become of that famous text, Whereon the doctrine of oUR REDEMPTION is founded >” [Gen, iii, 15.] Vol. V. p. 372. Syo. C+ 188: ) Thus shrewdly intimating, that the Allegorizer's were 20¢ CHRISTIANS *. * TI, PAGAN ALLEGORY OF THE FALL. Remarkable traces of this primeval tradition are to~ be found in the remains of the most ancient Heathen Mythology, but strangely disguised and distorted, by the allegorizing genius ef their poets and philosophers. Hesiod, the earliest of the Greek poets, who, according to the Parian Chronicle, flourished about B.C. 944, appears to allude thereto in his mystical fable of Prometheus, and Pandora with her box of evils; at the commencement of his agricul- tural puem of MVorks and Days. He introduces 1t with a remark on the present laborious state of husbandry, compared with the former, among the first race of men ; which he attributes to “ the wrath of Jove, who. hid from men the necessaries of life, which before were easily procured; insomuch that the moderate labour of a single day would furnish provision for a whole year,” v. 43,44. Here seems to be a remarkable allusion to the curse pronounced upon the ground, for 4dam’s transgression. Gen. iii. 17—19. He attributes this to the deceit practised on Jove by the artful Prometheus ; (‘* the providenat,’’?) who stole the fire, which Jove had hidden from men, in a hollow cane 3; and com- munieated it again to them. For this audacious theft, Jove threatened him, and men in future, with great calamity, with an evil, which all should admire, to theirown hurt. Ver, 47 —-59. He then elaborately describes the formation of woman :— Jove ordered Vulcan (the god of fire) forthwith, to mix earth and water together, into the form of a fair virgin; and Mx nerva (the goddess of wisdom) Venus (the goddess of beauty) the Graces, and Persuasion, goddesses also, and Mercury (the god of eloquence and of theft) to instruct, and adorn her with all their varicus accomplisliments, ornaments, and blandish- ments ; aud called hername Pandora (* possessing every gift,””y 5- C 129 ) ‘and then, sent her, by Mercury, as a present to Epimetheus, (** the foolish *.”) He, neglecting the advice of Prometheus; his brother, not to receive the present from Jove, but to send her back again, lest some evil should happen to mortals; accepted her, and when he had her to wifz, then he perceived the evil : for whereas the tribes of men on earth, before, usually lived without evils, without toilsome labour, and grievous diseases, which bring old age on men, so that they speedily grow old and miserable ; the woman soon, with her hands, removed the great cover of the box, [of evils} let them out, and occasioned grievous. cares to men ; while Hope alone re- mained within, at the bottom of the unbroken box; because she put on the cover, before it fled out; by the will of almighty Jove. Ver. 59—99. ) In this curious allegory, we easily trace the principal fea- tures of the Mosaic account of the creation of our first parents, of their fall, and the redemption of mankind: in Epimetheus, who foolishly, or inconsiderately, accepted the present, we descry ddam, who “ listened to the voice of his wife,” Gen. Hi. 173 in the fair and fascinating Pandora, Eve § in the box ef evils which she opened and let out, her transgression, and the fall of Adum thereby; in Hope, which she retained at the bottom, by covering the box again; the hope of the redemption of mankind, through the « seed of the woman ;” destined, by the will of Jove, to “ bruise the Serpent's head ;” but to suffer himself in the conflict, by the ** Serpent’s bruising his heel?’ And, perhaps, to the old Serpent, lurking in Paradise, the scene of the temptation, Hesiod may allude, where he describes the ¢errible Serpent (dewoy opty) in the dark recesses of the earth; who guards the golden apples in spacious borders,” Theogony, ver. 334, 335,—in the garden of the Hesperides. Prometheus, the last personage introduced in this allegory, is one of the most extraordinary and mysterious characters of * Pindar describes Epimetheus (EmsnSeug) as OLsvo0c,’ * wise too late,” . Pyth. Od. Hesivd also, describes him aS amaprivoocs “ erring, or depravess in mind.” Theogony, VOL, f. K ( 130 ) Heathen Mythology. A fuller account ef him is given by Hesiod in his Theogony: there we learn, that Japetus, beside Atlas, his eldest son, had three other sons, Menacius, Prome- theus, and Epimetheus ; that Menecius, for his crimes, insolence, and outrageous viclence, was smitten with thunder by Jove, and cast into Erebus. The next, Prometheus, was guilty of a double-offence ; for, once, at a judicial trial between Gods and mortal men, (ar exgivovso Scot, Sunzos + arIpwzros) Prometheus freely offered to divide a great ox in sacrifice, tempting Jove. Accordingly, he divided it into two parts; in the one, he put the flesh, the entrails, and the rich fat, into the skin, covering it withthe paunch of the ox; in the other, he artfully hid the bare bones of the ox, covering them with the caul of the fat 5 and then he offered Jove to take his choice, fone part for the Gods, and to leave the other for the men.] But Jove, though he well knew the fraud, designedly chose the latter ; and frona this time forth, the tribes of men burnt only the bare bones, on the smoking altars of the Gods... Indignant at such a worth- less offering, while they kept the best part for themselves, Jove no more gave fire to wretched mortals. Again, Prome= theus deceived him, and stole away, in a hollow cane, the fiery flame, and restored the use of it to mortals. For these offences, Jove formed Pandora, and sent her as a pernicious present to mortals; and by Vulcan’s aid, he bound Prometheus with the strongest fetters, and fastened him with chains to the midst of a pillar; aud sent an eagle to torment him; who fed on his never-wasting liver, which grew as much by night, as the eagle devoured by day. At length, Hereules, the son of Alemena, killed the bird, [with his arrows] and delivered Prometheus . from his sufferings: and this, with the consent of celestial Jove himself, wishing to increase the glory of his son Hercules upon earth. Theog. 508—O15. In this obscure allegory, we may perhaps, without over re- finement, trace a latent resemblance in Menecius, the first bro- ther, to Satan ; who was cast out of heaven for his pride and presumption. Isa. xiv. 12. In Prometheus, the second,—Christ, “« the seed of the woman;” who instituted the rite of sacri- C Il) fice, in his mediatortal character, between God and man, as a type of the great atonement to be made for the sins of the whole world, by the all-sufficient sacrifice of bimself on the cross, And the fire which Prometheus stole for men, was chiefly for the purpose of sacrificing; for though schylus styles it Ravrexys wupos osaas, ‘the flame of fire productive of every art,” Prometheus chained, ver. 107, 108 ; yet Lucian represents this as its chief use: ‘* Men (says he) necessarily employ fire for other purposes; but chiefly for sacrifices, to fumigate the streets, to offer incense, and to burn the flesh of victims upon the altars.” Prometheus, or Caucasus, Vol. 1. p. 202. The mediatorial character of Prometheus is more fully un- folded by Zschylus, the Greek poet, born B.C. 525. In his sublime and majestic tragedy of Prometheus chained, he ascribes 2 higher origin to Prometheus, than his predecessor Hesiod, and a nobler character: he represents him as the son of The- mis, or Justice; a God, suffering for his love of mankind: who provided medicine for their diseases; rendered wise and intel- ligent, the foolish and inconsiderate, who seeing, saw not ; and hearing, understood not ; taught them various arts; voluntarily interposed. between the wrath of God, and the punishment of man, and turned both upon himself; desirous to save mortals from destruction, by his own sufferings; although, by his prescience, he clearly foreknew them, and foretold their ter- mination. ** Jove, for unhappy mortals Had no regard ; and all the present race, Will’'d to extirpate, and to form a new. None, save myself, opposed his will; I dared ; And boldly pleading, saved them from destruction, Sav’d them from sinking to the realms of night.” ** For this offence I bend beneath these pains, Dreadful to suffer, piteous to behold : For mercy to mankind, I am not deem’d Worthy of mercy ; but with ruthless hate, Kg r we2 in this uncouth appointment am fix’d here, A spectacle dishonourable to Jove.” ‘« Spectators of my woes Ye see me bound, a wretched God, abhorr’d By Jove, and every God that treads his courts, For my fond love of man.” «‘ J sent blind Hope v’ inhabit in their hearts,— Nay more, with generous zeal, I gave them fire, And by it, did give birth to various arts.” — « The ills of man you’ve heard : I form’d his mind, And through the cloud of barbarous ignorance, Diffused the beams of knowledge.” ———~ “© Prometheus taught each useful art to men.” Porrer’s Translation. ZEschylus wrote two other tragedies, in continuation, which unhappily are lost: the first, described his offence, in carry- ing off the sacred fire to men ; and the last, his deliverance from Caucasus by Hercules. These, if preserved, would pro- bably have thrown more light. upon the cause for which Jove withdrew the sacred fire; and also, finished the portrait of the great Deliverer: as Prometheus, militant, or ‘“ suffering ;” but, as Hercules, triumphant, “ conquering, and to conquer.” — Compare Luke xxiv. 25, 26; Rev. vi. }, 2; x1x. 11. From the scanty information given by Hesiod, however, we may collect, that the “ judicial trial between Gods and men,” might have alluded to the trial of our first parents in Paradise after the fall; that the crime of men, in defrauding Jove of his proper share of the sacrifice, for which, in his anger, he withdrew from them the sacred fire, may bear a remote and distorted resemblance to Cain’s imperfect sacrifice, which God did uot accept, or did not consume with sacred fire, like Abel's perfect offering, as in the case of Elijah, 1 Kings xvii. 38. afterwards ; for which offence, Cain and his family were ba- nished from the Shechinah, or Divine presence, ‘“‘ stationed” at Eden; and too probably, afterwards, neglected the use of sacri~ fice, Gen. iil. lv. ( 133 ) And the restoration of the sacred fire to men by Prometheus, may not unaptly allude to the renewal of the original covenant with Noah, after the deluge; which was ratified by a sacrifice, that was accepted by God. Gen. vill. 15—-22; 1x. 117. The institution of sacrifice, as typical of the great and all- sufficient sacrifice of the “ Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world,” John i. 29; was most probably revealed to Abraham, at the proposed sacrifice of his son Isaac, on mount Moriah, or of “ Vision,” John viii. 56; and was vir- tually contained in his ambiguous answer to Isage:—‘* God will see (or provide) for himself, a lamb for a burnt-offering,” Gen. xxii. 8; whence, Abraham called the name of that place, Jehovah jireh, * the Lord will see (or provide) ;” as he said, that day, onthe mount, ver. 14. And that place, by tradition, was Calvary; the pre-destined scene of cur Lord’s suffering, And from Abraham, this tradition of the future Redeemer’s sacrifice, might easily have been propagated among the Hea- then nations, descended from his sons, by Hagar and Keturah, Hence, we may account for the scene of Prometheus’ suffer- ings, being laid upon @ mount—Caucasus, the representative of Calvary ; and as the particular mode of the great future sacrie fice was typified to the Israelites in the desert, and through them to the surrounding Heathen nations, by the symbolical brazen serpent, lifted up on a pole, for the healing of the people bitten by fiery serpents, who looked upon it with the eye of faith; and which was represented by our Lord himself, as emblematical of his own lifting up on the cross, for the salvation of mankind, Numb. xxi. 6—9; Wisdom xvi. 63 John iii, 14—163 vill. 28; xii. 325 so it is remarkable, that the pus nishment of Prometheus chained to a pillar, and suspended therefrom, resembled crucifixion, Accordingly, Lucian, in his dialogue of Prometheus or Caucasus, actually represents him as “ crucified,” (ssavpwo3e) with his feet resting upon a pro= jection of the rock, or cross; (4 cavp@), and his hands exe tended, and fastened thereto with nails, §. 1. 2. The character of Prometheus is drawn by Lucian, ‘still more nearly resembling the Son or Gop. Improving upon Hesiod @ 184°) aud Zschylus, he represents Prometheus as making both men and women himself, §. 3, 6, 12, 13; which they had confined to Jove and Vulcan, as being a most ancient God, (warutov ere Seov) §. 7. And he foretels his own release by Hercules ; and, with the approbation of Jove himself, §. 20, 21. Plato, the Greek philosopher also, born B. C. 429, who tra- velled into Egypt, and might have become acquainted with the writings of Moses, held in high estimation there; in his Protagoras, alludes, not obscurely, to the fall of our first pa- rents, in his representation of ‘* Porus tempted to sin by Penza, when intoxicated in the garden of Jove.” And in his Republic, B. ii. he gives a most remarkable description of the sufferings of “ the Just Man, who should be despised, and ill-treated, and at length zmpaled ;”’ (avaoniwdvrcvdyceras) or, as the word is explained by Hesychius, “* crucified ;” cracundurcviedar = AVATKROAOTICN VES SHAT KOACT ICEL everavewott— Strongly Tee sembling the description in Wisdom, ii. 13—20. Hesiod again, in his Theogony, ver. 570—588, has given @ similar description of the fair and fascinating Pandora. ‘This, the learned and sublime Melton has finely imitated, and greatly improved, in his admirable description of her prototype, Eve, See his Paradise Lost, Book VUI. 405—559. ‘* Under His forming hands, a creature grew, Manlike, but different sex: so lovely fair, That what seem’d fair in all the world, seem’d now Mean, or in her summ’d up, in her contain’d, And in her looks : —————-adorn’d With all that earth or heaven could bestow *, To make her amiable: Grace was in all her steps, heav’n in her eye, Iu every gesture, dignity and love.” But the Christian Poet far excels the Heathen, in Adam’s de- scription of her mentad accomplishments $ * This is a beautiful paraphrase of the name Pandora, (ravdwpe.) (CTS ) 4 ais “¢ When I approach Her loveliness, so absolute she seems, And in herself complete, so well to know H Her own; that what she wills to do, or say, Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best : All higher knowledge in her presence falls, Degraded ; wisdom, in discourse with her, Loses discountenanc’d, and like folly shews 3 Authority and reason on her wait, As one intended first, not after made Occasionally: and (to consummate all) Greatness of mind, and nobleness, their seat Built in her loveliest, and create an awe Abcut her, as a guard angelic placed.” This is exquisite moral painting, copied faithfully, by the hhand of a master, from the “ perfect” models of Hoty Writ, Matt. v. 48.3; ‘¢ made in the image and fikeness of Gop,” Gen. 1. 26, 27.3 “ all-glorious within” as well as without, Psalm xlv. 13.; “ not having spot or wrinkle or any suck thing, but holy and blameless.” Eph. v. 27. Such were the Holy Matrons of old, Sarah, Susannah, Esther, Judith, &c. whose beauty was their lowest accomplishment; and especially the Virgin Mary, second Eve, so highly “ blessed among women,” Luke i. 28, as “ the mother of oun Lorp,” Luke 1. 43.; and distinguished by her faith, Luke i. 38, 45.; her humihty, Luke i. 48, 52.3 and by the ‘* ornament of a meck and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God (and man) is of great price,” 1 Pet. ili, 4.; as evinced by her conduct, Luke i, 48—51.; John li, 3—5.; xix. 25—27.; Acts1. 14. That Hesiod indeed, actually intended the fable of Epimee theus and Pandora, as an allegory of the fail of our first parents, and of the consequent deterioration, or gradual corruption of mankind, seems to be indisputable, from the ensuing ac- count of II. Hestop’s AGES a¥F THE WoRLD. “This account he introduces with remarkable solemnity 5 ( 136 ) stating that his information was well founded and correct, and therefore worthy of attention. ‘Tf you please, I will tell you another tale, Well, and skilfully ; and lay it up in your mind.” Works and Days, ver. 106. 1. The Golden Age. He assigns this to the first race of men, in Safturn’s reign, who lived as Gods, free’ from cares, without labour and sorrow, enjoying the spontaneous fruits of the earth in great abun- dance; and dying without pain, as if overcome with sleep, [at the age of a thousand years; as noticed from Heszod, by Josephus, Ant.i. 3, 9.] After death, they became Desons, (or good Angels) guardians of mankind, by the will of Jove; and went to and fro, throughout the earth, observing the just and unjust deeds of men, dispensers of wealth. Such was their Royal reward. Vers. 108 —126. This Golden Age, was not confined to the Paradisaicul state of our first parents; for in it they had no issue. It scems to include the purer state of Seth’s line, through Enos, Gen. iv. 25.3 styled, for their superior piety, the “ sons of God ;” until they began to be corrupted, by their promiscuous intermar- riages with the ** daughters of men,” of Cain’s apostate race ; about the time of the righteous Enoch, the seventh from Adam, Gen. vi. 1, 2.; Jude 14, . The Silver Age, | This race was much inferior to the Golden, both in body and mind. Ata hundred years old they were still boys, bred up in simplicity with their careful mothers, at hame. But their term of manhood was short, and they died early ; suffering, for their folly, because they would not abstain from injury to each other, and chose bot to worship the gods, nor to offer sacrifices on heir altars, as is mect for men, according to custom. Jove therefore removed them, in his wrath, because they cave not due honours to the happy gods. However, the first and purest patriarchs of this race, after their death, were called ¢ wr ) | te second happy mortals, for honour still attended even these. Vers. 127—142. This Silver age seems to have succeeded the general Deluge, of which Hesind takes uo notice. The second happy mortals, remarkably designate the righteous Noas, and his family ; with whom the Divine Covenant was renewed, after the institution of Sacrifice was reviveds Gen. vill. 20—22 ; ix. 1—-17. This synchronizes with the réstoration of the sacred fire by Prome- theus, in the former allegory. The gradual diminution of the original standard of human life, in the postdiluvian patriarehs, from 600 years, the age of Shem, to 205 years, the age of T'erah, in the ninth generation, Gen, xi. 20—382.; also critle eally corresponds: while the mean lengths of generations, about 130 years, at an average, according to the longer and correcter computation of the Septuagint Greek Version and Josephus, confirmed by the Samaritan Hebrew Text, naturally admits of their boyhood, at a hundred years old. The violence and impiety, which gradually corrupted this age, began, after the death of Noah and his sons, in the days of Peleg, the fifth in descent from Shem. And his contemporary Nimrod, signifying “ the Arch-Rebel,” is recorded as “a mighty Hunter before the Lord,” who built Babel, Neniveh, and othcr great cities, and founded the Babylonian and Assy- rian empires. Gen, x. 8—12.; x1. 1-9. This corruption of the patriarchal religion, morals, and regimen, gradually en- creased, ani! spread from Babylon and Niniveh till it reached Palestine, where, in the tenth generation, or Abraham’s days, Sovom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone from Heaven, for their impiety, abominations, and violence. Gen. XVlile X1Xe 3. The Brazen Age. This was greatly inferior to the Silver: producing a robust, hardy, warlike, and rapacious race; who had brazen weapons, and brazen houses (perhaps armour), and worked with brazen tools, for iron was not yet found out. These perished by each others hands, and went to the house of Hades, without name, or renowne Vers, 143——155. € 108 > Hesiod here describes the early state of Greece, and the ad« jacent regions, during their successive colonizations, by the various wandering tribes of Asia, Phenicia, and Egypt, who formed settlements on the coasts of Europe; and lived in a turbulent and insecure state of warfare, piracy, rapine, and violence. Such were the Pelasgi; and such, the rape of Jo, the daughter of Inachus, king of Argos, by some Phenician traders, about B.C. 1745; the rape of Europa, daughter of Agenor, king of T’yre, in reprisal, by some Greeks, about B.C. 1000: which formed a precedent for the rape of Helen after- wards, by Alewander or Paris the Trojan. Herod. i. 1. Com- pare Thucydides, and Plutarch, in his life of Theseuse These early adventurers died without name or renown, because they wanted poets or historians, in those rude and barbarous times, before the discovery and use of iron, to celebrate theiy exploits ; according to the excellent explanation of Horace ; Vixere fortes, ante Agamemnona, Multi, sed omnes illachrymabiles Urgentur, ignotique, longa Nocte; carent quia vate sacro. Od. iv. 9, 25. Nam fuit ante Helenam, mulier teterrima belli Causa: sed ignotis perierunt mortibus illi, Quos Venerem incertam rapientes, more ferarum, Viribus editior ¢adebat, ut in grege taurus. Sat. i. 3, 108. 4. The Hervie Age. This produced a dzwine race, juster and better than the Brazen ; who were called Demigods. But the last two generae tions thereof perished in destructive war, and direful combat: namely, they who fought at Thebes, about the sheep of Qdipus, or disputed the suecession to his inheritance; and they who invaded Yrey, crossing the sea in ships, on the fair Helen’s account, where they perished. Yet after death, they were translated by Jove to the happy isles, in the deep ( Atlantic} ( 30 ) Ocean. Where these blissful Heroes lead a quict life, and the earth produces them annually a triple harvest of pleasant fruits. Vers. 156—173. | This Hervic race effected a partial reformation of the world, by the labours of Bacchus, Hercules, Castor and Pollux, &c. who went about, like knights-errant, destroying giants and monsters, redressing grievances, composing wars, colonizing countries, building towns, &c.; and for their great exploits, were admitted into the temples of the gods, as Demigods, after their death. Horat. Epist. ii. 1, 5—12- Virgil, Aineid. viii. . 287—302. This age succeeded Deucalion’s flood in Thessaly, B. C. 1529, according to the Parian Chronicle; for this flood was sent by Jove, tu destroy the men of the Brazen age: according to Apollodorus and Proclus, in their Seholia on Homer, Iliad. 1, 10. Didym. And Bacchus was the son of Semele, the daughtet of Cadmus, who built the Cudmea at Thebes, B.C. 1519, ac’ cording to the Parian Chronicle. And Hercules, the son of Alcmena, according to Herodotus, lived about 900 years before the time he visited Egypt, in B.C. 448; or about B,C. 1348. Euterpe, § 145. This age included six or seven generations of Deucalion’s descendants, to the end of the Trajan war. B.C. 1183. As we learn from the Scholia on Homer, Iliad. xii. 117; compared with Homer himself, Hiad. vi. 154—206. See Hales’s New Analysis of Chronology, Vol. i. p. 42. The sons of @dipus, and the Chiefs who fought at Thebes, were Eteocles und Polynices ; Tydeus, Capaneus, Eteoclus, Hippo- medon, Amphion, and Amphiaraus ; according to Zschylus, in his noble tragedy of the Seven Chiefs against Thebes. Aud their sons, Diumedcs, Sthenelus, &c. warred at Troy. 5. The Tron Age. In the course of this Age, which succeeded the Trojan war, Hesiod himself lived. He represents the men as an Jron race, doomed to incessant labour and toil, day and night. And he presages their continual deterioration. Until at length, when» their corruptions shall come to the full, when discord shall ( aD ) rage between parents and children, brothers, and friends ; when violence, injustice, and impiety, envy, calumny, ‘and perjury, shall universally prevail; when men shall grow hoary- headed soon after their birth, or human life be reduced to its shortest standard ; when white-robed Modesty and Justice shall quit the earth, and fly away to heaven, and no remedy shall be found for human woes: then shall Jove destroy this race ; and restore, at length, the Golden age again upon earth: as plainly implied in the poet’s abrupt and passionate wish, at the beginning ; *€ Oh, that I had not been doomed to live among Men of the fifth race; but that I had either Died before, or were to be born after ! For now indeed, there is an tron race, Vers, 174-201, This gradual deterioration of the Iron age, is well expressed by Horace: | Damnosa quid non diminuit dies ! “tas parentum (*), pejor avis (*), tulit Nos (3) nequiores; mox daturos Progenvem (*) vitiosiorem Od. iii, 6, 45, And indeed, the abominations and corruptions of the Heathen world, coming to the full, shortly after the time of Horace, and about the time of Christ, are painted in the most glowing colours, by an eye-witness, the illustrious Apostle of the Gentiles, in terms remarkably similar to Hesiod’s prediction, hy his Epistle to the Romans, i. 1S—32. Including also the Jews, iil. O—23. ) And here, it may well be asked, whence did the venerable Ascrean bard derive his information about the sir ages of the world, so remarkably consonant to sacred and profane history throughout Most probably, from the Oracles of the Cumean Sibyl; of which, that profound antiquary, Virgil, has selected ( wa) some extraordinary passages, descriptive of the Goldea age revived, in his fourth Eclogue to Pollo; which furnish an excellent supplement, as it were, to Hesiod. This Sibyl, or ‘ Priestess of the Sun and Moon,” as she is styled by Virgil, Phebe, Trivieque sacerdos, Aineid. ve 33, came originally, we are told, from Babylon, to Erythree, neat Troy ; and settled at Cuma, in Italy, about, or after, the de- struction of Troy. Her title, therefore, was most probably of oriental origin, derived from the Hebrew, Sibuleth, an ear of corn,” Judg. xi. 6, and signifying, “ a gleaner of ears of corn*,” or, a “ wandering prophetess ” like the Chaldees of the East, or Culdees of the west, who might have gained infor- imation from the patriarchal prophecies of Jacob, Balaam, &c» which were in circulation throughout the East; and also from the early Jewish tradition of the six millenary ages of the world, which were to iutroduce the Mgsstan, who was expected to appear about the middle of the sixth Chiliad, or millenary age 5 as Christ actually did, about A.M. 5411, or shortly before, according to Hales’s corrected system of chronology. And then, indeed, began that partial regeneration or reformation of the world, which the true and unerring word of prophecy assures us will be completed at his second appearance in glory ; and is destined to last, during the millennium, till near the end of the world. Matt. xix. 28.; Acts i. 19—21.; Heb, .1x.°283:5 Rev. xx. 4—6. But Hesiod’s father lived first at Cume, and removed from thence to Ascra in Baotia; so that the son might easily have become acquainted with the Cumaan Sibyl’s predictions. 6. The Golden Age renewed. Most remarkable, indeed, are the extracts of Virgil, from the Cumean Sibyl: as will appear from the following select passages, closely translated : “ The last age of the Sibylline Oracle zs now coming, A grand order of generations is to be born anew. Ea ame SAR GE 7 aS ca De ee norman * This is the ingenious derivation of Hyde, Relig. Vet. Pers. ( 142 ) The Virgin (Astrea) and the reign of Saturm Are now to return; a new progeny Is now to be sent down from heaven: The Iron age shall end with the birth Of a Son, and a Golden age arise, Throughout the whole world :—— The Sun [or nigureousnrss *] is now to TELL —— Under Thy guidance, if any traces of our guilt remain, Thy absolution from perpetual dread shall free The [erring] lands:—The serpent also shall perish— And a Kine shall rule the peaceful world, Inheriting mis Farner’s virtues. Assume thy glorious honours, (the time | ts now at hand) BELovep Or¥sprine oF HEAVEN Jove’s Mienry Son.—— | See how all Nature gladdens at the prospect OF the age to come! O may I, to the last gasp of lengthened life, Retain sufficient breath to sound Tuy pratse ” Eclog. iv. 4—54, The adulation of Virgil applied these magnificent descrip» tions, of “ the blessed Seed of the Woman”—* the Desire of ale nations ;” derived from sacred prophecy, in the Sibylline Oracles, to the child of which Scribonia, the wife of Octavius Cesar, was then pregnant, who was born indeed, in the consulate of Pollo, B.C. 40, as the poet predicted, verse 11.; but unluckily, turned out to be a daughter, the infamous Julia, as she after- wards proved; according to Dion Cassius. Sce Martyn’s learned Notes, p. 156. Hence it appears, that the six ages of the world, either noticed or intimated, by the venerable Ascrean bard, are critically con- er EMO RETR oe ee _ * Jam regnat Apollo.-Not the « Destroyer” of the human rate, the * old Serpent,” and afterwards, the material Sun; buat the Saviour of mankind, the “Sun or Rrcurreovsyrss” with healing in his wings, or rays. Rev, ix. 13.; Homer’s Iliad i, 43--53,; Malachi iv. 2, I ( 143) II. I shall next endeavour to delineate the cha racter of our first parents, from Hoty Writ. Human Nature as it came fresh from the hands of roe Creator, was “ good” in its kind, “ very good” for the purposes of its creation; but it was not absolutely good, or perfect. Adan was com- pounded of body, soul, and spirit. Gen. i. 7. 5 1 Thess. v. 23. The first two he shared in com- mon with other animals ; it was chiefly in respect of the last, he was made in “‘ the zmage and likeness of Gop.” His “ spirit,’ mind, or understanding, reason, OY conscience, Was naturally disposed to good; his soul and body, or his “ flesh,” the seat of various appetites, affections, and passions, was sub- sonant to Jewisk Tradition, supported by the testimony of sacred and profane history, in their general outline. Hesiod’s ages of the world differ considerably from those that are recorded by Lucretius, Ovid, Juvenal, Catullus, &c. 1. Their Golden, Saver, Brazen, and Iron ages, are all con- fessedly antediluvian, ending with the general deluges Whereas, only Hesiod’s first, or Golden age, is antediluvian; the rest are " plainly postdiluvian. | 2. Hesiod’s Hervic age is peculiar to his native country Greece, and it is totally unnoticed by the Latin poets. 3. His ages differ further from the Hindu Yugas, the Satya, or age of virtue, when four parts, or all mankind, were sup- posed to be good; the Teta or Treda, * three” parts; the Dwapar, Duapar, or Duabara, “ two” parts; and the Cali, or “black,” only one part, ending with the Deluge: for these four ages are supposed to recur continually, in a perpetual succession of astronomical cycles, or Manwantaras. See New Analysis, &c. Vol. i. p. 293e Whereas Hesiod’s Golden age revived, ends with the world, : (ia ) ject to evil*, under the semblance of good ; althoigh given for wise purposes, when restrained within due bounds by the governing faculty of reason or con- science}. fan, therefore, was made capable of * To cwue Tuo, %po [Ev Ne Xpors wapsovas, LUX ELCWTOY TY TH aaETIC® PETA YaQ Tov Savatov xas moAUS maswy eonrdtev eouG-. “ Our body indeed, before Christ’s appearance, was subject to sin: for after the death [incurred at the fall} a great swarm of pussions entered in also.’? CuRYSOSTOM. + The following admirable philosophical illustration of the different functions of the passions and of conscience, we owe to the ingenious and scientific Mr. Brand, of Cambridge, in his masterly Ethical Essay on Conscience. “© Two principles impel the human soul, Passion to urge, and Reason to controul ; In nicest equipoise, united still, These balanced forces guide the Auman will. As wheels some planet its perennial course, Urged by attraction, and impulsive force ; With swift celerity, thzs* wings his way, While that t, with gentle, secret, constant sway, Makes man, by force unseen, yet unwithstood, Respect the central point of general good ; And move obedient to the sacred plan, In that fix’d orbit HEAVEN prescribes for man: Relax the golden chaizn{—with mad career, And headlong fury, starting from his sphere, Like some red comet blazing through the skies, Now here, now there, with madding speed he flies; Flames through the waste of life, with lawless force, And plagues, and death, atid ruin, mark his course.” SE EL A it Ce Ce * Passion, t Reason, $ Force of Attraction 4 455) religious and moral improvement, by the due exer- cise, and controul of his faculties; but at the same time, Jiable to fall from both ; and invested with free will and free agency*, to chuse the better part, and avoid the worse; and placed in a state of probation and preparation for a better. 1. “Lo, this only have I found, (said Solomon,) that Gop made man upright ; but they have sought out many inventions.” Eccl. vil. 29. © The final causes, or moral uses of Reason or Conscience : 1. To counterpoise and curb the passzons. 2. To proportion the happiness or misery of individuals to their deserts ; by its approbation or censure of their deeds. 3. To excite the guilty- to repentance. | * The deep-learned Milton thus finely expresses the gracious foundation of Free Agency. ‘¢ T made man just and right, Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. Such I created all the Etherial powers ; Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell: Not free, what proof could they have given sincere, Of true allegiance, constant faith, and love?” The poet Young also expresses the same sentiment, with his peculiar boldness and energy. ‘* Blame not the bowels of the Derry ; Man shall be blessed, as far as man permits. Not man alone, all ratzonals Heaven arms With an illustrious, but tremendous power: That power denied man, angels were no more But passive engines, void of praise or blame. Heaven wills our happiness, allows our doom: Invites us ardently, but not compels.” VOL, I. L ¢ m6 ) 2. “ The first man knew not Wispom perfectly 5 no more shall the das¢ find her out.” Eccl. xxiv. 19. 3. “ And unto ddam* Gop said, (probably, after the fall,) Behold, the fear of the Lorp is the beginning of ‘wisdom ; And to depart from evil, is understanding.” Job xxviii. 28. 4, “ The fear of the Lorp is the beginning of wisdom ; And the knowledge of the Hoty, is understand- ing.’ Prov. ix. 10. 5. “ Fear Gop, and keep His Commandments : For this is the whole [duty] of man,” Eccl, xii. 13. 6. ‘I call heaven and earth to witness against you, this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore chuse life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” Deut. XXX. 19. But says the sceptic, ‘‘ If we consider reason as our only dracle, we shudder at the thought of so many calamities, temporal and eternal, entailed upon mortals, in punishment of the disobedience of one man, who tasted an apple!” O'Leary against Wharton and Hawkins, p. 38. But, surely, the simplicity of the prohibition was * The original is tox, 4dam, rather the proper name, as in Jub xxxi. 33, than the appellative “ man,” as in the public translation, See Peters on Jab, p. 460. Second Edit. € Fy suited to the actual state of Adam and E've, in Paras dise. They had neither inducement nor opportu: nity to violate any of the ten commandments of the law: they knew no other God but one, their Creator aud Benefactor; and of course had no temptation to polytheism, idolatry, ov profanation of his name and sabbaths: they had no earthly parents to dishonour, no neighbours to injure by murder, adultery, theft, or perjury; and nothing to covet, where all was their own, and under their dominion. Nothing, therefore, that we can conceive, could easily have been proposed as a ¢est of their obedience, but the privation of some appetite, the restriction of some gratification placed within their reach. The trees of dife and of knowledge were admirably ordained to promote the discipline and gradual im- provement of their faculties of mind and body. The forbidden tree of knowledge, always in their view, “in the midst of the garden,” tended to restrain inordinate appetite, and to keep the flesh in constant subjection to the spirit. The tree of Life, of which, with all the rest, they were permitted “ freely to eat,” was formed “to strengthen and refresh the soul, and to repair the decays of the body, by its sacramental virtue :” and so to produce that “ im- mortality,” for which they were originally designed, when “ made in the image and likeness of Gop.” Until at length, when they had finished their allotted course, they might. have been translated to the celestial paradise, without tasting death; like Enoch, LQ ( 148 ) before the law, and £/ijah, under the law, and Curist, under the Gospel of Grace. Beside the positive transgression, of eating the forbidden fruit, our first parents seem to have been guilty of a sin of omission, not usually noticed. They neglected to partake of the fruit of the tree of life, during the golden age of their residence in para- dise; which, perhaps, was not less than a century *. And this is expressly stated to have been the cause of their expulsion :—*“‘ lest the man might put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of z/e, and eat, and live for ever,’—of which he was now no longer worthy himself. But blessed be rHaT Gop, who, in the midst of judgment, remembered mercy. Though He drove out the offenders, He did not cast them away from His presence: the visible Grory oF rue Lorp, was stationed in front of the garden, in the ‘‘ Cheru- bim and flaming sword,” or sword-like flame, designed to “ keep (or preserve) t the way to the tree of life,” still open to mankind. The ¢errestrial paradise, indeed, was shut soon after the fall of our first parents; nor is it now subsisting any where: but the way to the celestial was opened, from the first _ promise that was given of THE REDEEMER! Who has graciously declared to his faithful followers:— * See the probability of this, upon Chronological grounds, Hales’s New Analysis, &c. Vol. ii. p. 9. + The original verb "mw (Shamar), is often used in this sense—* to keep the way of the Lorn.” Gen. xviii. 19,.; Judg. 1]. 22.; Psalm cy. 45. ¢ 149 ) “ To him that overcometh [the Devil, the world, and the flesh, ] will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst. of the Paradise of Gon.” ‘¢ Blessed are they that do his commandments, for they shall have a right to eat of the tree of life ;” and, consequently, to enjoy “ Lfe and incorruption,” for evermore. Rev. ii. 7—]4.; 2 Tim. i. 10.; John xi. 25, 26. ‘This meaning of the tree of life, (says the ‘pious and learned Lord Barrington,) is the more probable, because it makes the history of the fall appear a real history, and not a parable; which it must seem unnatural to suppose an account to be, by an historian, (AZoses,) who gives us an account of facts, not parables, in all the rest of his writings : and above all, that is the foumdation of all the rest of his history, and, indeed, of all future revelation ; for such must every one allow the history of the fall to be.” See Lord Barrington’s masterly explana- tion of the Celestial Paradise, Miscellanea Sacra, Vol. iii. p. 48.; and also a fuller account of this abstruse and mysterious subject, in Hales’s Nev Analysis of Chronology, Vol. ii. p. 2—27. III. The scriptural character of THE TEMPTER, eomes next under consideration. His various titles are thus summed up in the 4po- calypse (that wondrous synopsis, and completion of the whole PROPHETIC ARGUMENT), “ The great dragon, the old serpent, called the devil (‘ the calum- niator’) and the Satan (‘ the adversary’), who de- ceitveth the whole world,” Rev. xu. called alse ( 450 ) Abaddon (the destroying hing), Rev. ix. 11.; ‘ the wicked one,” Matt. xili. 19, &e.; “ the enemy, Matt. xiii. 39.; “the prince of this world,’ John xl. 31, &c.; “ the god of this world,” 2% Cor. iv. 4.3 ‘ the power of darkness,” Luke xxii, 53.; “ the prince of the power of the air,” Ephes. ii. 2. His oldest title is the serpent, whose form, he wore when “ he beguiled ve with his subtilty.” It is highly probable, that he assumed the. disguise of that particular species of the serpent kind, called Seraphim*, or Seraphs, those “ fiery serpents,” by which the Israelites were mortally bitten in the wilderness, for their rebellion, Numb. xxi. 6, 7. ; Deut. vill. 15.; for Satan is called “ the great fiery} dragon,” Rev. xii. 3., which was a water- snake, common in Lgypt. Isaiah xxvii. 1.; Ezek, xxix. 1. And Herodotus, the Greek historian, describes a peculiar species of flying serpents, found in Hgypt, and chiefly in Arabia, of small body, speckled with various colours, in shape like the water-snake, and their wings without feathers, like those of a bat. And he reports, that in Arabia Fehr, the trees that bear frankincense are guarded by great numbers of them, but that the Arabs drive them away by burning a gum, called styrayx, under the trees, and then gather the frankincense. B. ii. 75, and ii. 107. This is, evidently, a° distorted - * Seraphim, in the singular number serapA, is usually derived from Aw seraph, to burn or glow.” The serpents were pro- bably so called, from their bright, fery colour. See Parkhurst... $ Apaxay weyas Tvge0s wvppos is not “ red,” bub“ fiery.” _ (Sar) tradition of the old serpent, and the ¢ree of know- ledge, or perhaps of the cherubim appointed to guard the tree of life. The Seraphim, like the Cherubim, might have been originally Angels of light, for in Isaiah’s sym* bolical vision, they are represented as repeating the following doxology: $ Hott, Hoty, Hory, Lorp [Gop] oF Hosts; the whole earth is full of thy glory!” Isaiah vi. 2, 3. And Satan might have assumed the appearance of a Seraph, or fiery serpent, of the flying kind, as a false angel of light, and have been worshipped under that form; for the serpent was worshipped in Lgypt, under the title of Serapis, (evidently from Seraph) and Serpent worship prevailed throughout the hea- then world, from the rising to the setting sun, and still subsists in Hindustan and China. And that this was the form actually assumed by the Tempter, we may conclude from the remedy provided against the mortal bite of the Seraph-ser- pents; in the typical brazen Serpent, erected on a pole, by divine command, and appointed for the cure uf the Israelites that were bitten. ‘“ And when any one of them /ooked on the brazen serpent, [with an eye of faith] he lived.” Numb. xxi: 7, 8. For as the brazen serpent was a type of Curis, the Saviour of mankind, lifted up on the cross, as explained by our Lord himself, John iii. 14—~17. ; xil. 32.; so by analogy, we may conclude, that the Seraph serpent, was an antitype of the destroyer of mankind, ( 152 ) His next title is “ The Satan*,” under which he is recorded in the introduction of the book of Job, chap. i. 6, &c. There he is represented as appear- ing before God, in company with the sons of God, or the Holy Angels (so understood in Job xxxviii. 7.) and in the character of the Devil, or “the Accuser of the brethren,” calumniating the integrity of Jod. And he was permitted by God to afflict Job, with various calamities and sufferings, for the trial of his faith, patience, or resignation. Job, likewise, has been misrepresented by the allegorizers, as a ficti- tious character, and his poem, as a dramatic compo- sition, destitute of reality. But Job is ranked, by THE ALMIGHTY himself, in solemn prophecy, with Noah and Daniel, as three of the most eminent intercessors with God, Ezek. xiv. 14—20.; and “‘ the patience of Job,” was proverbial, Jamesv. 11.; and the introduction is historical, not poetical. Satan occurs, also, in Micaiah’s vision of the judi- cial infatuation of Ahad’s prophets, who urged that idolatrous prince to his destruction, in a passage, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the fore- going, in Job. ‘“‘ I saw rHE Lorp sitting on his throne, and all the hosts of heaven standing beside him, on the right hand, and on the left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And then came forth the * In the original jown Hu-Sutan, the letter 7 is emphatie, signifying ‘ the.” ( 153 ) Spirit*, ‘and stood before tHe Lorp, and said, | will persuade him. And the Lord said unto hum, Wherewith? And he said, [ will go forth, and I will be a dying Spirit in the mouth of all bis prophets, And He said, Thou shalt persuade him, and also prevail: Go forth and do so.” 1 Isings xxi. 19—22. This case of Ahab may serve to explain the case of David. That great prince, near the close of-his reign, was tempted, through “ the pride and naugh- tiness of his heart,” (1 Sam. xvii. 28.) to number his subjects capable of bearing arms, contrary to the law (Exod. xxx. 12). In one passage, this temp- tation is attributed to “ the anger of Tne Lorn against Israel, and He moved David against them, to say [to his Captains], Go number Jsrae/ and Judah,” 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. But in the parallel pas- sage, “‘ Satan stood up against Israe/, and provoked (or incited) David to number Israel,” 1 Chron, xxi. 1. Both accounts may be easily reconciled: To punish the sins of the nation, and to prove the faith and obedience of their king, Gop permitted, or even commissioned, Satan to tempt David. And both cases may help to explain a difficult but important text of St. James, thus more closely rendered. “¢ Let no one, when ¢empted, say, ‘I am tempted ‘of-God;’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and tempteth no one HimsEitF: but every one is * In the original nin Ha-Ruai, “ the [evel] Spirct.” ( 154 ) tempted [of the Devil] when he is drawn off; and ensnared by means of his own appetite. Then the appetite conceiving, produceth sz; and sin when perfected, bringeth forth death *.” James i. 13, 14. Here God is expressly denied to tempt any one HIMSELF, (2v705) A restriction unfortunately omitted in the public Translation. /Vho, then, is the imme- diate tempter? None, surely, but the Devil, that wicked “ fisher of men,” artfully working upon the appetites and passions of mankind, to seduce them into s7; and sin, when perfected by evil habits, bringeth forth death. But it has been objected, “ Did not God himself tempt Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac?” Gen. xxii. 1, Certainly not, in the bad sense of thé word. For the word tempt, is ambiguous, signi- * The finest comment on this highly figurative passage, is furnished by Shakespeare, in that inimitable soliloquy of a libidinous and hypocritical judge, caught by the charms of a fair and virtuous maiden, when supplicating for an one nas brother’s Hie: “ O ayia Enemy! that to catch a Saint, With Saints dost bait thy hook: Most dangerous Is that temptation, that doth goad us on to Sin, In loving vintus! Hooking both right and wrong to the appetite, To follow as it draws —Measure Jor Measure. This. is exquisite moral painting, by one “ who dipped his pen in mind ;” drawn from the inmost recesses of the heart. This figurative passage of St. James, seems also to have sug- gested to Alton his sublime allegory of Sin, the daughter of Satan, and their incestuous offspring, Death. P. L. B. ii. € @55° i) fying either to éry, or prove, our faith and obedience to God; or to seduce into sin. In the good sense, it is used, immediately before, by St. /ames himself : ** My brethren, count it all joy, when ye fall into divers temptations, (or ¢rials,) knowing that the proof (70 Soxmoy) of your Faith worketh patience ; but let patience be perfect and entire, deficient in nothing.” ‘‘ Blessed is the man that endureth zemptation, (or trial,) for when he is become ap- proved, (Scxs405 yevouevos) he shall receive the crown of life, which tHE Lorn hath promised to them that Jove Him.” Jam. i. 2Q—12. | God, indeed, did try or prove nie as Curist also did prove his disciples. John vi. 6. Both, for their good. But, it is truly remarkable, that Gop, or THE ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE, stopped the hand of dbrahum, when “ stretched forth to slay his son,” Gen. xxii. 10—12, to pre- vent the commission of an act, which might “cause the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme,” and sanction the human sacrifices offered to Moloch, (‘the king,”) or the Devil, by the Canaanites, among whom Abra- ham then dwelt. “ © The tempter” is also introduced in that re- markable vision of Zechariah, eminently prefigura- tive of our Lorp’s temptation. “And he shewed me Joshua the high-priest, standing before rHe ANGEL oF THE Lorp, and the Satan standing at his right-hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto the Satan, ‘Ture Lorp rebuke thee, Satan!” &c, Zech. iti. i—7, And (186) this vision Is followed by the remarkable prophocy of THE BRANCH, significative of Christ. The grand, and most important temptation of “ the second Adam, our Lord from Heaven,” is remarkably similar to the temptation of the “ first Adam.” 1. In both cases, the tempter assumed the disguise of an Angel of light. (2 Cor. xi. 14). We have seen it in the case of Eve, in his assump- tion of the form of the Sexaph-serpent ; and in our Lorn’s case, we may collect it from the ministry of TRUE ANGELS, after the false one had disappeared. Matt. iv. 11. 2. In both cases, the temptations were similar in kind, though varied according to circumstances ; equally addressed to their appetite, wanity, and ambition, or, in the language ot Scrip- ture, ‘‘ the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.” 1 John ii. 16. And, 3. In both cases, the Tempter falsified, or perverted, THE Worp oF Gop. He first declared to Eve, “ Ye shall not surely die ;’ contradicting the divine penalty of death ; and whereas the forbidden tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as being designed for a test of their obedience or disobedience to the Divine command ; he artfully perverted this title to a different meaning—“ Ve shall be as Gods, know- ing good and evil,” in their abstract nature; or inspired with Divine knowledge: for, instead of your present blindness, “ your eyes shall be opened.” Gen, ill, 15. Thus Live was beguiled; by means of her appetite, “ she saw that the tree Cor was good for food ;” her vanity, “ that it was plea- sant to the eyes ;” and her ambition, “ desirable to make wise.’ ‘She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband with her, {as her partner,) and he did eat.” Verse 6. Adam was not deceived: the temptation under which he fell, was “ inordinate affection, or passion.” (waSos) Col. iii. 5. ‘‘ He hearkened unto the voice of his wife,’ more than to the voice of God, Gen. ili, 17.; “ He loved his wife more than God,” Matt. x. 37.; and therefore was no more worthy to be called ‘‘ Son of God,’ Luke iil, 38.5 xiv. 26.; xv. 18, 19. ! In like manner, our Lord’s first temptation * was addressed to his appetite, when he was hungry after his forty days’ fast in the wilderness; during which, full of the Hoty Serer, immediately after his baptism, he was impelled by the Spirit to retire thither, in imitation, we may presume, of Moses, and Elijah, who each fasted forty days, in» the * Sce a masterly vindication of the /iteral or historical sense of this mysterious transaction, in answer to the objections of Farmer in his Essay upon the Temptation of eur Lord; by the Rev. T. Falconer, in his two Sermons on the Temptation and Resurrection of our Lord, preached before the University of Oxford, in the year 1815, and lately published there at the University press, 1817.—The learned son of a learned father, Dr. Falconer, the physician, of Bath; whose most. ingenious Dissertation on St. Paul’s shipwreck, on the island Medite in the Adriatic (not Maltu), lately published at Ozford also, under the modest and anonymous title of a ‘* Layman,” is well worthy ef the attention of every sacred critic. | ’ ¢ Ta 3 course of their ministry. The Tempter, who as ‘“* prince of the power of the air,’ Eph. ii. 23 heard the signal voice from Heaven, proclaiming Jesus ‘‘ THE BELOVED SON oF Gop,” took advan- tage thereof to tempt him to prove it, in relieving his hunger by a miracle, ‘‘ If thou be the Son of Ged, command that these stones be made bread.” But Jesus answered, in the language of Scripture, ‘““ It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Deut. viii. 2, 3. For so A/oses exhorted the Israelites in the wilderness to rely patiently on the divine support, encouraged by the miraculous supply of manna ; “ to cast all our care upon Him who careth for us,” 1 Pet. v. 7, and “will sustain” us.” Psalm lv. 22. And so our Lord afterwards declared to his disciples, “‘ Afy food is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to accomplish his work.” John iv. 34. Foiled in this attack; the Devil next assailed his vanity, or ostentation. He took Jesus along with him, (saearanBaver) and led him to the top of the Lemple, at Jerusalem, the Holy City; and urged him to throw himself off from the pinnacle, or bat- tlement, and exhibit himself to the people, sus- pended in the air; probably, as their long-expected “Son of Man coming in the clouds of Heaven,” according to Daniel’s prophetic vision, vii. 13. Matt. xxvi. 64. ‘ If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his Angels charge concerning thee; and in their hands 4) ( 159 ) they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” Psalm xci. 11, 12. This prophecy figuratively foretold the Almighty’s care and protection of the Mrssiau, under all dangers and difficulties; which the Devil, uoisinterpreting it literally, urged him to encounter. But Jesus said, It is written again, or on the other hand, “ Thou — shalt not tempt the Lonp tuy Gop,” Deut. vi. 16, by unnecessary appeals to his providential care and protection, as did the Israelites: “ Is the Lord among us, or not?” Exod. xvii. 7. Discomfited at his own weapons, the Tempter had recourse to the last and most powerful engine, ambition. He took him back again to a high moun- tain in the wilderness, (called Quarantania, by tras vellers) and from the top of it, shewed him all the kingdoms of the world*, (or the whole land of Pro- muse, in the midst of which they then stood :) and said, ‘‘ All these will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me ;” adding, “ for all this power 2s committed unto me, and I give it to whomsocver f will.” ‘Thus representing himself as the guardian angel, or protector of the Holy Land; instead of Micuakx, (or Curis, as generally understood, ) so. represented by Daniel, x. 13—21. | This audacious and impious proposal of divine * The term “ world” is frequently used in a limited sense, to denote the country in which we live.—‘ Behold the world is gone after him, (Christ)” John xii. 19, and expressly denoted the promised land, Rom. iv. 13. , Chtsbie) worship, whick no true dugel of light, Cunisr himself only excepted, ever received, or even tole- rated, Rev. xix. 10.; xxil. 9.; detected the false fiend to be the power of darkness: And to shew that he was fully known, Jesus called him by his proper name: authoritatively banished him from bis presence, as his divine superior, and rebuked him in the language of Scripture: ‘‘ Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship rue Lorp tny Gop, and Him only shalt thou serve.” Exod. xx. 3, 4.3; Deut. vi. 18.3 1 Sam. vii. 3. ‘“ Then the Devil left him, confounded, and van- quished in all his wiles; but it was only for a season.” Luke iv. 13. He soon returned again, to assail him with a fresh set of temptations, working upon his fears*. He instigated the Jewish rulers, the Scribes and the Pharisees, by their prejudices, to oppose and persecute Jesus, during the whole course of his ministry ; he entered into or possessed the avaricious Judas, to betray his Lord; and he worked upon the malice of the Jewish Council, the pusillanimity of Prlate, the Roman Governor, and the rage and disappointment of the people, to con- demn, reject, and crucify, unwittingly, the znocent, * “ The sptrit of evil is always busy: though often con- founded, he is never dismayed ; though baffled, he returns to the contest with new arms; prepared alike, to seduce or to in- timidate, to succeed by violence, or by fraud.”—See the pre- sent Bishop of London’s masterly Charge, at his primary visita- tion, 1814, p. 17. ( 161 ) and the just, the Lorp oF Lire, and the Lorp ow » Grory! Dr. Carpenter, with the Sabellian school, seems to deny entirely the personal existence of the Devil; and if so, rather znconsistently admits the reality of Christ’s temptation, in order to infer from thence, that “‘ He was liable to sin.” P. 119. That Christ Indeed, was “ lable to suffering,” (aa%nros, Acts xxvi. 23.) Moses and the Prophets, Curist and his Apostles, all with one accord, declare: this was the natural and necessary consequence of his being “ the seed of the woman,” “ born of a woman, born under the law,” of Human Nature; and it was fore- told in the primeval prophecy, that “ the Serpent should bruise his heel.” So wonderfully and lite- rally fulfilled, when his feet were nailed to the cross! But, surely, no Logician would infer that, because he was exposed to temptation, he was liable to sin. In our Lord’s rebuke to the Devil, “Thou shalt not tempt THE Lorv tHy Gop,” will Dr. C. infer, that rn#z Lorp Gop was Jiadble to sin, because he was ¢empted? 1 fancy not. But there is strong ground to believe that the Lord God, in this case, ~ was Curist himself; whom “ all the Angels of Gop were bound to worship,” Satan himself not excepted. Heb. i. 6. Had Cnrisr yielded to the temptation, there might, indeed, have been some ground for Dr. C.’s inference ; but he overcame the temptation ; ergo, he was not liable to sin. And further, Dr. Car- penter stands convicted upon his own evidence: VOI, a. 5! M | ( 162 ¥ ‘ We are informed,” says he, “ by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (St. Paul*), that Chrisé was in all points tempted as we are, YET WITHOUT sin.” Heb. iv. 15. P. 119. And with all the dig- nity of conscious innocence, our Lord challenged his calumniators: ‘‘ Which of you convicteth (creyxe:) ME Of Siw? And if I speak THE TRUTH, why do ye not believe me?” Jobn vii. 46. “ Curist suffered for us [not for Himself]; leaving us an example that we should follow his steps, who did xo sim, neither was guile found in his mouth.” 1 Pet. ii. 21, 22... “* And Siz was not in Him.” 1 John ii. 5. “ I have betrayed the znnocent blood!” said the traitor, full of remorse, who knew him well. Matt. xxv. 4. And who, but the spotless Lams or Gop himself, could presume to assert, “‘ I do always those things that please. THE Fatuer,” John vill. 29.; who, but ‘“ His BELOVED Son,” with whom he twice solemnly declared from Heaven, ‘‘ HE was well pleased.” Matt. iit. 17.; xvii 5. This alone seems sufficient proof of Curist’s divinity. | Such also is the doctrine explicitly taught in the Scripture Articles of the Church of England. ‘* Curist, in the truth of our nature, was made * Dr. Carpenter labours to weaken the authority of this important Epistle, as nof written by St. Paul, upon the doubt- ful testimony of Michaelis ; Lardner decidedly inclines to the opinion that it was written by St. Paul, p. 2. note. p. 50, 51. See the point proved in Hales’s New Analysis of Chronology, Vol. 11, p. 1128—1137, € Wee 2) like unto us in all things, Sin only except, from * which he was clearly void, both in his flesh and iit his spirit. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Curist, yet offend in many things.” Art. xv. “ And this original, or birth- sin,—this Infection of Nature, doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated ; whereby the lust of the flesh (which is always contrary to the spirit, as the Apostle doth confess, Rom. vill. 6, 7:) is not subject to the law of God.” Art. ix. But this humiliating doctrine of the original im- perfection of human nature, incident to Adam and all his race, from the lust of the flesh. or the evzt propensities resulting from the animal part of our nature, and which, though they may and ought to be controuled, and subdued by reason and religion, yet cannot be entirely eradicated in this mortal state; is unpalatable to the pride of Philosophists, and ofiensive to the self-sufficiency of Unitarians. Most wisely, therefore, and compassionately, did the great Author. and Finisher of our Faith, who knew what was in man, and was able, therefore, to prescribe the best remedies for his native frailty and insufficiency, recommend, both by precept and example, “ to watch and pray, that we enter not into temptation,” through our own negligence or presumption; warning us, that though “ the spirit be willing,” or inclined to good; yet “ the flesh is weak,” or prone toevil, And he has more- over taught us how to pray to our heavenly Father, for his all-sufficient aid: —“‘ Lead us not into femp- M & 99 ¢ 164 ) tution, but deliver us from the wicked one. For THINE (not Azs) is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen*.” Matt. vi. 13. * The whole of this sublime and apposite doxology, cv yap erty 7 Buorherw, &ce has been unwarrantably excluded from the text, by Griesbuch, in his second edition, and by the Uni. tarian Version. 1. The doxology is found in all the Greek MSS. except four noticed by Griesbach, which have evidently been accommo- dated to the Latin Vulgate. 2. It is found in the Old Italic, and both Syriac versions, the Vulgate and Philoxenian, and also in the Sahidic, Ethiopic, Persie, Armenian, Gothic, Sclavonian, and some copies of the Coptic version. 3. It is plainly referred to by several of the Greek Fathers, the Pome Constitutions, Origen, Chrysostom, Isidore, Theo- phylact, Euthymius, &c. who cite it however, not in its simple state, confined to the Father, (cz yap eotw, &c.) but as Trinita- © Tian, (TB TaTpes nab TB ie, nas TY aye arevparos, &C.) in which compound form, it occurred in the ancient Greek Liturgies, so early as the second century ; as is evident from Luciun’s testi- mony. “ Leave to the Céristians their prayer, beginning with * the Father, and ending with their ‘ many-named anthem’ (go= Avwvoer woyv)e” Philopatr. Vol. ii. p. 1011. ed. 1619. 4. Its omission by all the Latin Fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Juvencus, Ambrose, Sedulius, Fulgentius, Jerome, &c. evidently originated from their injudicious attempt to reconcile, or accommodate the Lord’s Prayer, in Matt. vi. 9—13.; with that in Luke xi. 2—4.; by leaving out of the former, the doxology, that was wanting in the latter: not considering the different occasions on which it was given; first as a form of public prayer to the multitude; and afterwards as a form of provate prayer to his own disciples. In the public, the doxoe logy was necessary, because it formed a part of the primitive Jewish ritual, taken from 1 Chron, xxix. 11.; which therefore ( 165 ) This interpretation of rs govnps, not “ evil,” in the abstract, but the author of evil ; and the following doxology are rejected by U/nitarian Critics, because they establish the personality of Satan, and refute his unwarrantable claims to the Azmgdoms of this world, and the glory of them, as in his power and gift. Luke iv. 5, 6. Still, however, it must be confessed, that he exercises a formidable influence, and tremendous sway, over “ his own seed,” in ‘‘ blinding the understandings of disbelievers*, so that the illumination of the gospel of THE GLORY oF Curist, (who is THE IMAGE of the INVISIBLE Gop), might not shine unto them.” 2 Cor. iv. 4.; Col. 1. 15. And even misleads them so far as to deny, and ridicule his own existence and power: this, surely, is ‘one of his own, and most mis- chievous suggestions: since there cannot be a more dangerous illusion, than to believe ourselves out of the reach of illusions ; nor a more alarming tempta- tion, than to fancy that we are not liable to be tempted.” As excellently observed, by that righteous daughter of “ve, and powerful advocate of this unfashionable doctrine, 7s. Hannah More, in her instructive Strictures on Female Education. Vol. ii. p. 283—286. our Lord would not omit, though he might in the conciser private form. See Lightfoot on Matt. vi. 13.3; Griesbach and Wetstein, Notes, and Nolan, p. 492. - * Awisos, ‘ disbelievers,” is a stronger expression than 8 misey= | ovles, ‘* unbelievers ;” the former erring through ebstiénacy, the latter through ignorance. ( 166 ) Most anxiously and repeatedly, therefore, did the illustrious Apostle of the Gentiles, warn his philosophising converts, of Corinth and Ephesus especially, against Sa¢an’s illusions; and particularly against the most ruinous of all, which he calls, “ ¢he methodism of the error,” (ry [AETOOEIAY THS BAVS, Ephes. iv. 14.) and again, “ the methodisms of the. devil,” (ras weSodaas re SiaBors, VI. 11.) meaning there- by, not “artful deceit,” or “ wiles” im general, as usually misunderstood; but that particular species of deception, which he employed against the jirsé and the second Adam ; namely, “ the rew-modelling SCRIPTURE,” perverting, or wresting it, from its true and proper meaning, to support ¢he error, or the grand upostacy, from Gop and Curis. Against this nost dangerous deception, the deepest of the ‘‘ depths of Satan,” or his deep devices ; the apostle most earnestly recommends the divine panoply, or entire armour of God, (rm ravonduay 7% @cs) in this our most arduous “ struggle,” or con- test. He chiefly recommends the shield of faith, and the helmet or hope of salvation, as our best, defensive armour; and the sword of the spirit, which is the “ word of Ged,” as our most powerful offensive weapon, provided it be honestly, cautisusly, and skilfully, wielded; but the most ruinous, if iraudulently, negligently, or unskilfuily, handled; for it is ¢wo-edged (Rev. i. 16.), and, in the latter case, 1s apt to recoil, and cleave asunder the wretched victim of his own folly and presumption. And, in addition to this divine panoply, the apostle ( 167 ) recommends ‘ prayer and supplication in spirit, at every season; watching thereunto with all perseve- rance,” as the most effectual means to resist the devil, and ‘“ quench his fiery darts,” or arguments, Ephes. vi. 13—15. Indeed, Satan’s chief seat in Asia, was Diana’s temple at Ephesus, where his emissaries gave the greatest obstruction to, the progress of the Gospel. Acts xvii. 23-40. ; 1 Tim. j. 20.; 2 Tim. iv. 14. This interpretation is not novel; it was early given by the venerable martyr Polycarp, the dis- ciple of St. John, in his epistle to the Philippians, §. 7. | “ Whosoever methodizes the oracles of the Lorp, according to his private fancies (6s av wedo- deun TH hOYla TS Kues, Tpos TAS O1es emiSupuas ) and says ‘that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this is Satan’s first born. Let us, therefore, leaving the vanity and the false doctrines of many such, turn to the word delivered unto us from the begin- ning: ‘watching unto prayer,’ (1 Pet. iv. 7.) and ‘per severing in fastings, with sepplications, beseech- ing the art-sezING Gop ‘not to bring us into temptation: for as the Lord said, “ the spurié in- deed is willing, but the /lesk weak.’ Coteler. Patres Apost. Vol. 1. p. 187. In his epistle to the Corinthians, who inhabited the metropolis of Achaia, and the most corrupt city of Greece, the apostle describes these metho- dizers, as false apostles, transforming themselves jnto apostles of Christ ; deceitful workers, handling ( 168 ) the word of Gop deceitfully and corrupting the simplicity of the Gospel respecting Curisr.” 2 Cor. iv. 3.; xi. 3—13. Anda fuller description is given of their practices and tenets, by the vene- rable martyr Jgnatius likewise, the contemporary of Polycarp, in his epistle to the Zradlians, §. 6, 7. “They speak of Curist, not to preach Christ, but to deny Christ: They cite THe Law, not to establish the Law, but to annul the Law: for they alienate Curist from the Faruer; [by denying that he is of the same substance with the Father] and tHE Law from Cunrist, [by denying its re- ference to Christ]. *Being ashamed of the cross, they deny the passion; and they believe not the resurrection. ‘They introduce the unknown God [of the Gentiles, Acts xvii. 23.]. They count Christ unbegotten [of the Father]. They profess that there is NO HOLY sPiRIT. Some of them even say, that THE sON Is a mere man; and that the Farner, Son, and Hoty GuosT, are the same {person}; and that the creation is the work of Gon, not by Curist, but by some other foreign power [probably, 6 dauuiwpyos, “the framer of the world’ |. ‘Therefore, beware of such, that ye re- ceive not “a snare for your own souls,” (1 Tim. iii. 17.) and that ye become not a snare upon the mountains, and as a snare spread [ to catch others] (Hosea v. 1.). Coteler. Vol. i. p. 65. Solomon told us long ago, that ‘“ there is nothing new under the sun.” Eccl. i. 9, Bating a few. points of difference, more apparent, perhaps, than 3 ( 169 ) real, this description of the Methodizers of the apos- | tolic age bears a marked, and a striking resemblance to “ the proper Unitarians,” as already noticed.— I offer it to the serious contemplation of Dr. Car- penter and his associates. Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur. “ Change but the name, to THEE the tale relates.” sp pa nih wi ii | Li suit Sih oR i Tey b AY AY re , wy paren P sania ae Hye kittie Ree Sila “6 Le: renee ae ae hears aa ae lid | eu Wei ; rhe | ai a i D si sl eae HLA A dias XN " abdie Ayer? ¢ ts y it! ne eg ¥ ogy ' a ony i ‘hey whe BE TR) ari Sane a a .- fai ehnsti_ in r ‘elt nays ey null caecmial LETTER V. Wondrous chain of prophecies in the Old Testament descriptive of the lineage, character, and birth of “ the seed of the woman,” or Christ, successively revealed to—1. Abraham—2. Isaac—~ 3. Jacob-—4. the tribe of Judah—5. Balaam—6. Moses— 7. Hannah—8. Nathan—9. David—10. Isaiah—11. the Psalms and Prophets—12. Micah—Dr, C.’s delusive Re- marks on Micah’s most noble and comprehensive prophecy. EPAVING, in my last Letter, reviewed “ the grand charter of our Redemption,” contained in the gracious promise of “ the Seed of the Voman,” destined, in the fulness of time, “ ¢o bruise the Serpent's head ;” and also, the several mysterious but important circumstances connected therewith ; namely, the origin of evil, the temptations of our first parents, the real and personal existence of the Devil, and bis various wiles, especially his Metho- disms of Scripture : I now proceed to mark the successive links of that wondrous and extensive chain of prophecies, let down, like Jacob's ladder *, (Gen. xxviii. 12.) from heaven to earth; by which our Biessep Lorp will assuredly draw all men unto himself, (John xii, 32.) when the adinirable * What Lord Chancellor Bacon says of ‘ philosophy,” is more justly applicable to propuEcy: “ Like Jacob’s vision, it dis. covers to us a dadder, whose top reaches up to the footstool of the throne of Gop,” ( 172 ) order and connexion of its several links with each other, and with the whole, shall come to be better understood, and more clearly unfolded by the event of their final accomplishment ; until which desirable period, a certain degree of obscurity is necessarily attached to the mysterzous subject; designed in kindness to exercise ‘ the faith and the patience of the Saints.” Rev. xiii. 10; xxii. 20. — Still, however, they are encouraged to persevere in their attempt to decypher the prophecies yet unfulfilled, by the positive blessings promised to their humble, cautious, and pious endeavours, by the sure word of prophecy. Dan. xii. 12; Rev. i. 3. The first appropriation of THE BLESSED SEED was to the stock of Abraham, the illustrious Father of the Faithful; and by the highest of all titles, “ the friend of Gop himself.” Isa. xli, 8; Jam. ii. 23. {. This is contained in the promise which God made to Abraham, betore he left Charran, to go to Canaan. “* And I will make of thee a great nation, and 1 will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing ; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and 7x thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”— Gen. xi. 1—3. This promise was twofold, temporal and spiri- tual: the temporal part was the promise of pros- perity, that he should be blessed himself, ‘and be- come the founder of a great nation, which should’ CONE’) inherit the land—“ unto thy seed will I give this land,”—verse 7. The spiritual, that he should be the chosen ancestor of the promised REpEEMER, and thereby the means of ‘ dlessing all the families of the earth.” | This promise God was pleased to renew more explicitly, and ratify as a covenant, with an oath, to Abraham, after his last trial: “ By MysEeLr have I sworn, saith roe Lorn; because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in dlessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand upon the sea shore: and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies : and in THY SEED Shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Gen. XXil. 15. In this covenant, the latter seed is understood by St. Paul, of a single person, and “ that seed is Curist.” Gal. iii. 16, “ With Jsaac likewise, did Gop establish the blessing of all men and his covenant, for Abraham his father’s sake ; and He made.it rest upon the head of Jacob.” Ecclus. xliv. 22, 23. II. The covenant with Zsaac was thus expressed: ‘* Unto thee and to thy seed will I give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which [ swore unto Abraham thy father. And I will'make thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries: and in ry SEED shali all the nations of the earth be blessed: because ( 474 5 Abraham obeyed my voice, aud kept my charge; my commandinents, my statutes, and my laws.” Gen. xxvi. 3, 4. . Ill. And it was renewed with Jacob in the fol- lowing terms : “ T am the Lorp, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Jsaac: the land whereon ~ thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth ; and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee, and in Tuy SEED, shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” Gen. xxvill. 13, 14. IV. The next limitation of the promised seed was to the tribe of Judah, in Jacob’s last prophecy to his sons, predicting the fortunes of their tribes: Gen. chap. xlix. 10. “ The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor a Zeacker of his offspring ; Until Suiton (the Avostxr) shall come, And funtil] to Him, a congregation of peoples. 11, [He] binding his fole to the vine, Even his asses colé to the vine of Sorek, Shall wash his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12. His eyes shall be red with weme, And his teeth white with mk.” En this sublime, but highly figurative and obscure prophecy, (here attempted to be more closely tran lated from the original ;) the promised seed is cha« racterized as SHILOH, which, according tothe most I ( O75 » probable derivation, (from row *, Shalahh, misit,”) signifies ‘ rHE AposTLe ;” and the most applicable to Jesus Curist, who “ was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; Matt. xv. 24; Luke iv. 13; as “ THE AposTLE and HIGH PRIEST of our profes- sion.” Heb. iii. 1. 7 By an alternation frequent in Hebrew poetry, the tenth verse is to be understood thus : The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Until Sarto (rue AposTLe) shall come; Nor a Zeacher of his offspring, [Until] to nim, a congregation of peoples, [shall come. | Signifying that “ the sceptre of dominion,” or of cicil government, (as it is understood Esth. viii; Isa. xiv. 5.) should not cease from the tribe of Judah, or the Jews, until the coming or birth of SHILOH or CurisT; and that the native law-giver, or expounder of the law, teacher or Scribe, inti- mating their ecclesiastical polity, should not cease until Surton should have “ a congregation of peo- ples,” or a Church attached to him throughout the world. — | And how accurately were both parts of the pre- diction fulfilled ; * This derivation is supported by the Latin Vulgate, which renders Shiloh, qui mittendus est, “ He that is to be sent.” And by a Rabbinical comment on Deut. xxii. 7. “ If you keep this precept, you hasten the coming of the Messran, who is called sent.” ( 176 jy Shortly before the birth of Curist, B.C. 5, a decree was issued by Augustus Cesar, “ that all the land™ should be enrolled,” or a registry of persons and ages taken throughout Herod’s domi- nions of Judea and Galilee; in which Curisr was included, Luke ii. 1—7. Hence, Julian the apos- tate unwittingly objected to his title of Curist or Kine, that ‘ Jesus was born a subject of Cesar.” And about ten years after, Judea was made a Roman province, and attached to Syria, on the deposal and banishment of Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, for mal-administration. At which time “ the taxing itself f,” or assessment of proper- ties, “ was first made,” or carried into effect, “ by Cyrenius, while he was governor of Syria ;” the same who before, as the emperor’s procurator, had made the enrolment. Luke ii. 2; Acts v. 57; and thenceforth, Judea was governed by a Roman de- puty ; and the judicial power of life or death taken away from the Jews, John xvili. 31. Dr. Carpenter is mistaken, in supposing that ‘“ the decree of Au- gustus was probably issued after the death of Herod the Great,” p. 353. It was issued before * Tlacay ruy cinsuevyye ** All the inhabited land’’ of Palestine, as contrasted with the uninhabited Jand or wilderness ; as the word omeuevn, 18 used by the Sept. Exod. xvi. 35, and by the earlier Greck classics, Xenophon, &c. + Avtn 7 amoypagn, wpwrn eyevero, &c. “ the taxing itself was first made,” &c. See this proved, Hales’« New Analysis of Chronology, vol, iie p. 705, 709. | | @ i. ) his death ; as proved from the testimony of Jose- phus, adduced in Hales’s New Analysis of Chrono- logy, vol. ii. p. 705—710. in the article on ‘“ ¢he Roman enrolment and taving.” 2. The Jewish ecclesiastical polity ceased with the destruction of their temple and city by the Romans, A.D. 70. At which time, the Gospel had been preached throughout the known world; by the Apostles, ‘« Curist’s witnesses, in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth,” Matt. xxiv. 14; Acts 11. 8; Rom, x. 18; and a vast congregation of Christians of all peoples, nations, and languages, was then formed among Jews and Gentiles. 3. Not less remarkable was the fulfilment of the remaining branches of the prophecy. Our Lord’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem, at his first coming, in meek majesty, like the patri- archs and judges and prophets of old, “ riding on an ass, even a colt, the foal of an ass,” was a re- markable fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy, ix. 9; Matt. xxi. 4, 5. And his directions to his disciples at that time, ‘“‘ Go into the village [of Gethsemane] over against you, and presently ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her; loose them, and bring them unto me,” Matt. xxi. 1—3, bore a pointed reference to this very prophecy, “ binding (or tying) his foal to the vine ; even his asses colt to the choice vine.” For the children of /sraed in general were symbolized by “the vine,” Ps. lxxx. 8; Hoseax. 1.; and the men of Judah by “ the vine of Sorek ;” VOL. 1. N ( 178 ) which was a valley in the district of Judah, re- markable for its choice vines; whence the spies sent by Moses brought that extraordinary cluster of grapes, borne by two men on a staff, between them. Judg. xvi. 4; Numb. xi. 23; Isa. v. 1—7. | _ The vengeance to be inflicted by Curist, at his second coming in glory, upon all the enemies of his Church, is expressed by the symbolical imagery, “¢ of washing his garments in weve, and his clothes in the blood of grapes,” aptly representing his gar- ment as crimsoned in the blood of his foes, and their immense slaughter. An imagery frequent in the prophetic Scriptures. Compare Isa. Ixi. 1—6. And in the awful apocalyptic description of this judgment, by Curis? in the double character of THE ORACLE oF Gop, and Kine or Kines, and Lorp or Lorps, he is described as “ wearing 2 garment dipt in blood,” and “ treading the wine vat of the wrath and indignation of ALmicguty Gop,” &c. Rev. xix. 11—16. ) to all Egypt.” Gen. xlv. S. Ip this sense also, it is used as a divine title, as Myvwywws Ha Apow Jauon, “* rue Recenr Lonp,” Exod. xxi. 17.; but usually ry 177K, Aponi-Janon, ‘Tur Recenr oF tug Lorn,” Gen. xv. 9.; Deut. iit. 24.; &c. where the affixed Jod, betokens the singular, 4don, taken in regimen, of, governing a genitive case; and not the plural Adonim, in revimen, as usually supposed. Hence, Adoni is frequently used elliptically, for Adoni dahoh. “ Tre Lorpo (Janon) said unto THE Recent (Anon), Sit thou at my right hand, until £ make thine enemies thy footstool.” Ps. cx. 1. The distinction of persons here is indisputable, though uniortunately coniounded by tne same ren- dering xvgos “ Lop,” in the Septuagint and all the ancient versions and modern translations, embar- rassing the mysterious subject. And they all mise take the Jed, in Adoni, for the affix of the first personal pronoun, “* ay Lorp;’ whereas it is paragogic, or redundant, as a mark of revimen. For so the versions and translations all, withogt. exception, understand the parallel passages : MOH E (J anon) that sriterh in the heavens shall laugh: OTHE Beit oe have the: nin derision,” Peal i. 4 | ( 216 ) ~€ VT saw tae Lorp (21m Apon}) sitting upon a throne,” &c. -Isaiah vi. 1. Nothing indeed, has so much contributed to pre- vent the scientific improvement of Theology, as the want of appropriate renderings of the primitive names of the Deity: 7, Aiton, and AELoum, being usually and indiscriminately rendered Oc@, “ God;” and Jan, Javon, and ADON, xa, ‘* Lorp.” The former term expressive of power or might ; the latter, of authority or dominion. V. nvm 325, Dasar Jauou. That this Divine title, ‘‘ THE WORD or ORACLE OF THE Lorp,” is not merely verbal, as Deists and Unitarians contend, intimating ‘“‘ the word of God spoken, or written ;” but personal, is evident from the whole tenor of the Old and New Testa- nent, in which personal actions are constantly attributed thereto. “THE worp OF THE Lorn came to Abram, in a vision, saying, Fear not Abram, I am thy shield, thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Recent Lorp (Aponi JAnoH), what wilt thou give me,” &c. And he said, “I am tHe Lorp (JaHou), that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldecs, to give thee this land to inherit.” Gen, xv. 1--7. | “ Now Samuel did not yet know tHE Lorp, (4Ern JAHoH) neither was THE WORD OF THE Lorp yet revealed unto him. And the Lorp (Jauon) came and stood, and called as at other ( 217 ) times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak, for thy servant heareth,” &c. 1 Sam. iil. 7—10. ‘‘ And lo, tHE worD oF THE Lorp came to him (E£ijah) and said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah? And he said, 1 bave been very zealous for tHE Lorp Gop or Hosts (Janou fELout Sapaorn), for the children of Lsrael have forsaken THY covenant, thrown down THINE altars, and slain ruy prophets with the sword: and ], even I, only am left; and they seek my life to take it away.” 1 Kings xix. 9, 10. And immediately after, when the Lord appeared in glory, he repeated in “a still small voice,” the same question, and Elijah repeated the same answer; to mark the sameness of the Divine person who spoke, in both cases, v. 11—-14. ~ From these three instances, selected from a mul- titude, the personality of the worD or THE Lorp is surely unquestionable. It is evidently the same as the Recent Lorn, and though distinguished from #Etu Januou, “ true Lorp supreme,” is yet honoured with the title of JAHon, and Janou #ELOHI SABAOTH. St. Paul referring to this last case, styles hin, 6 yonuation@, “ THE ORACLE,” Rom. x1. 4.; a technical term, applied by the Greeks to the false Oracle of Apollo, &c. but here transferred by the apostle, to the true ORACLY, or ‘ erpounder” of the Divine nature and will, to mankind, the ONLY BEGOTTEN SoN oF Gop, John i. 18.; ‘who speaketh the words of Gop,” John iii, 35.; and thence is styled also, in the New ( 218 } Testament, 6 x07, which should be rendered, “ THE ORACLE,” John ih. 1.5 and & toy® rx Gee, “ THE ORACLE oF Goo,” Rev. xix. 13.3; because, m these passages there cannot be a doubt of his. personality ; which was also the doctrine of the ancient Jewish Church, as thus admirably expressed’ by Philo = 4 ‘“ For HE Omgacite or Gow (6 re Gis roy®),, wher he comes down te this our terrestrial system, aids and assists those whe are allied to wirtue, and imeline to virtue, in order to procure their complete reiuge and salvation: but on the adversaries, he wficts irremediable calamity and destruction.” Vi. SMS WS TS, Alases asuer Alusen, Pert, ACWIEH. This was the name or title, under which the. Lorp, who appeared to Moses: in the burning, bush, announced himself to the Tgraektes: “1 ax wHo Am” signifying his se/f-existence. Exod. iii. 1—4, For though the verb _4Ajeh, isin the future tense, ““{ well be,” yet it is here taken sodebnitely, as denoting existence im general; and correctly ren- dered by the Septuagint version, Eyer expar 5 Oy, “Fy 4m [ue] wHo 18;” as fully sanctioned, and ex- plained DY oun Lorn: Eyw syu—s Oy, xar& Hy, xan & BoxonevG bl tavroxgerwe %* I AM [HE |—wuo 1S, AND WHO WAS, AND WHO 38 TO COME: THE Atmicuty.” Rev. i. 8.;—which, Origen, and Gregory Nazianzen, apply to the Son. Imme- diately after, the first word is used elliptically, fos ( 2k& jy the whole title: ‘* Thus shalt thou say to the chil- dren of Israel, I am, (/EusEu), hath sent me unte you.” Exod. in. 14. 'Fhe same abridgment, is used afterwards, | “ These (crimes) thou didst commit: and [because] I kept silence, thou didst imagine, that I ant (Essen) was like thyself!” Ps.1. 21. For, as Aben Ezra judiciously observed, usEu here is a proper name; and cannot be rendered grammatically, as the verb substantive, because it is accompanied by the verb substantive, NVM Hajoth, in the infinitive mood, esse, a circumstance which has been overlooked in our Prayer-book and Bible translations of the Psalms, injudiciously sup- pressing the PROPER NAME. Having thus explained the leading names of tHe DEITY, as briefly, and as plainly, as their abstruse and mysterious nature would admit; and endea- voured to correct the misconceptions that have been usually entertained, in consequence of confined and imperfect views of the subject, both by Zrinetarians and Unitarians; I shall now proceed to prove “the proper divinity of Jesus Curist,” in oppo- sition to Dr, Carpenter, and his school, thus idly, and superciliously, objecting to the evidence of the Old and New Testament: “ That the OLp Testament should have been pressed to give eyidence in favour of the proper ( 220 ) Deity of Jesus Christ, might not appear wonderful, when it is considered how little there is to the point in the New; but when we read the express and positive declarations of Aoses and the Prophets, respecting the absolute unity and unrivalled SUPREMACY of JEHOVAH, the God of Abraham, fsaac and Jacob, then it seems almost incredible that any passages should be imagined to teach a doctrine so directly in opposition to those declara- tions: Deut. vi. 4.; iv. 35, 39.; xxxil. 39. ; 2Sam. vil. 22.5 1 Kings xvi. 39.3. 2 Kings xx. 15. 19.3 1 Chron. xvii. 20.; Psalm xxxvi. 10.; Isaiah xliv. 6, 8.3 xlv. 5, 02Ns.2923 \ Tlosea: xu 46 kor ere Unitarianisin, &c. p. 361. 94. But there are numerous passages both of the Old and New Testament, which convey the most ex- press and positive restrictions of these very decla- rations, which Dr. Carpenter ought not to have suppressed in this vital controversy. These, I shall now adduce: | 1, The most prevalent idea concerning THE SUPREME BEING, throughout the ancient world, was, that He was visible or unperceivable by mortals. | This doctrine is abundantly taught in Scripture. The Patriarch Jod declares: “QO that I knew where I might find Hrar, That I might go, even to his throne! Lo, I go eastward, but he is not found, And westward, but I cannot conceive Him: ( "a » Northward, where We worketh, but I behold Him not, He covereth Himself southward, and I cannot See; But He knoweth the way that I take, He hath tried me; I shall come forth as gold.” XXH1. 3--10. This, the Royal Psalmist has finely imitated : “Whither shall I go from ruy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from rHy PRESENCE? If I go up to Heaven, Thou art there, If I go down to /Zell, Thou art there also; If I take the wings of the morning [and flee éast- wards, | Or, if [ remain in the uttermost part of ¢he sea [westwards | Even there shall thy band lead me, And thy right hand shall hold me.” Psalm CXXXIX. 7—-10. *« The eyes of the Lorp are in every place, Beholding the evil and the good.” Prov. xv. 3, “ Tiy Faruer who seeth in secret, Himself will reward thee openly.” Matt. vi. 4. “ Gop Is Sprriv” (avevua), John iv. 24.; invi- sible,? Col..1..15¢% 1 Pima! l7igabbebe x@7 ..35f0- habiting light maccessible ;” “ whom none of man- find saw, nor 1s able to see.” 1 ‘Tim. vi. 16.j;— “ No one hath seen Gon at any time,” John i. 18.; 1 John iv. 19.; “ Ve have neither heard fis voice, at any time, mor seen his shape,” John v. 37.; “ No ~ ( 222 +) one hath seen Tar FATHER, save the ONLY BEGOT- TEN Son, who is from God; HE hath seen the FaTHER,” John vi. 46.; 1 18. This also, was the doctrine of the Heathen world. The following was the remarkable inscription upon the temple of NHIO (NrrItH) or Wispom, at Sais m Egypt, evidently borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures: Byes eyas TIAN Yo yevavos, xou ov, eet EGOJLEVOY, Kar rov exov wemrov wders rw Synros amenadrulev. “ T aM ALL THAT HATH BEEN, AND IS, AND WILL BE; And my vail no mortal yet uncovered.” See Cudworth’s Intellectual System, p. 341. ‘The following “ serupulously Hteral translation ;” from a most ancient Senscrit Hymn, the Sri Bha- -gavat, is furnished by Sir /Villiam Jones, Asiat Research. I. p. 33, 245. | “ Twas, even at first, not any other thing, That which eaists, unperceived, supreme; Afterwards, 1 AM THAT WHICH 1s, And He wHo must remMAIN, Am I.” The belief, therefore, of rHE ONE, irvisible, in-- audible, unperceivable, eternal, immortal, omnipre- sent, and Supreme Brerno, Gop, Lory, and SPERIT, 18 common to Pagans, Jews, and Maho- metans, Christians, and Deists, without exception; founded upon primitive revelation in Hoty Writ; the only way in which mankind could have attained ¢ 223° any knowledge of the UNKNOWABLE, 1NCOMPRE- HENSIBLE Gop, (ATNQETO @EQ, Acts xvii. 97.3 - But notwithstanding this; cere is the plainest i fatlest evidence in Holy Writ, of the existence efa Divine Being, who personally appeared to the Patriarcks and Prophets ia a human form, con- versed with, ate, and drank, with them; and as- sumed the divine titles of Gop and Lorp; and was addressed by these titles, and by all the ether epithets of rue Deiry ; which he never disclaimed, Qut accepted as his due; as being invested therewith by Gop himself. ‘ape KKHI. 20, 2]. This was Hz, “ whose voice, our first parents heard, as Me walked” in the garden of Eden; from whose presence they hid themselves. Gen. ii. 8. Who styled himself Gop Atwicury, to dhraham. Gen. xvii. 1. Who appeared in Auman form to him, ate and drank with him; and yet was called Oy him, and called himself, Lory, (iauom) and was addressed as JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH. Gen. XVill, 1-25. Who, as the ORACLE oF THE Lorp, and the Recent Lorp, appeared to and conversed with Afoses, Sumuel, Elyah, Isaiak, &c. as we have seen; and whe, we are assured in the New Testa- anent, was Jesus Cueist, the BeLtovep Son or Gop, THE IMAGE or visible representative of THE INVISIBLE Gop; the EFFULGENCE oF His GLORY, THE CHARACTER OF Hrs suBSISTENCE.” Matt. L275 xvi 3. 3° Col. 1503-9 Core ive4.y) Heb. i. 3. And these several ‘feb of Scripture ( 994 ) were so understood by the primitive Church, from the Apostolic age. From the numerous authorities adduced by the learned Dr. Clarke*, in his Scripture- Doctrine of * The pious and learned Dr. Samuel Clarke, Rector of St. James’, Westminstcr, has been unwarrantably pressed into the service of the Sabeliian Unitarians, repeatedly, in the notes of their Mis-Improced Version. The passages in the text, selected from him, are sufficient to disprove the calumny. And most abundantly, his paraphrase on John i, 1, 2—‘¢ That Divine Person, whose name is called ‘ra worp of Gop,’ (Rev. xix. 13.) ‘the only-begotten of the Father, (John i. 14.) ¢ the brightness of his glory, and by ineffable communication of Divine power and perfection, ‘ the express image of his Person,’ (Heb. i 3.) existed with Gop THE FaTnHeErR, not only before his appearance upon earth, but 2'so before the creation of the world, even before all ages.” And as he further explains, in his Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion, Prop. xii. §. 2- p- 338. “ The Supreme, Self-existent cause, and Father of all things, did, before all ages, in an incomprehensible manner, by his Almighty power and will, beget or produce a Dévine. Person, styled the Logos—the Word, or Wisdom, or Son of God ; God of God, (@éos sx @ez, in contradistinetion to AvroSees) in whom dwells the fulness of Divine perfections, (excepting abso- lute Supremacy, Independency, or Self-Origination) being. the image of the invisible God; the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express unage of his person; having been tx the begin- _ ning with God, partaker with Him of his glory before the world was; the upholder of all things by the word of his power; and himself over all (by communication of his father’s glory and dominion) God blessed for ever.” | And that Curistr is the proper object of adoration and religious worship, he has shewn at large, Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, §. 50. p. 375-381. Dr. Clarke, however, has been suspected of a tendency to. ( 995 ) the Trinity, to prove this point, p. 47, 109, Edit, 3.; I shall select a few, more closely translated. 1. Justin Martyr, A.D. 140. “ Our Curisr conversed with A/oses in the appearance of fire, out of the bush—and he received mighty power from Christ, who spoke to him in the appearance of fire.” p. 121. 3 2,. drengus, A.D; 178. “ THe ORACLE. oF Semi- Arianism, from not expressly asserting, the proper eternity of the Son; though he allows his existence before all ages; or before all time. And his mode of treating the Doctrine of the l'rinity, is objectionable on two accounts : 1, Though he professes, in his preface, “ to examine the Important doctrine, thoroughly on‘all sides, by a serious study of the whole Scripture :”. yet he confines himself to “ the Texts in the New Testament, relating to that doctrine ;” omitting many most important texts relating thereto in the Old: of which he notices only seven, in the Indew of the texts subjoined to his third edition. His argument therefore, is partial and incomplete; not taking into consideration, ™ one half of God's revelation,’ as Jones justly objects, Trinity, p. 66, 67. 2. Even im the New Testament, instead of following the Apostle’s direction, to compare spiritual things with spiritual, in order to find out and collect their true meaning and connexion; he sets down his texts, like so many disjointed aphorisms, aii single and independent of each other: and thereby, gives full licence to the imagination, to handle the word of God deceit- Sully ; without attending to the tert and context, and to parallel passages illustrative of the subject. And uphappily, this defective and disorderly mode of searching the Scriptures, has been adopted, by Dr.C. and the Sabellian School, tu the great detriment ef themselves, and of the public at large. N.B. The prayer book,.imputed to Dr, Clarke, more properly belongs to Mr, Whiston, | VOLE ° Q _ ( 296 ) Gop himself conversed with the Patriarchs before Moses, and with those under the law, in a divine and glorious form. Ture Son oF Gop is in- troduced in the Scriptures every where; sometimes talking with Abraham, and eating with him; some- times with Noah, giving him the dimensions [of the Ark] sometimes seeking Adam; sometimes inflict- ing judgment upon Sodom; and again, when he becomes visible, he directs Jacob on his way, and speaks out of the bush with Moses,” p. 109. 3. Theophilus of Antioch, A.D. 181. “ Tuis [fOracte] assuming the person of THE FATHER AND Lorp oF ALL, came into Paradise, im the person of Gon, and conversed with Adam,” p. 109. 4, Tertullian, A.D. 200. “ It was THE Son who acted from the beginning as JuDGE; (ab initio judicacit ): who overthrew that most presumptuous tower [of Babel], and confounded the tongues of the builders; who punished the whole world by a deluge of waters; who rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorra, the Lornp—from THE Lorp, (Dominus—a Domino, TiN MND MN. Jauon m Ary Janon. Gen. xix. 24.)—Here, the distinction between the wiszble and znvisible Lory, wanting in ‘the Latin and English, is critically marked in the Hebrew, by the definite article Arn, ‘ THE prefixed to the latter Janon. That Orac tz, called rHE Son or Gop, appeared in divers manners to the Patriarchs, in the name of Gop, and always spake to the Prophets—And no other God could converse with men upon earth, ¢ 227.) but tHe OracLte who was to become flesh.” p- 110. 5. The Synod of Antioch, A.D. 264, against Paul of Samosata, the Sabellian. “ Tue Sow is witnessed sometimes as an Angel, sometimes as Lorp, sometimes as Gop. Vor it is impious to imagine, that the Gop oF rHE Untverse should be called an Angel. But the Angel (or Messenger) of the Farner, is the Son; who himself is Long and Gop. For it is written, ‘ the Angel of the Great Council, &c.” p. 123. 7 | 6. Athanasius, A.D. 326. “In Joel also, He speaks in the person of rH& Faruen: ‘ L will pour out of my Spirit,’ &c.” 7. Hilary, A.D. 354. He who is called the Angel of God, the same is Lorp and Gop. For the Son of God, according to the prophet [Tsatah ix. 6. in the Sept. Version] is the dngel of the Great Council. Yor he is named the Angel of Ged, that the distinction of persons might be com- plete: for he who is Gop of Gop, the same is the Angelof God. But in order that due honour should be rendered unto him, he is also styled Lorp and Crore OF Py des And the learned Bishop Bu// confirms the testi- mony of Dr. Clarke, as cited by him, p. 124, 125. 8. ** Wherever it is clear, that not a mere Angel; but GoD HIMSELF, appeared, there we constantly affirm, that not roe FaTuEr, but THE Son, is to be understood : religiously following the concurrent judgment of primeval antiquity.” —“ Whoso knows Q 2 ( 228 ) not this, is a stranger in the writings of the Fathers.” lind to Christ’s character and perfections, as if utterly irreconcileable with the unity of THE Dexry, Dr. Carpenter strives to evade, and cloud this luminous evidence, in a few prominent prophe- cies of the Old Testament, relating to the proper divinity of Jesus Curist, namely, Isaiah vil. 14. ; ix. 6.; Psalm xlv. 6.; Micah v. 2; Jer. xxii. 6. But, if his objections to these be futile and ground- less, they will serve to establish the express and numerous declarations of the NEw TESTAMENT, that Jesus Curist, is both Gop and Lorn. 1. Isaiah vii. 14. The weakness of his objec- tions to the divine title Iam ANUEL in this prophecy, expressly applied to Curist, Matt. 1. 23.; was shewn, in the ¢hird letter. Hence, Christ is ap- propriately styled, ze Oce fpwy nar Lwrnpos, [nos Xeie- zo. Griesbach, 2 Pet, i. 1.; which is rendered, “ Our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,” by Mr. Sharp, according to the grammatical Canon, founded on the geveral structure of the Greek Article, though admitting some exceptions; which rendering is allowed by Dr. C. himself to be “a practicable rendering of the passage,” p. 137.; and it is supported by the earlier translations of /Vick- lif, Tindel, Coverdale, Matthews, Cranmer, the Bishops’, and the Geneva Bibles, the Rhemish Tes- tament ; and adopted by /Vells, Deddridge, Wesley, Purver, &c. and by Adiddleton, &c. And the con- struction 1s confirmed by Te xvoLoY MLWY Hkh RwTngsy ( 999 ) Inve Xero, 2 Pet. 2. 11.; v. 18.3 which is ren- dered by all, without exception, “ Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” These two instances serve to establish the similar phraseology, in that most highly important text, rou eyadou Qzou nuwy nar Lwrneos, Inoou Xpiorov. ‘Lit. i. 13. correctly rendered, ‘ Our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.’ This title, Tov rsyarou Meov fev, was applied here, to Jesus Christ, by Clemens Alevandrinus, that learned Greek Father, im_ his Protrept., and is analogous to that other title of THE Son, “ Atighty Ged,” Isaiah ix. 6.3 or “ Great,” as explained by Gabriel, Luke i. 32. And so the passage is judiciously rendered in the Geneva Bible; ‘ Looking for that blessed hepe, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,’ and thus further ex- plained in the note e: “ Christ here most plainly called that mighty God, and his appearance, and coming [zn glory] is called by the figure metonymy, our hope.’—Dr. C. admits at first, that this ren- dering of the passage, ‘‘ is accordant with the Greek Idiom, though not reguired by it,” p. 138.; and yet afterwards, rather inconsistently, contends; that “‘ it is totally unscriptural, expressly contradic- tory to the plain and cbvious assertions of the Apostle himself!” p. 139. 9, Isaiah ix. 6. . Dr. C.’s perversion of the title, “ mighty God,” applied to the Divine Son, was exposed in the third letter. 3. Psalm xlv. 6. “.Thy throne, QO Gon, [is] ( 230 ) for ever, andever.” Dr. C. declares that this most noble prophetic Psalm, “ was assuredly addressed to Solomon,” p. 154. I will venture to assert, that he is assuredly mistaken. The Septuagint title of the Psalm, is 030 dazp rou Ayannrav, “ An Anthem jor the Beloved,” meaning Curist, and the con- current testimony of the primitive Jewish and Christian Churches appropriates it to “a greater than Solomon.” The Chaldee parapbrast declares, “Thy beauty, O Kixe MEssiau, aboundeth above the sons of men; the spirit of prophecy is stationed upon thy lips.”—And this interpretation is adopted by the three ablest of the Rabbinical commentators, David Kimchi, Abraham ben Ezra, and Solomon Jarchi; and Muir Arama declares, “ All the Rabbins agree, that this Psalm doth speak of the MESSIAH.” It cannot relate to Solomon; for Solomon was a man of peace; but the hero of the hymn is repre- sented as a mighty warrior. “‘ Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O thou Micary,” &c. ver. 3—9. ; and so the God of derael JaHOH, was represented, as “ a man of war.” Exod. xv. his Solomon's throne Gid not endure for ever,” nor did “ he love righteousness and hate iniquity,” ver. 6, 7. ; for he sinned grievously. But for these virtues, the MessiAu was anointed or appointed Gop and Kine by His Gop anp Farner, conformably to Psalm ii. 7. And the whole Psalm surely applies to Curist™. - ® See a New Translation and Comment upon this Psalm ulv. in Hales’s Dissertalions, p. 301-340. ( £1 >) St. Paul has decided the point, by appropriating this passage to Curist. Heb. 1. 8, 9. Dr. C. contends that the title Gop (4Zronim) is here applied metaphorically, not in respect of nature, but merely to dignity and office, p. 155. But that it is taken in its proper sense, is evident from St. Paul’s application, contrasting THE Son with the angels, &c. of whom he declares, “Let aif the angels of God worship him,” Heb. i. 6, referring to Ps. xcvil. 7. 4, Micah v. 2, This most noble and compre- hensive prophecy was explained in the foregoing letter. 5. Jer. xxiii. 6. This illustrious prophecy pa- rallel te Adicah’s, deserves a fuller enunciation than Dr. C. has given it; citing only the last clause, p. 363, according to his usual znguity of quota- £102 :— ‘“¢ Behold, the days are coming, saith the Lorn, (Janon) when I will raise up unto David a RIGHTEOUS BRANCH; and a KING shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon earth. In his days, Judah shall be saved, and Jsraeé shall dwell safely ; and this is his name, which they shall zwvoke, THE LoRD OUR RIGHTE- OUSNESS.” (JAHOH TSIDKENU. ) Here, Dr. C. unskilfully adopts Dr. Blaney’s gross mistranslation, “ And this is the name by which JEHovAH shall call him, our RIGHTEOUS- NEss,” p. 363,—in violation not only of the Hebrew text, but even of the Septuagint Greek version, ( 332 >) which Dr. B. prefers, and professes to follow :—~ ULL TYTO TO oVoIAe auTe, 5 xarece avtov Kueios, LO— 2EAEK. “ And this is his name, which tHE Lorn -shall call him, tHE Lorp oF RIGHTEOUSNESS: Dr. Blaney, it seems, not perceiving the Hebrew title, ina Grecian dress, 12, (which, we have already seen, 1s the contraction of IAG, Janon); the whole denoting “ THE LorD OF RIGHTEOUSNEss ;” like MEAXI—ZEAEK, “ Kine or RIGHTEOUSNESS. ? Ps. cx. 4; Heb. vii. 2. | Dr. Blaney’s mistranslation is, in fact, no other than a disjointed patch-work framed from the Hr- BREW text, and the Septuagint version ;—from the latter, he borrowed, “ this is the name which THE Lorp shall call him ;’ and from the former, ‘‘ ouR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” It was reprobated by the ablest Rabbinical critics, dben Ezra, Manasseh ben Israel, Norzius, &c. See De Rossi ; and the an- cient book of Lkkarim (cited by Burtorf in his Hebrew Lexicon, under the article MyM) thus ad- mirably expresses the reason of the application . “ The Scripture calls the name of the Mressran, ‘ JAHOH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, to intimate that he will bea Mzeprator1tat Gop; by whose hand we shall obtain justification from THE NAME; wherefore, it calls him by the name of THE NAME ;” ze. the eneffable name, Januou, here put for Gop -WEIMSELF, St. Paul, therefore, expressing the sentiments of the primitive Jewish Church, thus applies the spirit of the prophecy to Jesus Curis ; « B33. > ** Who-was born unto us, WISDOM From Gop. and RreHTrousness, and Saner IFICATION, and REDEMPTION.” 1 Cor. i. 30. ~ “ Wherefore, Gop also transcendently exalted him (xeevwse) and bestowed on him ‘ THE NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME: That at the name of Jzsus, every knee should bow, of celestial, terrestrial, and infernal {beings}; and that every tongue should profess that Jesus Curis is Lorp (J: AAR AY! to Gop THE Fatuen’s glory.” Phil. it. 9—11. St. John also, in the Apocalypse, thus expresses the full import of his New NAME:—“ Kine oF Kincs, anp Lorp or Lorps.” — Rev. ii. 17; tik 423 xvi. 143 xix. 16. . From this combination of evidence adduced by Dr. Carpenter himself, more critically explained and illustrated, it appears, that the divine names; ZELOHIM, @EOS, “ Gop;” and JaAnon, KYPIOS; Lorp,” are attributed to Jesus Curist, not in any inferior, metaphorical sense, but in their highest sense of power and dominion: and if so, who can entertain a doubt of “ the suas divinity of Jesus Curist ?” But this is not all: I shall next shew, that all the other divine titles of the Old and New Pestament are also attributed to him. 6. ‘THE ORACLE OF THE Lorn, Gen. xv. 1, or THE Lorp, (JAHoH) who appeared to ABRAHAM, Gen. xvill. 1—15 ; Gen. xvii. 1. Stephen alluding to those appearances, calls, ‘‘ raz Gop OF GLory,” Acts vii. 2; and St. Paul, “ruz Lorp or GLory,” whom the ieee ignorantly crucified, 1 Cor. ii, 8. ( 234 ) 7. The Psalmist thus addresses tHE Lory (Ja- non )— Thou art THE SAME (1M) and ¢hy years shall not fail,’ Ps. cii. 27; and St. Paul styles “ Jesus Curist THE SAME, yesterday and fo day, and for ever,” Heb. xiii, 8, as we have seen already. §. The Reexznt Lorn, who appeared in glory to the prophet Jsaiah, sitting upon his throne, and was worshipped by the attendant Seraphs, as the ** Hoty, Hoty, Hoty, Lorp [Gop] of Hosts,” &e. Isa. vi. 1—3; and of whom the prophet him- self says, “ mine eyes have seen THE KING, THE Lorp [Gop] of Hosts,” verse 5, is expressly de- clared to be “ Curist,” John xii. 41. And con- formably thereto, our Lord thus describes himself coming to the general judgment. ‘‘ When THE SON OF MAN shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him; then shall he sit on the throne ef his glory, &c. then shall rHE Kine say to them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Farner, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,” &c. Matt. xxv. 31. 9. Tur Gop or Gops tHE Lorp, who spake, as the OracLE, and summoned the whole world to judgment ; in that, magnificent Psalm, the fiftieth, and who styled himself, in the course of it, the “I AM,” as we have seen; was THE Son oF Gop, as appears from the solemn warning to the whole world at the conclusion, verse 22, 23. “ O consider this, ye that forget Gop; lest I pluck you away, and there be none to deliver you. ( 235 ) IVhoso offereth ME praise, honcureth me; and to him that ordereth his conversation aright, wiil I shew the salvation of Gop.”—Here the speaker, and God the Father, are evidently different persons. The most explicit application of this Psalm throughout, (and consequently, of these grand tities) is furnished by our blessed Lord, in his pro- found argument, addressed to the disbelieving Jews ; proving that he was the ‘‘ PEcULIAR SON OF Gop,” (78 Wis vs, Rom. vill. 32) entitled to * call Gop his PECULIAR Fatuer,” (aarepa 1d10¥ ereye TOY Ozov, John v. 18,) to which they objected,—like their descendants, the Untarians.—— V. 19. “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, THE Son zs able to do nothing of himself, except what he seeth THE T'aruer doing; for what things soever HE doeth, these also doeth tHE Sow like- wise; For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth, And greater works than these will he shew unto him: to the end that ye may marvel. For as tHe FATHER raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, even so THE Son guickeneth whom he willeth. For roe Fatuer judgeth no one ( Himself.) but hath given the whole judgment unto THE Son, to the end that all should honour THE Son, according as they honour THE Farner: He that honoureth not true Son, hor noureth not THE FATHER who sent him,” 24. “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whoso- ever heareth my word, and believeth on 41M wha sent me, hath life eternal, and is not to come inia (. 236 «) judgment, but hath passed over from death into life. 25. “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and is now [at hand] when the [righteous] dead shali hear the voice of the Son or Gop; and they that hear shall live. For as tHe FaTuer hath life in himself, so hath he given to THE Son also, to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment atso, because he is THE SON OF MAN.” 28. “ Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which, all that are in the graves shall hear his woice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damna- fon.” ~ Inthe first clause, verse 19, our Lord states his title to hold the whole judgment upon mankind foretold in the fiftieth Psalm, verse 1—4, by ex- press grant and commission from the FATHER. And he recites the conclusion of the Psalm, both positively and negatively, to confirm that commis- sion; not only by the evidence of his miracles, but by the evidence of prophecy also; both supporting his assertion, that he was indeed the PECULIAR Son oF Gop, invested with all his Father’s powers. In the second clause, verse 24, he states the pri- vilege of believers as a proof that THE FaTHER sent him as his representative; namely, an assur- ance of eternal life to them. ( 237 ) Inthe third clause, verse 25, he foretels the re+ surrection. of the just, “ iw the regeneration,” or “ restitution of all things,” at “ the first resur- reciion,” in consequence of the principle, or power of eternal life given him by THE Parser. This partial resurrection, confined to “ those that hear,” ‘“< now at hand ;° is represented as approaching, or and the ‘ gathering of his Saints” to him, at this first resurrection, 1s noticed Matt. xxiv. 31; Rev. xx. 4, 5; in which it is more fully described ; and inthe, parallel, texts,.j.Luke., xiv....143. xxi 264 Matt. xix. 28; Acts iii. 21, &e: The reason assigned for this high authority of evecuting judgment, is, because he was the pro- phetic “* Son or Man,” described by Daniel, as “ coming In the clouds of heaven,” to THE ANCIENT OF DAYS, (THE FatuHeRr) and solemnly invested by Him with wniversal and everlastiig dominion. Dan. vil. 13—27; a prophecy which our Lorp expressly applied to himself, at his iniquitous trial ; and for which he was charged with d/asphemy, and condemned to death, -Matt. xxvi. 65-66. Dr. Carpenter has miserably mistaken the mean- ing of this prophetic title, as if signifying no more than that he was “ a proper human being,” p. 108, while he rather inconsistently admits, ‘‘ it es no¢ wuprobable, that the prophecy contained in Daniel vil. 13, 14, may have been one motive for our Lord’s freguent employment of this appellation when speaking of himself—as calculated, without ao express avowal of his claims as ruz Mussian, to a! 3 ( 2658). ) lead the minds of the people to the admission of them. And it is observable, that the language used by our Lord, in Matt. xxvi. 64, bears a great re- semblance to that of Daniel,” p. 176. And that the title, indeed, was prophetic, is de- monstrated by its repetition, in that most magnifi- cent description of Curist, appearing, for the last time, in a glorified form, to his beloved disciple John, at Patmos, byn0soy iw AvSpwxs, which is the exact rendering of Daniel’s, wix 92D, (che bar _anosh,) and by reference thereto, ought to be ren- dered, “ dike tHE Son or Man,” foretold by Daniel, Rev. i. 13. “ Tt is remarkable,” as Bishop Adiddleton judi- ciously observes, ‘ that CuristT asserted his claim to the [prophetic] title, the first time, in [the anarthrous phrase] vios avSpexs, John v. 273 in all other places, he has assumed it; and the very assumption forbad him to use the phrase otherwise than [definitely] as, 6 vios +8 avSpwms,” [ Matt. xxvi. 64, &c. &c.] Greek Article, p. 353. The last clause, verse 28, relates to the general resurrection of all mankind, good and bad, and ‘their respective dooms; as described more particu- larly by our Lord, Matt. xxv. 31—46. And in Apocalyptic Vision, Rev. xx. 11—15; xxi. 8. And in the fiftieth Psalm, we find our Lord’s address to the Saints, verse 7—15; and to the wicked, verse 16——21. , From the unquestionable application of this mys ferious Psalm throughout, to our Lorpb, surely he 1 ( 239 ) is fully entitled to be called “ rHz Gop or Gops THE Lorp,” and “Iam.” And the latter he ex- pressly claimed, in a subsequent conference with the disbelieving Jews : ‘* Your father dbrakam longed to see my [birth] day ; and he saw it (in prophetic vision ™, Gen, xxii, 14,) and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? Jesus said unto them, “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, 1 am.” John viii. Ee aang iil And that the Jews understood Jesus as assuming this divine title, is evident from their indignation, for “ they took up stones to stone him” for this sup- posed blasphemy ; as they had done before, when He made himself “ EquaLt to Gop.” John v. 16—19. Nothing can exceed the miserable, absurd, and revolting subterfuges of Dr. Carpenter, and the whole Unitarian school, to explain away and get rid of this stumbling block, this sronE OF OFFENCE, which grinds their whole scheme to powder. Matt. xxl, 44; Luke xx. 18. * This is the received interpretation of the passage: But is it by any means incredible, that the Father of the Fuithful, and the Friend of God, (as Abraham is styled in Scripture) might have actually seen it, among “ the multitude of the Heavenly host,” who celebrated our Lord’s nativity, Luke ii. 13, 14 Like Moses and Elijah, the favoured witnesses of his glorious transfiguration. Matt, xvii. 3, &¢. ( 240 ) _ 4. Dr. Carpenter objects, that the verb yiouae, is never used in the sense of to be born, by John, p- 242. But it is frequently used in that sense by the best classic writers, Tp yeverdar Huas ny nwy duyn, ‘* before we were born, our soul was.” Plato, Phadon. Moxer’ eset’ wQeidov eyw Werrroror werervat Ardpaaw, adr’ n poste Save n everra yeversat. - “1 wish that I had not lived with men of the fifth race, But that I had either died before, or were to be , born after !” Hesiod. Hyuepns—rn EXASOS EYEVETO. The day—in which each was born.” Herodot. Curist himself, in his human nature, was, yevoisevoy x yuvainos, “ born of a woman.” Gal. iv. 4; see 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2. Dr. Carpenter has revived a long exploded gloss of the “ old Socinians,” Wolzogenius, &c. in the following terms :—‘‘ Now Abraham signifies the father of many nations ; and the name was given to Abram, (Gen. xvii. 5.) on account of the divine promise that he should be what the name implied. In reference to this, our Lord. says, * Before Abraham, (1. e. the father of many na- tions) shall become so, I am He :’ that is,. before he who was called the father of many mations, actually becomes so, 1 am the Christ, or I must be vacknowledged as the Christ,” p. 242, 243.— ‘his gloss conveys neither meaning nor argument, and is indeed whimsically absurd. It therefore ( 241 ) sufficiently confutes itself. The Unitarian Note- maker steps in to his assistance, and tells us more intelligibly, that the expression signifies, that “ Christ was designated to his office before Abra- ham was born ;” but this paraphrase of “ I am,” is licentious and unwarrantable. The true inter- pretation is given by Archbishop Newcome, but overlooked both by Mr.:B. and Dr. C. “ There may be a reference to the name which God assumed, Exod. iil. 14, evo csi av, Ego sum qui sum, “« I am He that is :” our Lord being the visible Jnuo- vaH under the dispensation preceding the evange- lical.” Note on John viii. 58. What the Arch- bishop proposed diffidently, “ there may be,” &c. we now are warranted to pronounce positively, ** there must be,” &c. in order to account for the indignation of the Jews *. These combined proofs of “ the proper divinity of Jesus Curist,” drawn from the Old and New Testament conjointly, carefully searched, and cri- tically compared together, in the Jetter and spirit * “ The Jews,” justly observes Mr. B. “ evidently under- stood the language of Jesus as an assertion of Ais existence before the birth of Abraham ; for in the paroxysm of their rage, they took up stones to stone him as a liar and a blasphemer.” Calm Enquiry, p. 75. How absurd then, would it be in the Jews to quarrel with Mr. B.’s gloss, that ‘ Christ had a pre-eristence in the Divine decree, or purpose, before Abraham was born? or, that before Abraham’s birth, it was pre-ordained that the Christ should come into the world.” Calm Enquiry, p. 76—- 403, This, the Jews all expected, Luke iii. 15 xix. 11, VED Ts R ( 242 ) of the Original Scriptures themselves, seem abun- dantly sufficient to prove the point in question. They are further strengthened and confirmed by the additional mass of evidence, peculiar to the New Testament ; which remains to be considered in the ensuing Letters. May they tend, with God’s illuminating grace, to satisfy, convince, and convert disbelievers, and at length, when duly weighed, and calmly enquired into, by Mr. B. Dr. C. &c. compel them to ex- claim, with the incredulous Zhomas, “ My Lorp and my Gop*!” to give Jesus Curist “ the * These words cannot be understood as merely ‘* an excla- mation of surprize, ‘ My Lord! and my God! how great is thy power /’ Ephes. i. 19, 20, N.” cited by the Noteemaker. The expression is elliptical, ‘* I do believe that thou art M¥ Lorp end M¥ Gop,” as explained by Christ’s reply: “* Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed, that J am Tuy Lorp and Tuy Gon,” With this gentle rebuke to Thomas, for his incredulity, in rejecting the earlicr evidence of the witnesses of our Lord’s resurrection, he contrasts, and commends Jofn’s ready faith ;. who, when “ he came, with Peter, to the sepulchre, saw and believed,” that Jesus was risen from the dead, according to the Scriptures ; which Scripture-prophecies, “ they,” or the disci- ples in general, ‘* knew not as yet,” or hitherto understood not, until their accomplishment; all except John. His belief was founded on what he saw in the tomb, namely, the orderly dis~ position of the funeral habiliments, so inconsistent with Mary Magdalene’s hasty report—‘* They have taken away the Lord out of the sepuichre,” &c.; but there could be no reason for taking off the ‘thabiliments, if the body had only been removed else- where. He was therefore convinced by this circumstance,. that the report was groundless; and that “ THE LorD wags ( 243 ) honour due unto his name,” which they have hi- therto unwittingly withheld. risen indeed,” bodily as well as spiritually; and “ on the third as he himself had repeatedly foretold, fulfilling Scrip- , day,’ ture in both particulars. 1 Cor. xv. 4. The commendation is expressed plurally indeed, ‘‘ Blessed are they who have not seen, yet have believed ;” but it is to be understood singly of John; and might have been conveyed to him in a kind dook, or glance, which none but himself could understand ; for, in like manner, our Lord’s censure of the dis- ciples in general, “ for their disbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them that beheld him after he was risen,” Mark xvi. 14, is to be confined to Thomas ; for the res" believed Peter’s report, “ the Lord ts risen indeed, and hath ap- peared unto Simon,” Luke xxiv. 34; all but Thomas, who was absent at that time, John xx. 24. Mark, however, having taken no previous notice of Tomas, in particular, necessarily expressed this censure, though pointed at him, in general terms. A paradoxical denial of John’s exemplary faith, has been foisted into the text of the Improved Version: “ He saw and believed not,’ John xx. 8, on the credit of a singular reading, ax emssevoevy, found only in D, the Cambridge MS. but not in the Latin translation attached thereto; and upon a perversion of the following verse, which does vo¢ ‘ assign a reason for the unbelief of St. John and St. Peter,” as mistakenly supposed by Archbishop Newcome, and implicitly copied by the Note-maker, Even Wakefield rejects this spurious interpolation #5; but Wakefield was not.a “ proper Unitarian” of the Sabellian school. He had some learning and honesty. we iS) See es ie ee Noe ant 1k ‘Peat Os: baaititoa. ve te ei ee fem we 1 b ey 2 . - uve i 7 ° . r ee ; A : . i 3. Sn “Se pista " siti ae win is i Rigs ry ve. ig : ty eee a ‘ if - | Ba, i pve ines weak ae “ : ee ys nit fig i ' i seaiyb bssueatae, ab yciamle nyt : “Gage ed | an wet ae 5 Nett ee my My ~~ p 4 ; ae f F eye ) ey BAW 6 ie bla el inh a ‘eau en ure 4 Ve aN oe? iy) ca Ay A ee ee gi ieee . 0H oh vii, ppd cbiebo’ Liebe Mh spate: rm ight 2055, ‘ie “Ue ae ‘i See ns a | eB obo ea gated amemod) ¢ Alin. 88 | : aida sit, git ep Pibsiteose eames eae : Sieh Bei: jae vip hea her oa * % 7 ee ; why BS yl” eat .. “ee tim pilex iboogy ea ane pty bea. oi et : ae grins é vai omer ne sea me. oR hn ta mk: Reich i... ay ty ieee Oe LETTER VII. Introduction of St. John’s Gospel parodied by Dr. C.—Critica] Remarks thereon—Norberg’s account of the Sabiuns, or dis- ciples of John the Baptist, in Syrza—Vindication of Locke from the imputation of Unztarianism—Paraphrase of the In- troduction—Critecal explanation of Rom. ix. 53; correcting Griesbach’s note. IT PROCEED now to review the additional mass of evidence furnished by the New Testament, to prove the proper Divinity of Jesus Curisr. In a subject so inexhaustible, John xxi. 25, which was ‘ the first, and last, and midst, and without end,” in the contemplation of the iluminated writers, John xx. 31, I shall confine myself to a selection of the principal texts relative thereto; especially such as have been most mischievously methodized, or new-modelled, by Latitudinarian editors, and Unitarian critics. Among the very first in order, rank, and import- ance, confessedly stands the sublime and myste- rious Introduction of St. John’s Gospel, stating the Godhead, and various dispensations of Christ, under bis primitive title of 6 Aoyes, “ THE ORACLE.” The genuineness of this passage is undisputed and unimpeachable, and its testimony the most decisive. Even Griesbach himself, that oracular editor of the ( 246 ) Socinian and Unitarian schools, (whose corrected text Dr. Carpenter follows as his standard, p. 11,) when censured for altering 1 Tim. m. 16; Acts xx. 28; and mutilating 1 John v. 7, 8; three very im- portant doctrinal texts, relating to the Incarnation, and Atonement, and Trinity; pleaded in apology, that this was réquired by the same Critical Canons, upon which his whole text was constructed ; the correctness of which were admitted by his opponents themselves, in other cases; and he rested his own orthodoxy chiefly on this very Introduction. The apology is found in the first edition of his Greek Testament, 1777, Pre@fat. ad Epistolas, Pp. viii. ix. and may be thus closely translated : ‘¢ To remove, as far as in me lieth, all unjust suspicions, and to take away a handle of calumny from malevolent men, I do publicly profess and call God to witness, that I by no means doubt the truth of the doctrine of the dvvimty of Christ. And, indeed, the arguments and places of Scripture are so many, and so clear, to vindicate the ¢rue deity of Christ, that I can scarcely conceive how this doctrine can be called in question by any one granting the divine authority of Holy Scripture, and admitting the just rules of interpretation. Among the first passages, that of John 1. I1—3, is so clear, and superior to all exception, that the daring at- tempts of interpreters and critics have never been able to overturn, nor to wrest it from the Defenders of THE TRUTH.” ( 247 ) Regardless of this candid and explicit profession of faith, from a learned and ‘‘ liberal 7rinttarian,” of which we can scarcely imagine Dr. C. could be ignorant; and even in defiance of such a respect- able authority, he has, notwithstanding, made “ the daring attempt” to exvplain away the Godhead of Jesus Christ, in the following Parody of that In- troduction, which I shall give at full length, from Pp. 61, 62, 63, 162, 163, of his Unitarianism, &c. setting down the supposed translation in italics ; and including the comment thereon, within crotchets ; and numbering the verses, for greater ease of com- parison with the original, i the ensuing remarks: Paropy oF Joun i. 18. 1. “* At the beginning (of this new age of the Gospel dispensation] Hx became the Logos; [the chosen Interpreter of the Divine will] and the Logos received direct communications from God ; and he was {to us| a God, [the representative of the Most High. | 9. Caret. 3. All things [relative to the new dispensation | were done by him; and without him was not any thing done which hath been done. [He was the agent in all the wonderful manifestations of divine power and goodness which have been made to us; in every one he was the agent. | 4. [He had authority to reveal everlasting life, to enlighten the darkness of men, and extend their prospects to an eternal world. | ( 248 ) 5. Caret. [Yet men loved darkness rather than light, and too many rejected the offered blessings. John ili, 19] 6—8. John was a divine messenger, and sent ta dear witness to {him who was to give to men] the light of life; but he was not the light itself, (as probably some of his followers had asserted.) 9. He was the true heht, which, having come into the world, is enlightening every Mair. 10. He was in the world [employed in executing his commission] and by him the world became [en- lightened] and yet the world rejected him. 11—13. He came to his own [people,] yet they would not receive him; but he communicated the glorious privileges of the Gospel to all who believe in him; though they might not possess the privi- leges of Jewish descent or proselytism. 14. his [illustrious revealer of the divine will] was aman [of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, Isa. lui. 3,] and [for a short time] dwelt among us, Sull of kindness and truth : [with all the openness of friendship] and we were witnesses to his glory ; (glory as of an only son from a father, ) [we saw the glorious displays of divine power, by which his authority was confirmed, and the approbation of God manifested. | | 15. John [too] bore witness to him, declaring that he was the person of whom he before said, that one was following him, who was before him [in dig- nity and power] for he was indeed his superior, ( 249 ) 16. And of those abundant {blessings which he had to communicate] we have all received ; blessings beyond former blessings. 17. For the law was communicated by Moses, but facour and truth come by Jesus Christ, [he has displayed to us the most glorious attributes of God, and conveyed to us the most important. truths, | 18. No one [indeed] hath seen God at any time: but the only Son, {who was favoured with the most tutimate communion with the Father, and now en- joys the most illustrious marks of his favour] he hath revealed him. “Such is the zdea,” (says Dr. C.) “ which I have dong entertained of this much misunderstood, yet not obscure passage, p. 66.—The nature of his idea remains to be considered in the following | REMARKS. 1. Ev ayy. Dr. C. admits it “ not improbable that these words may be derived from the first words of Moses,” | Bereshith, ‘‘ In the beginning,” Gen. i. 1.| p. 193. If so, they must be used in the same sense. But J/oses could not possibly apply them to the beginning of the new age, or Gospel dispensation, some thousand years before it existed! St. John too, asa Jew, writing to Jews, could only refer to the usual acceptation of the phrase, namely, im the beginning of all things. Therefore, Dr. C.’s interpretation is absurd.—zy o Aoyos, Why does Dr. C. leave the Logos untran- slated? Here is “ affected obscurity,” an acknow- ( 250 ) ledged abuse of speech. Where did he get the obtrusive pronoun in “ He became the Logos,” and what is the antecedent to He ? The Doctor gravely explains:—“* At the beginning, the Word was or becaine so ;” that is, “ he who was the Word be- came so, (or was appointed to be the Word) at the beginning of the Gospel dispensation ; which com- menced with the baptism of Jesus, at which time his ministry began.” P. 61, 62, note. That is, in plain English, ‘ Zhe Word was the Word,” an iden- tical or ¢rifling proposition, according to Locke, in his Hssay. ‘ The passage itself, in its obvious sense, strongly intimates the pre-evistence of our Lord,” which Dr. C. indeed, confesses to be “ the prevailing opi- nion,” p. 66. “ In the beginning [of all things) was jor existed] rHE Oracie:” for “ He was before all things,” Col.i.17. ‘ From the days of eternity,” Micah v.2*. “ Jesus Christ the same (a9 * The following is the admirable reflection of the learned and candid Jortin, in his Remarks on Ecclesiustical History, Vol. Hf. p. 53 i They who deny the eternal generation, or derivation of the Son from the Father, as implying a manifest contradiction; are driven themselves, by unavoidable conse- quence, to maintain this most wnphilosephical assertion, That the Father and «rst Cause, who hath been what He is, su- premely wise, good, and powerful, from all eternity, yet could not act and exert his wisdom, goodness, and power, from ail eternity. But this is what they can never prove: And the con- trary opinion, namely, the eternal agency of the Almighty, [by his Son] is far more reasonable, and is attended with no other difficulties than those which attend a past eternity.” See the Scriptural account of primeval wisdom personified, Proy. viii. 22-25. and the following Letter xiii. ( 251 ) yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.” Heb. xii. 8. “ Vesterday,” during the Patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations; “ ¢o-day,” during the Christian ; and ‘ for ever,” in the future, during the “ rege- neration,’ or “ restitution of all things,” in the Millennium upon earth; and afterwards, through all eternity, in heaven. And to these successive dispensations, the Patriarchal, the Mosaical, and the Christian, we shall find marked references in the sequel of this introduction. —Kas 6 Aoyos nv pos tov @eov. Where did Dr. Carpenter find his vague paraphrase, ‘ dnd the Logos received divine communications from God ?” Not, surely, from the literal rendering, “ And the Oracle was with the God,’ or as explained after- wards, ‘‘ Zhe only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, was in the bosom of God the Father,” verse 18, expres- sive of the most intimate union and society, as vios SNiss, “ Son of the Most High.” Luke i. 32. —Kat Geos nv 6 Aoyos. Where did Dr. CG. find his interpretation, ‘“ And he was [to us} a God?” The expression is absolute, “ And the Oracle was God,” not restricted to us Christians. Here, by the omission of the article, before @eos, in this clause, the Evangelist critically distinguishes ‘‘ God the Son,” from rov Qeov, “ God the Father,” in the pre- ceding clause: ‘‘ neither confounding the persons” with the Sabellians, “ nor dividing the substance” with the Arians: for surely, the same word in the same passage, must be used in the same sense; if @zos then, be applied to the Father, in the highest ( 252 ) sense of the word, as expressing his nature or essence ; in the same sense it must be applied to the Son also*; though what their specific nature or essence 1s, none can intimately know but them- selves. Matt. xi. 27. To elude the force of this decisive testimony to the Godhead of Christ, Dr. C. renders, ©c0s, “a God,” and supposes that it is here used in an infe- rior sense, like A’/ohim in Hebrew, when “ Moses was appointed a God to Pharaoh,” Exod. vii. 1; and when the Jewish rulers, or magistrates, were styled “‘ Gods,” : Bs... xxxil.,.6,./,as acknowledged (says he) by our Lord himself, John x. 34, 35, p. 62, note.. Both these cases, however, are irrelevant, and when correctly explained, militate strongly against him. [or here A//ohim is used figuratively for Che Avlohim, as ‘‘ God,” or “as Gods.” Moses came as God’s ambassador, to announce his com- mands, and denounce his judgments upon the idola- trous and persecuting Pharaoh and his people. But the infinite superiority of Christ above Moses is intimated in the sequel of this introduction, verse * This was the inference of the primitive Fathers: Theophi- lus of Antioch, eg wy 6 Acy@+y vas ex Ose wedunws, * The Oracle being Gop, as having been, by nature, of Gop.” +o ex Oce yevnSev Qsog ess. ** That which is born of Gop is Gon.” And Justin Martyr pronounces Christ to be Kupioy xas Qsovy Oce vioy vmupyovre, “* Lorp and Gop, as being THE Son oF Gop.” Bulli Defensio Pid. Nan. p. 65,72. And Philo Judeus styles him, very remarkably, tov deurepoy Qcov &¢ esuv exerve (Ore wpure) roy, ‘* The second God, whi is His (the jirst God’s} Oracle.” Vragm. Vol. ii. p. 624. ( 253 ) 16, 17, as we shall see presently. The Jewish rv- lers also, were God’s ministers in the dispensation of justice to his people; but the infinite superiority of Christ above them also, is evinced by our Lord’s own argument, addressed to the disbelieving Jews : Af the Scripture styled them “ Gods,” to whom the Oracle of the Lord came, (or who were appointed, and guided by Him) and the Scripture cannot be set aside as exceptionable, (¢ duyera: AvSaves) because it is your law: How perversely do ye charge me, the Oracle himself, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, with blasphemy, for saying that Iam the Son of God, and consequently God; from the peculiar nature of my Sonship, so infinitely higher than theirs; as you must necessarily admit, if you allow that your magistrates formerly were commissioned by the Oracle. And to prove his peculiar Sonship, he appeals to his characteristic miracles, both positively and negatively, ‘“ If I do not the works of My FaTruer, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, &c. And that the Jews understood his argument in this sense, as asserting his own Godhead, “* making himself God, (verse $3) is evident from their charge of blasphemy, and their attempt to seize and stone him, John x. 39, as on two former occa- sions, John y. 183 viii. 59, Thus do Dr. C.’s examples recoil, and refute his argument, and strongly confirm ours. 2. ‘Ouros ny ev aoxnapos rev Ozov, “S Thes [Oracle] ( 254 ) was in the beginning with the God.” This emphatic repetition of the first verse, intimating the truth and certainty of the doctrine, is omitted in Dr. C.’s parody. 8. Tlavra 3Y avre eyevero, Where did Dr. C. find his rendering and interpolation, ‘‘ Al/ things [be- longing to the New dispensation] were done by him?” 'To limit all things to the New or Christian dispensation, 1s absurd. And the usual rendering of eyeero, ‘* were made,” is supported in several places, even by the Unitarian version: Thus, “ the sabbath was made (eysvero) for man.” Mark ii. 97. © Christ—was made (yevouevos) in the likeness of men.” Phil. ii. 7. ‘* Men that are made (yeyovoras) after the likeness of God.” Jam. iii. 9. How was it possible for Dr. C. so conversant in this version, and whose vofes he has transcribed so copiously, to overlook these decisive instances? or how could he hazard such idle reasons as these? 1. “ John never uses the word yoous, in the sense of create § 2. There is 20 clear instance in which it is used in this sense by the other New Testament writers, though the word occurs in the New Testa- ment about 700 times; and 3. The Septuagint Greek version scarcely, if at all, sanctions this use of the word.” These assertions may all be flatly contradicted, for 1. John positively uses it in the sense of creating, in this verse, and in the tenth ; 2. Mark, James, and Paul, clearly use it in this gense, in the foregoing examples selecied from’ the 6 € Gago: >) Unitarian version; 3. The Septuagint uses it so too in Dr. C.’s reference. “ This is the book of the generation of the Hea- ven and the Earth, when they were created (Sze eyevero) in the day that the Lord God made (ewomse) the heaven and the earth.” Gen. ii. 4. But says Dr. C. “ there is room for doubt as to the meaning which the Greek translator affixed to i? p. 162, note. Surely there is no room for doubt! The original Hebrew word bara, to create, used in this passage, unerringly fixes the meaning of the Greek rendering, eyevero. 4. Nor are instances wanting of this acceptation Of ywoxet, In the purest AZZic writers : Aristophanes thus describes the creation of the world, fuppuryyomeveary S Erepwy Erepors, yever” wpavos, wxeavos xai yn. ‘* The dif- ferent [elements] being mixed together [in their chaotic state] the heaven, sea, and earth were created.” Aves, 702. And Plato, thus, coy 3. ebaieoy (evo exerburoy evver) rH ve adntea, sa thy re Oce yevesSas mpovaav. ‘* The world, (a living intelligent animal) in truth, was created by the providence of God.” Edit. Ficin. p. 1048. Where “ the provi- dence of God,” strongly resembles the primeval Wisdom personified, Prov. viii. 92—25, or the Logos, in this introduction ; who is compared to the Demiourgos, or maker of the world in the fol- lowing passage: qwa de wavra wwy [di] adds rin0s, 1 Oce- onuiuoryeyrS- Qnoomev, vsspoy yevecta, TpITEpoy WN ovTa ; “ How then can we say, that all animals, no¢ being before, were created afterwards, by any other, than i ¢ 25% ) God the Maker of the world?” p. 1185. See also Aristotle, de Mundo, passim™. These curious passages of Heathen philosophy, evidently borrowed, with some distortion, from the Mosaical cosmogony, Gen. 1. decide the propriety of using the verb ywoua in the sense of creation out of nothing. Plato's expression in the last instance, remarkably corresponds to St. Paul’s xara ra un ova, és ovla. ‘‘ God calls things not being, as being,” Rom. iv. 17.; or, He gives them an existence, which they had not before; and the apostle illus- trates this, by reference to ‘‘ the creation of the worlds by the word of God,” “ so that the things which are seen, were not made (vyeyovevas) of the things which do appear.’ Heb. i. 1.; xi. 3. Where (xés eavas) T “the worlds,’ Heb. 1. 1, plainly corre- spond to “ the Heavens and the Harth,” Geni. 1; and the apostle warns us not to imagine, that the visible objects of creation, the sun, moon, stars, * These instances (untranslated) are given in Rennell’s short but excellent animadversions on the Unitarian Version, p. 09. + Dr. C. tells us, ‘* Asay in the New Testament never signi- fies the material world, but age or duration of time.” P. 169. He is mistaken: The phrase ex re aswvos, is rightly rendered, ** from the beginning of the world,’ John ix. 32, even by the Improved Version. And Archbishop Newcome, justly explains rag aswvas, here Heb.i. 2, “ The visible frame of things,” re- ferring to the parallel texts, ‘ Heb. xi. 3.; Col.i. 16.; John i.5."—The improving Editors, though they acknowledge that ‘Archbishop Newcome adopts the common translation, ¢ by whom Je made the worlds also’ ;” yet dishonestly suppress his apposite references, we (aa ) earth, animals, &c. were formed of apparent elements, pre-existing, as matter, &c. but properly created out of nothing. These classical passages also prove that the pre- position sa, “ by or through,” does not always denote znferior agency or instrumentality, as un- lawfully asserted by Unitarian critics; but some- times, prime agency: as in the following sublime passages of Scripture also. St. Paul speaking of THE FATHER, says: ‘It became nim for whom (Si éy) are all things, and dy whom (3% s) are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect by sufferings THE CAPTAIN OF THEIR SALVATION.” Heb ii. 10. For, “ Of nim, (e avt+) and through him (6 evrs) and ¢o him, («s ev7ov) are all things.” Rom. xi. 36. Here, al/ things, evidently include the universe, or the visible and invisible worlds ; the creation of which is likewise expressly attributed to Curist by the same apostie, “ For all things were created dy him, (ev avrw) both in the heavens and upon the earth, visible and invisible-~all things were created by him, (3% avrs) and for him, (as avtov) and dy him (sv avr) all things consist,” or are pre- served in their proper state, Col. i. 16, 17. These important passages express the prime agency of the Son, precisely in the same language as of the Father ; and the learned apostle, who was bred at the feet of Gamaliel, faithfully recorded the received doctrine of the Jewish Church at that time, as taught by Philo Judaus, Novos ssiv eixeov Ges, 32:8 cup- Bas o 400,405 EON[AIBPYEITO. *€ The Oracie is the mage of VOL. I. ’ S ( 258 ) God, by whom the universal world was made.” Edit. Lutet. p. 823. Compare 2 Cor. iv. 4. And how exactly does this correspond with the doctrine of the Evangelist, in this verse, and in the tenth ? Who states it at first, positively, and confirms it negatively, “ and without him was not any thing made, that hath been made.” And we may close these remarks on the first three verses of the intro- duction, in the language of the Psalmist, ‘‘ And thou, Lorp, at the beginning (xar’ agyzs) didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands.” Psalm cii. 36. But the Lord here addressed was Curist, Heb. i. 10. A. Ey aury Gan nv, xara San nv ro Qws Tw avsoumov. This passage is vaguely paraphrased by Dr. C. The literal rendering, ‘ Zn him was life,” intimates that he possessed the principle of “fe in himself, equally with the Father, from whom he received it. John v. 26, “ And the life was the light of men.” He was “the way, and the truth, and the life,” John xiv. 6, to lead mankind to salvation; “ to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto Gon.” Acts xxvi. 18. In this verse, and to the end of the introduction, the evangelist. expatiates on the work of Ltedempiion. 5, Kai ro Qw$ ev rn oxorig Paiwer, rab N oKOTIA aUTO # HATEARBEY. Dr. C. omits this clause entirely, perhaps because he did not understand it; and substitutes a parallel passage, John iii. 19. It has much perplexed the Unitarian critics: Their Version renders xalesaBer, ( 2am) * And the darkness overspread it not,” or * ad. mitted it not.” Wakefield—“ hindered it not.” Belsham—“ hath not overtaken it,” &c. But the common translation is preferable: “ The light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness compre= hended it not ”—Although the light of Divine reve« lation is shining continually in the darkness of the world, yet the world comprehended it not, or did not understand its true nature. The verb KATANA COVE, 18 plainly used in this sense, Acts x. 34,3 Ephes, iii. 18. And in the Greek schools of philosophy, xatarhnaroy, “* comprehensible,” and anatarnaroy, ** i= comprehensible,” were technical terms. Cicero defines ey cognitio aut perceptio, aut si verbum e verbo volumus, comprehensio. ‘ Know- ledge or perception, or if we want a literal ren- dering, comprehension.” Academ. ii. 6. Of exera- Antuz, “ want of comprehension,’ the illustrious Socrates has given the following instance, in P/ate’s Phedon, censuring the blindness and stupidity of the philosophers, his contemporaries: “ ‘J hey are unable to distinguish, that it is one thing to be the [provimate| cause of the existence of something ; but another, to be that [prime] cause, without which, the other could not be a cause at all. In this respect, indeed, he Many (i worArkn) Seem to me groping, as it were, in durkness, (drreQwvres womeg EV oxore) using other men’s eyes instead of their own, 90 as to denominate [the prorimate,] the cause itself, Lor the prime.” | | To this very passage St. Paul seems to refer in 8 2 ~ reg ( 260 ) his discourse to the Athenians; whom he represents as endeavouring “ toseek THE Lorn, ¢f haply they might grope him out, (« aoa ye bnraQnociay avrov) and find Him.” Acts xvii. 27. While, in general, the Heathens ‘“ changed the truth of Gop into a lye ; —and worshipped and served ¢he Creation, {the sun, moon, stars, &c.| more than THE CREATOR, who is blessed for evermore, Amen.” Rom. 1. 25. And this he attributes to judicial infatuation, for their pride ; Daanoyres E1vat coor, EMLMLAYINTAVs affirm- ing that they were wise, they were infatuated,” and seduced into the most grovelling idolatry, even of birds, and beasts, and reptiles ; because their un- discerning heart was darkened,” verses 21—23. For ‘‘ the God of this world blinded the understand- ings of the disbelievers, so that the illumination of the Gospel of the glory of Curist, (who is the amage of Gon) might not shine upon them.” 2 Cor. lv. 4. After this general description of the ORACLE, as God, the Creator, the Enlightener, and Redeemer, of the world, the Evangelist digresses to prove his — infinite superiority over John the Baptist. 6. Evevero avSpwmos ameorahuevos wapa Ces, ovopuae aur es Twavns. | This is vaguely rendered by Dr. C. It is better ‘yendered in the received Translation, “ There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” Here, we observe a marked distinction between Cur sr and John; Christ was Gep; John was man; and their mode of existence was different; ( 261 ) Christ, #y, “ was,” or existed at all times, “ yester= day, and to-day, and for ever;” John, evevero, WaS brought into existence, at a particular time, as _ intunated by the English expression, ‘ There was.” For want of attending to this obvious distinction, Dr. C. and the Editors of the Unitarian Version have confounded these two verbs. They were misled, perhaps, by the elliptical participle, ezes- tahuevos, SUPpOsing that it was connected with eyeveh, whereas it is connected with és 7, understood, [ who was | sent from God. | 8, 9. Odios nrSev es waglueiav, Xe. - These two verses were designed by the Evan- gelist to mark still more distinctly the inferiority of John’s person and office to Christ’s. They are vaguely paraphrased by Dr. C. but may thus be more closely rendered. “ This [man] came for a testimony to testify concerning the light, that all [men] through Him {the light] might believe. He was not that {person} the light, but |came] to testify concerning the light: [Vhat] was the true light, which enlighteneth every man, coming into the world.” ‘(he explicit testimony of John him- self is introduced below, after the account of Christ’s incarnation, declaring his own inferiority, verse 15. Here the phrase EOXOMEVOY EIS TOV KOGLLOY, coming into the world,” may be ambiguously applied either to “ the light,” the former antece- dent, or to ‘‘ every man,” the latter antecedent ; the authorised translation adopts the latter con- struction; but the former seems preferable: For, ( 262 ) 1. The phrase is uniformly applied to Christ, or to the prophet like Moses, throughout the New Tes- tament, and never to an ordinary man. See John Wl. 14.; xi. 97, &c. 2. EN OILEVOY is an indefinite participle, intimating time past and future, as well as present, agreeing with @w2:, which likewise 1s indefinite, and signifies, ‘ enlightencth” continually, or ‘‘is enlightening” every man, from the begin- ning, to the end of the world. And Christ appro- priates the phrase to himself, definitely, ro ws eandu- Sey EbS TOY KOOLLOY, &e.. “The light hath CONE into the world, and men loved darkness more than the light,” &e. John ili. 19.; and again, “TI, the light, have come into the world, that every one who believeth in me, should not abide in darkness.” John xii. 46. For in our grammars, what is commonly called the precer perjeet tense, is, in strictness, the present tense perfect, or definite, and is usually so rendered; “ The light 2s come into the world,” &c.° “I, the lioht, am come into the world,” &c.; signifying, hath now come, &c. 3. If the phrase was attached to the latter, ‘* every man,” it would require the article roy before coyouevoy, “* [that | cometh into the world.” Dr. C. incidentally remarks, “ probably, some of Johns followers had asserted that be was the ght itself.” Tam happy to be enabled to verify this judicious conjecture ; and only regret, that I cannot ofiener give him praise, as a sacred critic. John the Baptist, from the sanctity of his life, and austerity of his manners, resembling “ Elijah, ( 263 ) in power and spirit” of reproof, was held in high veneration among the Jews, as ‘‘a prophet,” and ‘“‘ more than a prophet.” Matt. xxi. 26.; Luke xx, 6.; Matt. xi. 9. He had many disciples, and was commonly supposed to be the Christ. John i. 19, 20.; Luke iii, 7—15. And Chrysostom conjec- tures that ‘‘ the speedy termination of the Baptist’s ministry and life, was designed by Providence, that the people might not be divided in their opinions between both.” The disciples of John were numerous in the Apostolic age, and especially at £phesus ; where the Evangelist John is generally supposed to have written his Gospel. There, Apollos, who “ knew only the baptism of John,’ was converted by Aquila and Priscilla, Acts xviii. 24, 25. And, at the same place, St. Paul baptized twelve of John’s disciples, Acts xix. 1—7. And we learn from Professor Norberg, that this sect still subsists, at the present day, in Syria, under the title of Sabians, or ‘* Baptists.” Norberg published this curious discovery, in a Latin Dissertation, De Religione et Lingua Sabeorum, printed in the Commentaries of the Gottingen Society, for the year 1780, from which the learned J4ichaelis has given extracts in his Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Marsh, Vol. UI. Part I. Sect. vi. v. p. 285, &c. According to Norberg, ‘‘ When the Sabians are asked their opinion concerning Jesus Christ, they answer, We neither believe, nor disbelieve, in Christ ; and we neither condemn nor approve those ( 261 ) who believe in him. But this we believe, that who- soever believeth in the Light of the Lord, and the Baptism of John, his soul will after death be par- taker of the light; but if he believe not, his soul will be partaker of punishment.” ‘‘ Our doctrines,” say they, “are more ancient than the Christian: the Christian was not known to John, and John was our Master."—They style John the Apostle of the Light, and his baptism, the Baptism of Light, and Christ the Disciple of Life. But their Theology is strangely confused and perplexed *. * From the extracts of their religious opinions, furnished by Michaelis, I shall select the following; which may be ac- ceptable to such readers as have not access to his robbie to the New Testament. “* In the name of the great Light! The first and the last of the world, the glorious Light, more glorious than all works. F, the Apostle of the Light, am come, and have glorified thee, thou King of Light, and enlighten the hearts of darkness with » my word. Iam the Apostle of the Light, whom the Lord sent into the world, the true Apostle, in whom there is no deceit. Whoever receiveth the name oi Light, shall be filled with Light. in the name of tue great Light! These are the Laws of John the Baptist. When he baptized in the Jordan of living water, with the baptism of life, and pronounced the name of life, the Disciple of Life came to him, and said, Arise, Jehn, baptize me with thy baptism, and pronounce over me the name which thou art accustomed to pronounce. John said to the Disciple, of Life, | am sleepy, come to-morrow, and I will baptize thee, When the Disciple of Life stood at the place of ali light and glory, he said, I beseech thee, thou second, and thou third life, let sleep come on the eyes of John, twelve hours by day, and twelve hours by night, full four and twenty hours. He slept thea day and night: but the Disciple of Life laid { 265 ) To guard, therefore, against the error of the Sabians, the Evangelist declares, that ‘“ John was not the light.” And our Lord himself has re- his right hand on the eye of John, and removed the sleep, and said, Peace be with thee, John! John said to the Disciple of Life, Come in peace, my child! The Disciple of Life said, Stretch out thy arms, take me, and baptize me with thy bap- tism of Life, and pronounce over me the name which thou art accustomed to pronounce. John answered the Disciple of Life, That cannot be! But the Scholars of John earnestly re- quested him: therefore, he baptized the Disciple of Life. As soon as the Jordan perceived the Disciple of Life, the river overflowed and covered Johu himself, so that he could not stand. The lustre of the Disciple of Lite shone over the Jordan, the Jordan returned within its banks, and John stood on dry ground. John said to the Disciple of Life, Thou art he in whose name I have baptized with the baptism of life, lay thy hand on me. The disciple of Life answered, If I lay my hand on thee, thou canst not remain in thy body. John said, I have seen thee: I will not remain here: exclude me not from the place whence thou camest, and whither thou goest. Then the dagel of Light threw the covering of the body of John into the Jordan, wrapt him in a covering of glory, and put on him the beautiful turban of light. Upon this the Disciple of Life went away from John.—Four men of peace, the living Eye, the living Name, the living Glory, and the living Light, took Jehn by the hand, led him to the place of Truth, and said, Let us see a man who comes from the earth, a just and upright one.— John stood at the place of all glory and of all light, and said, I beseech thee, thou jirst Life, thou second Life, and thou third Life, that to the place of life, where I stand, may come all honest and upright men who are written in the book of Life, and are baptized with pure baptism, over whom the name of the great Life has been pronounced.” Pp. 294—-297. ( 266 ) markably guarded against it also, whca he styled the Baptist, “ a burning and shining lamp,” Qvyyes) John v. 33. avyves indeed, is ambiguously and m- correctly rendered “ light,” in the received transla- tion; but it is far inferior to gs, the light itself; properly denoting a made light, as a war-light, For John shone as a lap, only for a short time, and only to a single nation ; and, therefore, was not to be compared to “ the light of the world,” in all ages, —Nor was he cqual to the true Apostles of the light; the ‘ least of whom was greater than he,” or,more highly enlightened in the mystery of the Gospel, Matt. xi. 11, and whom, therefore, by a higher title, our Lord styled ‘“ the Light of the world, (+0 Qws Te nous) Matt. v. 14, in which, “ they shone as luminaries,” (gwsnees) Phil. i, 15. —It is remarkable, that John the Evangelist was originally a disciple of the Baptist, and quitted him, (by the Baptist’s own desire) to follow Curisr, John i. 35—37. His testimony, therefore, is the more valuable. | Returning from this digression, the Evangelist proceeds to record our Lord’s several dispensations of grace, the Patriarchal, the Mosaical, and the Christian. 10. Ev rw xocspm nv, xa 6 xoojos OF avis eyevelo, xard WOOLLOS avioy BK EYVH). Dr. C.’s paraphrase is most highly exceptionable, in the second clause: ‘“ And the world became fenlightened] dy him.” The passive participle mepwhowevos, ts irrelevantly introduced, from the ( 967 ) preceding active verb, gute, ver. 9. and it 1s 27- grammatically connected with eyevelo, which is con- founded with mv, as shewn ver. 6. ; and it is contras dicted by the last clause, “* and the world knew him not, [or rejected him]. For how could they possibly reject him, after they were enlightened by him?r— Surely “ the “ght that was in them was darkness!” and ‘ how great 1s that darkness” which, in “ this enlightened age,” (as it is called) can “* put darkness for light,” and obtrude such absurd interpretations upon the world, revolting to common-sense! Such forced and unnatural constructions, as are below criticism *! The simple and obvious rendering is, “ Hr, (THE Orac.e) was in the world, and the world was made by Him; but the world knew Him not,” as their Creator ; but fell into Zdolatry and Rebellion. And such, surely, was the state of the world, under the primitive patriarchal regimen; at first, from the Creation to the Deluge, in which the Antediluvians were all destroyed for their apostacy, except righteous Noah and his family ; and again, from the * “ Unitarianism,” as justly remarked by Bishop Burgess, “fis a most unlearned system. What it wants in substance, it makes up mm confident assertion, in wordy ostentation, and a hazardous display of authorities right or wrong. . They pass for right, till they are proved to be wrong. Ilis Lordship might have added, “ And after they have been proved to be wrong, they are confidently repeated, as if they had never been called in question.” Archdeacon Daubeny’s Charge, June, 1815. P. 60, ee) ( 268 ) Deluge to the Confusion of Tongues, and to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, when the posterity of Noah relapsed into the sins of the Antediluvians. Even Abraham, the father of the - faithful, was called from an zdolatrous land, as a second Noah, to furnish a chosen stock, Josh. xxiv. 2. And his family corrupted themselves, and relapsed into the idolatries and abominations of the Canaantes and Ligyptians, until the Mosaical dis- pensation. Levit. xviii. 3. LL. Ess ra iia naSs, xxi of idiot auroy 8 ROALEAAOV. This may more closely be rendered, “ He came to his own {home}, but his own [household] received him not.”—When the Lsraelites groaned under the Egyptian bondage, THE ORACLE came down from heaven to deliver them, by the hand of A/oses ; and to bring them into the pleasant land of Canaan, Exod. 1. 6—17.; and He covenanted with them, that they should be hes people,—a peculiar treasure unto him above all people,—and that He would be their God; provided they would serve him only, and obey his laws. Exod. vi. 7.; xix. 5,6. But they broke the national covenant, even in the wilderness, by setting up the golden calf, for an object of worship. Exod. xxxii. 1—7. And after their settlement in Canaan, they relapsed into the idolatries of the devoted nations, so admirably foretold in that Divine Hymn, Deut. xxxii. dictated “by the God of Israel himself to Moses, Deut. xxxi. 16-30. And, unquestionably, to al/ his tutelar care and protection of this ungrateful and rebellious ( 969 ) nation, from first to last, our Lord himself alluded, in that pathetic and inimitable apostrophe, shortly before their final rejection of Him, 7 “ O Jerusalem! Jerusalem! thou that killest the prophets, and stonest the apostles sent unto thee! How often would I have gathered ¢hy children together, even as the bird* gathereth its brood toyether under its wings; but ye would not!” Matt. XXlil. 37. | | Upon the Unitarian scheme of denying the pre- existence of Curist, this expression, “ How often,” is utterly unintelligible ; of course it is unnoticed by Dr. C. and by his whole school, as far as I have seen; not a single note upon it in the Unitarian version!—But how admirably does it harmonize with his tormer expressions, as the God of Israed: “ Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians: and how £ bare you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.” Mxod. xix. 4. And with the following most sublime and inimi- table stanzas of the Song of Moses, Deut. xxxii. 8—11, more closely translated: See Hales’s New Analysis, &c. vol. ii. p. 244. “ When toe Most Hien divided to the Nations . their settlements, When He separated the Sons of ddam ; * There is no warrant for the received translation of 7 ogne, “ the hen,” and va@ veorcsm “* chickens.” The term op; is ge- ‘ neric; and veeccim signifies ‘* young birds” of any kind, as “* turtles,” Psalm Ixxxili. 4, Sept. Vers, The allusion is pre- bably to the parent cagle. ( 970 ) He assigned the boundaries of the Peoples [of Israel, | According to the number of the Sons of Israel : For the portion of rue Lorp is /Zis people, Jacob, the lot of His inheritance. He found him in a desert land, Tn the waste, howling wilderness ; He led him about, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye. As the Hagle stirreth up his nestlings, Hovereth about his brood, Spreadeth abroad his wings, Taketh tiem up, carrieth them upon his shoulder, [So] rHEe Lorp alone did lead him, And with Him was no strange God, [coadjutor.]” After describing their natonal prosperity in the land of Canaan, the Divine Bard thus describes the ingratitude of his people, the usual, but ungenerous result of prosperity. “ But Jeshurun waxed fat, and spurned: Thou art waved fat and gross and sleck ! He forsook rHE Gop who made him, And slighted the rocx of his saivation!” The striking resemblance of these most sublime, beautiful, and pathetic strains of the Gop oF IsraAEL, before and after the incarnation, furnishes internal evidence of His personal identity, in both cases, the most convincing and irresistible to every reader of taste and feeling. UD, 12. ‘Oca de cAaBov auvrov, Ke. This most difficult passage, though ie in ( em) construction, is incorrectly and imperfectly para- phrased by Dr. C.—‘* He communicated the glo- rious privileges of the Gospel to all who believed on him ; though they might not possess the privileges of Jewish descent or proselytism.”—It may more closely be rendered thus: | “ But as many as accepted him, to them gave he authority [or privilege,] to become Children of God, namely, to those who believe in his name: who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of Gop,”—This passage has a retrospect, [ apprehend, to the 9th, i0th, 11th, verses in general; and is not coniined to the 11th, as usually understood; for the verb is different, saafov, which denotes to accept, or acknowledge ; but not -so closely, or kindly, as zagerafov, to receive, ** to take to one’s self, as believers, Christ,” Col. u. 6, as Christ, his disciples, John xiv. 3. It de- notes conjugal union, Matt. i. 20.; and, therefore, aptly expresses the stricter union that ought to have subsisted between the Children of /srael and their Tutelar Ged, during the Theocracy. Accordingly, from the beginning of the world, we find a righteous “ seed of the woman’ at enmity with the “ seed of the serpent,” Gen. iii. 15, Such was Abel, whom Cain his brother slew; because he offered “ a better sacrifice,” more acceptable to God; namely, the sacrifice of atonement, through faith in the promised Redeemer, who was to be peculiarly the “ seed of the woman,” Gen. iv. 3—8,; Heb. xi. 4. Such were the pious Sethites, ( 972 ) Gen. iv. 20, who were styled the sons of God; until they were corrupted by their carnal intercourse with the daughters of men, or wicked Cainites. Gen. vi. 2, 3. Of these, the most distinguished were Enoch, “ who walked with Ged,’ and was translated, for his extraordinary piety, for Ged took him to himself, (like Elijah afterwards, under the ~ degal dispensation) Gen. v. 24. ; Heb. xi. 5.; Jude 14, 15.; 2 Kings ii. 3—5.; and Noak, who also walked with God, and alone was found perfect, in his wicked and corrupt generation; and was saved with his family in the ark, from the universal deluge, and made an heir of the righteousness which is by faith, Gen. vi. 9—14.; Heb. xi. 7. Such also, were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the patri- archs, after the deluge. Heb. xi. 8—21. Such was Moses the illustrious lawgiver of the Israelites, who preferred reproach for the sake of Curist, to all the riches and honours of Hgypt, in the court of Pharaoh, looking to the future recompense of reward. Heb. xi. 24-97. And such were “ the goodly fellowship of the prophets,” and ‘‘ the noble army of the martyrs,” under the patriarchal and legal dispensations, “ of whom the world was not worthy ;”’ who all trusted in the Re- deemer, equally with “the glorious company of the Apostles,” and saints under the Christian dispensa- tion. Heb. xi. 32-—40. All these were privileged to be adopted as. Sons of God, not by any inherent excellence of their o ( 973 ) nature: 1. not cE aiuglu», “ of bloods*,’’ or peculiar - races, stocks, or casts of mankind; such as the race of Shem, the seed or stock of Abraham, the stock of fsrael; in all which the Jews boasted, as exclusive heirs of the promises of God; Gen, ix. 26.; Matt. iv. 9.3; John viii. 31—41.; Acts xiii. 36.; Phil. lil. 5.3; 2 Cor. xi. 22.; for among the Gentiles also were found, the holy and patient Job, who trusted i his “ ever-living Redeemer, at the future resur- rection of the just,” xix. 25.; among the devoted Canaanites, Melchizedek, King of Salem, and priest of the Most High God ; who, as a royal high priest, was honoured with the character of a type of Curist, Psalm cx. 4.; Heb. vii. 1—17. Cyrus, King of Persia, who was styled “ God's shepherd.” Isaiah xliv. 28, &c. &c. And to mortify the pride and presumption of the Jews, we may presume, among the ancestors of Christ were reckoned four women, who were heathens, or of doubtful or bad character; Thamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah ; Rahab the Harlot; Ruth the Moabitess ; and Bath- sheba, the Adulteress; Matt. i. 3—6. : by way of contrast to their four celebrated matrons, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. See the Jerusalem Largum, on Gen. xlix. 26.; Numb. xxiii, 9.; Deut, xxxlll. 15.3; and Isaiah li. 2 * Aiwa, “ blood,” is evidently taken in the sense of “ the race of Noah” and his family, Acts xvii. 26.; and frequently in the Heathen classics, of 9 aiuaros sé BLEU Eos, ‘“‘ who are of my blood, or race,” Iliad. xix. 105, Sic genus amborum scindit se sanguine ab uno. ARneid. viii. 142. Veit. fk ( 274 ) 2. Neither were they privileged, ex Dernurnlos aaupxos, ade ex Seanparos avdeos, “‘ of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man.” Human nature is compounded of three constituent parts, the spirit, soul, and body. _ Gen. ii. 7.; 1 Thess. v. 23. Of these, the spirit, mind, reason, or understanding, is the noblest, and the peculiar prerogative of man, as distinguished above the rest of the azimal creation; by which he is made an heir of immortality, Eccl. iii, 21.; Tit iii, 7-; and hence, “‘ the spirit” seems to be appro- priated to the term adges*; which is more excellent than avGewmos. See Schleusner’s Lexicon. The soul, is the principle of /ife, or sensation, which man shares in common with brutes; and because the soul, which is the seat of the appetites and affections, lusts and passions, is more intimately connected with thé third and lowest part, the dody, both are fre- quently styled in Scripture, ‘‘ ¢he flesh,” as con- trasted with “ the spirit ;’ and opposed thereto, by our Lord: “ The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” Matt. xxvi. 41.; or, as explained by St. Paul, “‘ the spirit is naturally inclined to good; the flesh prone to evil,” Rom. vii. 18—25.; for ** the desire of the flesh, (xo Qgovnpa rns oxpnos), Is ; death, is enmity toward Gop, for it neither zs, nor can be subservient to the law of God [of itself |: -* Cicero has a similar expression, mens cujusque, is est quis- gue, ‘ the mind of every one, is the man himself.” + Persius uses Pulpa, in the same sense. Et bona Dus ex hac sceleraté ducere pulpd, Sat. ii. 63. ( gS ) but the desire of the spirit, (ro Se Qeovnua re mvevpnclos ) is life and peace.” Rom, viii. 6, 7. There isa per- petual warfare between the flesh and the spirit. Gal. v.17. And the spirit of the natural man, is unable, of itself, to controul and subdue the flesh. Such is the confession of St. Paul/*, “I delight in * The judicious Locke says that the passage is to be under- stood even of the regenerate, of “‘ St. Paul or of any other good Christian,”’ still subject to the frailties and imperfections of human nature. Taylor, and the Arminians, suppose it spoken in the assumed character of the unregenerate. The former, is the Scriptural doctrine of the Church of England, in her Liturgy, Psalm exliii, 2.3; 1 John i. 8, 9, &c. and in her Articles, ix, X. Xv. Xvi. This mighty master of reasoning, “* Locke the physician,” has been most unreasonably and unj ustly pressed into the service of the Sabellian Unitarians ; whose peculiar tenets he rejected with abhorrence. 1, He did not believe Christ to have been «a mortal man of the seed of Adam. 2. He was neither a Ne- cessarian, nor a Materialist. 3. He believed in the Incarnation and Miraculous Conception; and in the separate nature and existence of the soul and body of Christ. And, 4. He did not scruple to use the phrase, “ for the sake of Jesus Christ,” as sig- nificant of his satisfaction and atonement. In his Tract on the Reasonableness of Christianity, referring to Christ’s declaration, John x. 18, that “he had power to lay down his life, und power to take it up again ;” Locke observes: *¢ Which he would not have said, if he had been a mortal man, the son of a man, of the seed of Adam ; or else had by transgres- ston forfeited his own life: for the wages of sin rs death; and he that hath incurred death by his own transgression cannot lay down his life for another, as bur Lord professes he did.” And in Lecke’s Vindication of this Tract, there is the following explicit disavowal of Socinianism, in answer to his adversary : “ It would have plainly appeared how idle and groundless his 7 2 ( 276 ) the law of God, according to the inward man; but I observe another law in my members warring avainst the law of my mind, and leading me cap- tive to the daw of sin, subsisting in my members.” Rom. vii. 22, 23. And he concludes his argument, charging me with Socinianism was,’—‘ for I repeat it again, there is not one word of Socinianism in it.” In his Second Vindication, he challenges his adversary to shew that he ever said, “ That Christ is not above the nature of man.” He thus paraphrases Rom. i. 3.—‘* Jesus Christ our Lord ; who, according to the fesh [i.e, as to the body which he took in the womb of the Blessed Virgin his mother] was of the poste- rity and lineage of David: uccording to the Spirit of Holiness, [i.e as to that more pure and spiritual part, which in Him overruled all, and kept even his frail flesh holy and spotless from the least taint of sin, and] was of another extraction,” &e. Upon this, he has the following note:—‘¢ Spirit of Holiness, must mean that more pure and spiritual part in him which by Divine extraction he had immediately from God: unless this be understood, the antithesis is lost, fas contrasted with, according to the flesh. | And this Divine extraction, he thus more fully explains, in his Reasonableness, &c. ‘“* Gov out of his infinite mercy, willing to bestow eternal life on mortal men, sends Jesus Christ into the world ; who, being conceived in the womb of a virgin (that had not known man) by the immediate power of God, was properly THE SON oF Gop: according to what the Angel declared to his mother, Luke i. 30—35. So that being the Son of God, he was like his Father, IMMoRTAL; as he tells*us, John v. 26.” &c. ) In his notes on Ephes. i. 4. and 6. he observes: ‘ It was in consideration of Christ alone, that God, heretofore, before the foundation of the world, designed us Gentiles, to be his people.” —‘“ And this, for the sake of his Son Jesus Christ, who was Ins beloved.” € Bae ) “ So then, J myself, (avtos eyw), with the mind serve the law of Gop, but with the flesh, the law sin,” ver. 25. And he elsewhere declares, “* But I mor- tify my body, and bring it under subjection [to the spirit | lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, Z myself, (av4os) might become a cast- away.” 1 Cor. ix. 27. “ If by any means, I might attain to the ertraordinary resurrection (ctavasaaw) of the dead, {at the first resurrection, Rev. xx. 4, 5.] not as though I had already acquired, or were already perfected.” Phil. ii. 2. The like conflict, is noticed by the Heathen poets and philosophers. Sed trahit INVITAM nova vis ; altudgue CUPIDO, Mens aliud suadet: VipxEo meliora proBogue, Deteriora sequor! “ But I am reluctantly drawn by a new power: My reason this, but passion that persuades ; The better part I see, and I approve, The worse, I follow.” Ovid. Met. vii. 19. And Cicero thus describes the Philosophers of his age: Cai aabeariituete philosophorum ais gui ita sit moratus, ita animo et vita constitutus, ut RAT1LO postulat? Qui disciplinam suam, non ostentationem scientia, non legem vite putet ? Qui obtemperet ipse sibi, et decretis suis pareat 2? ‘* Which of the philo- sophers is to be found, whose moral conduct, in disposition and life, is such as reason requires? Who considers not his philosophy rather as a display of learning, than as a rule of life? Who listens to hig ( 278 ) own conscience, and obeys its dictates?” Tuscul. Disp. 11. 4. Compare Rom. ii. 14, 15; with Ephes. ii. 3. 3. “ The world indeed, by human wisdom, knew not Gop,” at any time, without the light of Reve- lation, 1 Cor. i. 21. “ Such knowledge was too wonderful and excellent to be attained,” merely by the will of the flesh,” the suggestions of the moral sense, or instinct ; or by “ the will of the spirit of man,” the dictates of reason or conscience ; the suf- ficiency of which has been the idle boast of Philoso- phists, Deists, and Unitarians, ancient and modern. The wisest and best of the Heathen philosophers, long before the coming of Christ, felt and acknow- ledged the insufficiency of man’s faculties, for the discovery of Divine Trurn; and also the neces- sity of some Divine Reason, or Oracte*, to * The following conversation of the wisest of the Heathen philosophers, Socrates, with his favourite pupil Alcibiades, is recorded by Plato, in his Phedon. SOCRATES. Concerning such matters, to know clearly (cuges srdevcxs) in the present life, is either impossible, or extremely diffi- cult. One of these two things then we should endeavour to effect: either to learn from others, or to find out ourselves, THE TRUTH. Or, if this be impossible, to take the best and most unexceptionable of human Oracles (avSpwaswwy Aoywv) as our guide; and borne on this, as on a raft, sail through the ha- zardous [ocean] of life: unless we might be enabled to pass through more securely and safely, on some firmer vessel, or Diving ORACLE (Acyz# Osx.) 2. And that this Oracle was conceived to be a person, and even a man, we learn from the following curious passage of Plato's Alcibiades. ( 279 ) instruct the world how to behave towards Gop, and towards men. At length, “ when the fedness of Socrates. We must needs wait then, Alcibzades, until we can learn how we ought to behave toward Gop and toward EN. AxciprapEs. When shall this time come, Socrates? aud who shall be the Instructor ? For I long to see this man (Tete soy avSpwmov) whoever he is. Socrates. Jie it is who careth for thee (@ meres wees o8s) And I think, that as Minerva [the Goddess of wisdom] in Homer, (Iliad. v. 127.) removed the mist from the eyes of Diomedes, that he might well know both Gods and men; so is it necessary in the first place, that he should remove the mist from your soul, that is now attached thereto; and next, that he should apply the means by which you shall know both good and evil in future ; for now you seem not to be able. ALCIBIADES. Let him remove the mist, or whatever else it is, since Iam prepared to decline none of his directions, whosoever this man ts, (isis wor est 6 avQpwores) provided I may be enabled to become better. Socrat. Truly that same person (xanssvos) hath a wonderful regard for thee. é , AucisiabD. I think then the best way will be to postpone sacrificing until that time. ~Socrat. You think right, for it is safer, than to run so great a risk [of sacrificing improperly ]. AtciBpiap. Then indeed shall we give to THE ee crowns, and other legitimate offerings, when I see that day coming. And it will come, THE Gons willing, inno long time. 3. We further learn from Eupolis, the pupil also of Socrates, about B.C. 440, that this ORACLE, or DIVINE TEACHER, was to be associate with tur Deity in the providential care and instruction of mankind, in the following extract of his admi- rable Hymn To THE CREATOR, translated by Mr. Saniuel Wesley, father of the founder of Methodism. ( 280 ) time came,” in this, as well as in other respects, “ Gop sent forth his own Son, born of a woman, born under ¢he law [for man] to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adop- tion of Sons [of Gop]” Gal. iv. 4, namely, “ alZ believers in his name,” before the law, under the law, and under the Gospel, who were ‘ born anew of Gop,” or “ regenerated by his Hoty Spirit.” John ii. 3—6; Tit. ili. 5; and who humbly and earnestly endeavoured “ to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling,” convinced, from a deep sense of the frailty and infirmity of human nature, even in the best men, that it is “‘ Gop, and Gop only, that woerketh in us both to will, and to— perform, of his own good pleasure.” Phil. ii. 12, 13. “ Be not high-minded but fear.” Rom. xi. 20. “ Let him that thinketh he standeth [in sinless per- fection], take heed lest he fall,’ 1 Cor. x. 12. ‘* For in many things we all slip, even the perfect man ;” (tedra0s enc) Jam. ili. 2; even “ the spiri- tual,” (avevxparimos) I Cor. ill. 13 xiv. 37. “¢ And yet a greater Hero far, (Unless great Socrates could err) Shall rise to bless some future day, And teach to dive, and teach to pray. Come, UNKNOWN InstRucror, come ! Our leaping hearts shall find thee room ; Tuov with Jove. our vows shail share, Of Jove and tuKE we are the care !” The whele translation is given entire in Dr. Coke’s Life of Mr. John Wesley, p. 20; and a fuller extract, in Hales’s New Analysis of Chr onology, vol, il. p. 1231, 1232, ( 981 ) 14. Kai & Aoyos Gaps eysveTo’ Mai eoxnvwoev ey AUIY— MANONS KApiTos uae arknseias. Every part of Dr. C.’s paraphrase of this. most important passage, is highly reprehensible : “ Tis [illustrious revealer of the di- vine will] was a man [of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, Isa. lui. 3,] avd [for a short time] dwelt among us, full of kindness and truth, [with all the openness of friendship. ]” His object evidently was, to degrade THE ORACLE to a mere man; and for this he has not scrupled to falsify the sacred text. The correct rendering and meaning is, “ and the Oracle became flesh ; divesting himself of the glory which he had with the Father, before the world was, John xvii. 5, as ‘‘ the God of glory,” Acts vii. 2, and “ the Lord of glory,” 1 Cor. 1.8; he hum- bled himself to become man, Phil. ii. 6, 7; and “ in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit,’ Heb. iv. 15. Art. xv. And like the glorious Skechinah, or pre- sence of the Lord, under the law, he tabernacled among us, “‘ fell of grace and truth,” still the same Lorp, who proclaimed himself to J/oses, “ THe Lorp, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,” &c. Exod. xxxiv. 6,7. “* For ye know the grace (or graciousness) ot our Lorp Jesus Curist, that having been rich, (wrsows wv) for your sakes he became poor (exrwyxevae) that ye through his poverty might become rich.” (xn exes mrwxeg wrasrnonre) 2 Cor. vill. 9. Dr. C., who strangely perverts this passage, contending, ( 989 ) that Christ was rich and poor, at the same time; figuratively rich in miracles, &c. and literally poor, or a pauper ; yet admits that ‘‘ it may be inter- preted in reference to his pre-evistent state,” p. 42, 231, 232, And it must be so interpreted by every scholar, who knows that the participle wy, is inde- finitely applied to past existence, as well as to present, as in the declaration of the man blind from his birth, “ One thing I know, that having been blind, (repros wv) I now see, (agri Rrcnw) J shin ix. 25, This case is precisely in point; except Dr. C. will contend, that this object of miraculous mercy, and grace, could be blind and yet see, at the same time! Well might our blessed Lord say, on this, as on a former occasion: “ Have I been (su) so long with you, (ue¥ suv) and dost thou not know me, Philip !” John xiv. 9. Our Lord, indeed, conversed familiarly with his disciples, “ in all the openness of friendship,” but still in all the majesty of the only begotten Son of God, as appears from the parenthetical passage : ——Kat ebexoapedte rny dokay aure, Sokay ws mwovoyevss Woepas xatpos. Dr. C.’s interpretation of this is insuffer- able: ‘ And we were witnesses to his glory ; glory as of an only son from a father, [we saw the glo- rious displays of divine power, by which his autho- rity was confirmed, and the approbation of God manifested.” Here Dr. C. refers his glory prin- cipally to the miracles he performed, which cer- tainly were a branch of his glory, John ii. 11. p. 65, vote. But these could not have been here the ( 283 ) principal objects of contemplation, because Moses also wrought miracles, but only as a servant, not as ason. His glorious transfiguration, in company with JMJoses and Elijah, and his glorious ascension into heaven, in the presence of his apostles, were more decisive proofs, that his glory was indeed, “not as of an only son from a father,” “merely by comparison, and indefinitely, but as the words are afterwards used definitely, verse 18,” ‘¢ a glory suitable to the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON from THE Fatuer.” The phrase, 6 povoyeyns vios, is thus finely explained by Lheophylact 10 lS Has LOVOS, B KapeTs viosy arn 5 e& aurns rns sows te Llarpos yewndeas. ‘S Lhe one and only Son, not by grace, but begotten of the very substance of the Father.” Comment. in Matt. xvi. 6, as when God declared, “ Thou art my Son, this day have J begotten thee,” Ps. ii. 7. There is indeed a climav in the application of the title Son of God, in Scripture: Prophets, Saints, and holy men, are * Sons of God,” in a general and spiritual sense ; the first Adam was “ the Son of God,” in regard to his miraculous origin; but no one, except THE sE- cond ApAamM,—the Lord from heaven—was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON oF Gop; a title entirely peculiar to Christ, xere oxeoy Enrorepay, “ according to a higher relation,” as G. Nazianzen expresses it; ‘a relation,”“as our learned Barrow says, “ in its kind, singular, and incomparable, from which all others are excluded.” Nares’s Remarks on the Umtarian Version, p. 287. ( 284 ) After this testimony of the Apostles to the Divine glory of the Oracle, as the only begotten Son of God, the Evangelist properly introduces the testi- mony of the Baptist in a parenthesis, which he had reserved for this place, avowing his own inferiority to Curisv. Twavns [HOTULEL BEL MUTB, HAL KMEKOaTYE, Asywy' Osros ny ov eizov' “O omiaw pe epyomevos, ELMOOOSEY pL yeryover’ OTe apuros ue mv. Dr. C.’s paraphrase of this passage is loose and incorrect. > It may more closely be ren- dered and explained thus, “ John testified concern- ing him, and: cried, saying, This was he, of whom I spake, who coming after me, [in time] hath been before me, [in rank] for he was before me, [in time or existence. | Here the first and last xy, “ was,” remarkably in- timate Christ’s pre-evistence, Tgwros is used in the sense Of sxgoregos, ‘ before,” in point of time ; as when our Lord warned his disciples of their en- suing persecutions: “ If the world hateth you, know, that it hath hated me before you (aewrov duwy) —“ if they persecute me, they will also persecute you,” John xv. 18—20. It seems to be rather unskilfully rendered “ my superior,” by Dr. C., for in that sense, the phrase should be & ¢pwros, with the article prefixed, as rw xpwrw rns nos, “ the chief of the island,” or the governor, Acts xxviii, 7.— ai xewror re daw, “‘ the chiefs of the people,” Luke x1x. 47, &c. EyuspooSey is an adverb of place, im- plying “ before,” as opposed to omisSev,. behind,” Rev. iv. 6; and here signifying precedence in rank ( 985 ) or dignity; as confirmed by the parallel passages of John’s testimony: ‘* He that cometh after me, is mightier than J, ein us ety) Whose shoes {am not worthy to carry,” Matt. iil, 11; ‘* The fatchet of whose shoes I ain not worthy to un- loose,’ John 1. 27. Having thus stated the supe- riority of Christ above John, both in pre-existence and rank, the Evangelist proceeds to state his supe- riority above Jfoses likewise. 16, 17. Kar ex re trupwparos avre nmeis Mavres ehaPourty, HAL KapPly KVTL KAITOS. OTl O VOLL0S dia Mocews E00gN, n apis xarnarnsee, dialnos Xpisscyeveroe Dr. C.’s pa-, raphrase of this passage is also loose and incorrect. It may be more closely rendered and explained thus: “ And of his fulness [of grace and truth, verse 14,] we all, [Jews and Christians] received; even the grace [ot the Gospel] instead of the grace [of the law:] for the [grace of the] law was given by Moses; but the grace and the truth [of the Gos- pel] was effected by Jesus Cunisr.” In this concise passage, the sense of which can only be developed by filling up the ellipses, the Apostle contrasts the grace of the Law of Moses, with the higher grace of the Gospel of Curist; his last and- best gift to mankind; here styled pre- eminently, ‘‘ the grace and the truth,” or “ the true grace OF Gop,” as explained by St. Peter ; 1 Pet. v.12. For the law, though “ holy, just, and good, and spiritual,” Rom. viil. 12, 14, was no more than “ the shadow of good things to come ;” But “ the Gospel of Curist, the body or ( 286 ) substance,” Heb. x.1; Col. ii, 17. For, “ Canis? was the mediator of a new and better covenant, which was enacted upon better promises,” Heb. vill. 6. ‘ The law was only a schoolmaster to bring us to Curist; that we might be justified by faith in Curisr Jesus, from all offences, from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses,” Gal. iv. 24; Acts xiii. 38, 39. The law, indeed, was given to the Israelites, by the ministry of Moses, for the government of that single nation, Deut. iv. 6, 7. But the Gospel was graciously offered to all mankiad, Jews and Gentiles, for a universal code of laws ; the benefits and privileges of which were effected by the incarnation, humilia- tion, and atonement of Jesus Currst. The Gospel, therefore, was originally designed to succeed and supersede the old Patriarchal and Mosaical dis- pensations, in the fulness of time, when mankind were ripe for a new and more spiritual dispensation, We al Be Ya phrase xzpis aves yapiros, is in- correctly rendered by Dr. C. “ Grace beyond Grace,” for this sense of avr, is unusual, and not to be found in the New Testament: its usual meaning is, “ for, instead of; in the place of,” operpoy avr: oPSarux, ‘an eye for an cye,” Matt. v. 285 xanoy avti xane, “* eou for ev,” Rom. xii. LF avti ixSvos of, “ a serpent instead of a fish,” Luke xi. 11, &c. And Philo appears to use it in the ordinary sense, in the following fine passage, re- markably analogous to the text: “ Gop is always sparing of his first graces (mpwras xapiras) and after- ( “BBs: -) wards gives other graces, in their stead, (avr? sxsw) and a third sort instead of the second; and always new ones instead of the old ; sometimes different, at other times the same, in kind.” Vol. I. p. 254, Ed. Mangey. The Evangelist now closes his Introduction by assigning a reason, why THE ORACLE, or the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, Jesus Curist, became flesh and blood, or man. 18. @eov sdess EWPAKE TwTore’ o fAOVOYEVIS LOS, 6 WY aS TOY xohroy +# Llarpos, exewvos cknynoaro. This passage may more closely be rendered and explained thus: Gop [the Father] no one hath seen at any time: the _ only begotten Son, who is on His bosom, that [Son] expounded this spiritual nature, and true worship, to mortals. John iv. 24.] The invisibility of Tot Derry, is here assigned as the true reason of the necessity of an Oracular expositor. For this is the meaning of the technical term Efnynrns, in the Heathen classics, Herodotus, &c. and as defined by Cicero, Enynras, proprie vo- cantur c#remoniarum, portentorum, et prodigiorum interpretes. ©eoy, 1s connected with rey Tarega, un- derstood, by a usual enallage of the genitive, ze Ilarpos, expressed. As, Urbem quam statuo, vestra est—instead of Urbs quam statuo, &c. Virgil. “* The bosom of the Father,” is a meta- phor, expressive of the Asiatic mode of reclining at table, in the most honourable place, next the master of the house, as the beloved disciple John, on Jesus’ bosom; as Lazarus, in the parable, on ( 988 ) Abrahams bosom, John xiii. 23; Luke xvi. 293. Thus did the all gracious, and ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, who is in the most intimate union with THE Taruer, condéscend to come down from heaven, where he was before, Jchn vi. 62, to bless his chosen people, the Jews, in the first instance, by turning every one who heard him, from their evil ways; and also, the Gentile world, who sate in darkness and the shadow of death, by turning them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God; as alight to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel; by expounding to both the spiritual nature, and true worship of THE Derry. A design, indeed, worthy of Gop THE Fatruer to originate, and of Gop THE ORACLE and THE Son to execute!—O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of Gop! how unsearchable Hts judgments, and untraceable His ways! For who knew the mind of THE Lorn, or who becanie His Counsellor?—None but THE Oracle, or primeval and eternal Wispom— who is justified by all her children! Acts i. 26; Aets’xxvi- 18: seuke.i 293-11 323 Matt. ENE: Rom. xi. 33. eg! In the foregoing idle, and audacious parody of the grand mystery of the Gospel, equally repugnant to “ the divine authority of Hoty Scripture,” and to “ the just rules of interpretation,” those true standards of sacred criticism, noticed by Griesbach, as we have seen: Dr. Carpenter has trod closely in the steps of his prototype, Socinus, ( 289 ) so well described by the learned Witsius, and con- trasted with the Christian Critic. Solicitat verba singula, solicitat nerum eorum, Slectit, torquet, omnia agit, ne id dicere videantur quod dicunt. Nos longe aliter procedendum exis- timamus: Accedimus ad hanc pericopam (5 Aoyes ozp& eyevero, John 1, 14.) simplici gtque humili mente, auditurt atque accepturi quicguid Deo nos placeat docere. “ He strains every single word, he strains their connexion, he turns and twists them, he tries every way, that they might not seem to say what they do say. We think, that a pro- cedure quite different should be adopted; with a simple and humble mind, disposed to hear and receive whatever Gop is pleased to teach us, we approach, with awe and reverence, to the consideration of this clause, the Oracle became flesh.” The whole passage, indeed, which is too long for insertion here, is worth attending to: it may be found, Witst Miscellanea Sacra, Tom. ii. Pp. 591, 592, ora copious extract, in Dean Magee’s Atone- ment, Vol. I. p. 189, 190. I shall humbly substitute the following para- phrase, collected frém the materials scattered throughout the foregoing Remarks. PARAPHRASE oF JOHN i, I~18. 1, 2. In the beginning [of all things, and before all things, Col. i. 17, from the days of eternity, Micah v. 2.] was THE oRACLE, [the ONLY BE- GOTTEN SON oF Gop, verses 14—18, JEsus Curist, verse 17, the same yesterday, and to day, VoL. i U ( 990 ) and for ever, Heb. xiii. 8.] And the Oracle was with THe Gop [supremsE, Luke i. 32, being in the bosom of THE Faruer, verse 18.] And the Oracle [himself] was Gop. [Assuredly] This [Ora- cle] was with THE Gon. . 3. All things were made by him (the Oracle ;] and without him was not any thing made, that hath been made, {visible or invisible, material or spiri- tual, in heaven and iz earth, Col. i. 16.) . 4, 5. In Him was life, {as the way, the truth, and the life, John xiv. 6.] and the life was the ight of men, [the light of the world, John Vil. 125 to turn them from darkness to. light, from the power of Satan unto Gop; to guide their feet into the way of peace, Acts xxvi. 18.]° And the light shineth (continually] én the darkness [of the world,] but the darkness comprehended it not, \or did not clearly understand it; while they sought to seck THE Lorn, if haply they might grope him out, and find Him, Acts xvii. 27, worshipping they knew not what, John iv. 22, but worshipping and serving the Crea- tion more than tux Creator, who is blessed for evermore. Amen. Rom. i. 25.] 6—9. (There was a man, {who was] sent from God; his name was John. This [man] came for a testimony, to testify concerning the light; to the end that all might believe, through Hun (the light, and be saved: He that believeth in Tuy Son hath life eternal ; but he that disbelieveth in the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, John iii. 36.) John was not that {person} the a f ( 291 ) heht, but [came] fo testify concerning the light : [that] was the true light which enlighteneth every man, coming into the world. ) 10. He was in the world, [from the beginning, } and the world was made by Him; but the world knew him not, [as their Creator, in general, during the whole of the Patriarchal dispensation, from the Creation to the Deluge, and from the Deluge to the Mosaical dispensation.] 11. He came unto his own {home,] but his own [ household, the children of Israel,| did not receive him [as their tutelar God. They forsook the God who made them, and chose them to be a peculiar treasure to himself; and slighted the Rock of their salvation! Deut. xxxii. 15; Exod. xix. 4; Matt. Xx. 37.] 12. Nevertheless, as many as accepted him, funder the Patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations] to them gave he authority, [or privilege] to become children of God; even to them who believe in his name [at any time ;] who were not [privileged] of bloods, [peculiarly favoured races, seeds, stocks, or casts of men, as the race of Shem, the seed of Abra- ham, the stock of Israel, &c. the casts of the Bra- mins, &¢c. | nor of the will of the flesh, [any boasted “oral sense, or instinct,] nor of the will of [the | spirit of | man [or sufficiency of reason or conscience, — to discover what is called Natural Religion, as opposed to Revealed] but were born [anew] of Gop, [or regenerated by his Hoty Spixtr John i. 55 Tit. ii. 5; Phil. ii, 13.) U2 ( 992 ) 14. And He Oracie became flesh [or man and tabernacled among us {at the Gospel dispensation] —full of grace and truth, {in this his last and best gift to mankind.] And we [his Aposiles, particu- larly, Peter, James, and John,] beheld his glory, fat his Transfiguration and Ascension into heaven] @ glory suitable to the ONLY BEGOTTEN Sow [par- taking of the same nature and essence with THE Farurr, Psalm ii, 7.; John v. 18.; Rom. vii. 32. 5 as the God of glory, Acts vii. 2, and the Lord of glory, 1 Cor. ii. 8.] 15. (John testified concerning Him, and cried, -saying, This was he of whom I spake ; who coming after me [in time] hath been before me, [in rank, dignity, and power,] for He was before me [in ex- istence. |) 16. And of his fulness (of grace and truth, verse 14.] we all received [both Jews and Gentiles] even the grace [of the Gospel] instead of the grace {of the law :\ for [the grace of ] the Law was given by [the ministry of | Moses; but the grace and the truth [of the Gospel, or the true grace of God, 1 Pet. v. 12.] was effected by Jesus Curist. 18. Gop [THE FaTHER,]| 0 one hath seen at any time. The only begotten Son, who ts in his bosom, he expounded {his spiritual nature and true worship *to mortals, John iv. 24. ] In this plain, rational, and scriptural imterpreta- tion, some new and important lights, 1 humbly trust, are thrown on the obscurity of the concise and elliptical original; in which, every word almost ( 293 ) conveys a sentence, and more is understood than expressed: }. By closer translation of elementary and technical words and phrases, ev aoxn, &§ @eos, @cos, ualeraBev, ex Yernwalos avdoos, eknynoalo, Kc. Q. By distinguishing more critically, the several dispensa- tions of the Oracle, the Patriarchal, Legal, and Evangelical ; of which the last two are usually confounded together. 3. By marking more expli- citly, the superior excellence of the Gospel super- seding the Law, as, yeas wh xaeilos, ex wAnoayralos aus. Irom hence, we are abundantly warranted to infer, that Jesus, though descended, as THE Curisv, from the Patriarchs, according to the flesh, is over all, Gop blessed for evermore. Amen. Rom. ix. 5", For, in the language of the Baptist, “ He * This important text, Rom. ix. 5, bears decisive attestation to the joint human and divine nature of Jesus CHRIST 3; Instrict conformity with the parallel passage, Rom. i. 3, 4. +; and with John i. 1, 14. And its authenticity is unimpeachable ; for it is found in all the manuscripts of this Epistle; in all the versions 3 and in most of the Fathers ; who have cited it from the second to the sixth century. It has therefore, long galled the Arian, Socinian, and modern Sabellian schools. Not being able to question its authenticity, they have ene deavoured to set aside or invalidate its evidence, by various — modes of punctuation: but how unsuccessfully, we may learn . even from a Unitarian critic, Wakefield. : ** Some critics (see Griesbach’s note) have proposed to diss eee t And itis expressly so explained by Theodoret, A. D, 423, who considers she God over all, in this place, as analogous to, “ ordained Son of God in power,” See Pearson on the Creed, p. 133. ( 294 ) that cometh from the heaven, is above all,” John ili, 31.; and also, that “‘ He is Lorp of all,” Acts tinguish the verse in the following manner: ‘ Of whom, were the Fathers, of whom, was the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all, be blessed for ever. Amen’ Orthus: ‘ Of whom, were the Fathers, of whom was THE Curist according to the flesh, who is over all. God be blessed for ever. Amen.’ Both these constructions, (though the original will certainly admit them) appear so awkward, so abrupt, so incoherent, that it must be confessed, I never yet could bring myself to relish them in the least degree. There seems to be no reason, from the spirit of the context, for such an instantaneous and solemn conversion from the main subject to the Deity: nor do I belicve that a parallel instance of so disjointed an address can be produced from the whole Bible.” Wakefield’s Enquiry inte the Opinions of Christian Writers, &c. Vol. i. pp. 162, 163. Notwithstanding this well founded censure of the most learned of their body, “ that eminent scholar, Gilbert Wake- feeld,” (as the editors of the Unitarian Version term him, Introduction, p. iii.) they have not scrupled to adopt the former of those punctuations ; rejecting their standard, also, Newcome’s Translation, which follows the received punctuation, and “ the most obvious,” as allowed by Clarke on the Trinity, No. 539, whom, by a strange inadvertence, they quote in their favour! There is a fourth punctuation, analogous to the received and perhaps preferable thereto: “ Of whom was the Christ, according to the flesh: who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.” This is supported, by 1. The venerable Irencus, A. D. 178. “ Because he is Emanuel, lest we should think him man only, the Apostle saith : ‘ Of whom, as~-concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever,” (qui est Deus super omnes, benedictus in seculas) Whitby. ( 295 ) x. 36.; which is thus judiciously interpreted by Dr. Carpenter: “ Why He is called Lorn of all, the connexion shews at once; He is the spiritual Sovereign of both Jews and Gentiles; He is the Lord of the dead and of the living (Rom. xiv. 9.) ; 2. Hippolytus, A.D, 220. ‘ This is he, who being over all, is God ; for so he saith expressly, All things are delivered to me by my Father.” (&r@ & wy ess gravrav @rog sols) Clarke, No. 539. 3. Cyprian, A.D. 248. “ Of whom is Christ ; who is God over all, blessed for evermore,” (qui est Deus super omnia, bene- dictus in @vum omne). Pearson. 4. Hilary, A.D. 380. ‘‘ Paui was not ignorant that Christ is God, when he says, ‘‘ Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom is Christ, who is God over all,” (qui est super omnia Deus). And Hilary adduces this, and other passages, to prove, that we have one God, not a single God, (quod Deus nobis unus, non solus) Dean Magee, Postscript. 5. Chrysostom, A. D. 398, recites the teat, as in the received reading 3 though he passes it over in his Commentary, but he plainly intimates that it is there, in his addition, ‘ ascribing the thanksgiving for all, to Him the only begotten Son of God.” Griesbach has confused his testimony, as noticed by Dean Magee, Postscript, p. 112—114. 6. Epiphanius, A. D. 368, exactly follows Hippolytus. Clarke. 7» To Mr. Belsham himself we owe the following admirable explanation, furnished by one of “ those great critics the fratres Polon.” ** It is singular, that even Slichtingius considers the phrase, ‘ God over all,’ as more appropriate to Christ, who was made Regent of the Universe; than to the Supreme Being himself :—Christo rectius hic titulus convenit; ut intellige- retur Christum, non super quedam tantum, sed super omnia Dominum ac Deum effectum esse.” Calm Enquiry, p. 2240 What need we further witness >This crowns the whole. ( 296 ) inasmuch as he has power over the dead, to raise them ‘o life again; and authority over the living to command their obedience and devotedness to Him; and He is the Lord of glory (1 Cor. ii. 8.), since it is from his hands, that the faithful disciple will receive the glory, honour, and immortality, which Gop has promised to all who obey Him.” (Rom. He7. >; Web: We OE Gor aay) Ps 278, O st sic omnia! —— Wishing most sincerely for Dr. C.’s conversion: that he may indeed soon be numbered among “the faithful disciples,’ when the vail or mist shall be removed, that has hitherto clouded his understand- ing, from discerning the glorious majesty of ouR GREAT Gop and Lorp; (Titus i. 13.; Acts x. 36.3 John xx. 28.) I shall close this Letter, with an earnest and anxious entreaty that he will “ retrace his steps * ;"— Before he go hence, and be no more seen!” The more carefully and skilfully this sub- lime introduction is studied, with an honest and good heart, free from prejudice and vice, the more must it be admired by the wise and good, to the end of the world; as the last, the noblest, and the most finished composition, of the most beloved, and most highly illuminated Apostle of the circumcision ; in strict unison and accordance with the abundance of revelations, vouchsafed to that consummate philo- * —— Iterare cursus cogor relictoss Horat. Od. 1. xxxiv. 4. ( 297 ) sopher, the great, the illustrious Apostle of the Gentiles, after his conversion. “ Hail, Sox or Gov, SAVIOUR OF MEN, THY NAME Shall be the copious matter of my song Henceforth ; and never shall my harp THY PRAISE Forget, nor from THY FATHER’S PRAISE disjuin f” ‘littTox. hag Val > 5 y's) ie ¥ + A! i ou) . y ‘ v ‘" "fs ‘ ‘ “wh ‘ *) * Vo ny) ry \ 1 * . hi _ 4 1097, Vy . | * Sie ‘S +5, Sth ope meh mae v4 pt i ‘a nh iss ‘ rs iy, en a ah om as, a 1} oe a i, ear ‘ ‘ % sty fs ‘i ei ae mir 7 < Le Recs 1 mann We; ne Seley Soe PEN iy deg coNavg nt ws Sa eda, ee we . | ge ES : as ay hay ‘ mee = Hoa Sie eh rity ant aa ere c tt “yi apn * ny DY Eh is Ge ise: Core he me a Giay y 4 i “i 7 . opts wi 4 “ Pee | ai we @! . + d ry 7 Pies ij qynntentet Ay Bek acheter eta ay ide A la “AS his. sg oe cee shin cate i) prncenies ‘ &, 1 > ‘; , ee’ j 14 ars ‘ spo i A Pade : o : i Vie ae. re f \ , wih ae , 2 7. Mh .* ‘A ! Ahir Croan fee Cert ee ee . f ; . ieee han vote A ve 1 Chee aw ory : é 2 ay ee ae 2 is jae wr Ake on ie = eet %, 2 ie es . wae Scar 4 ft Nei: Be tes Saas as wale G a '* 7 “ ay oy inn i’ a Ast at 4 ‘Oi a cen wn aid ‘ia Bir ined Eas, - Ay ale Bex bee a sat bhi ate i al eS A ght a ernie aie if “9 ' 7 . ae ae ae Lyi: ghee PA TRY Poe vows ee, eNO Ls Bey g e - eed | hee gs Dace Yih ; oh Od | XK, mh oe ae *s M4 i" r 1) sew : bag dotees ne enerencse ‘ue 8 Nay wr < ner ‘ihe ae tiles ia® yh age eee: ice hae yt Liadbaes i yor at a 1 \ » 7 he as = roe las i y e " ts o re ye A fv pe J t ‘ pets: yaad f at yun ; a « il ‘ y sy iz awe 4 ~ : rd rr eae ; : \ . Le A | ‘ . ‘ ~ | * 9 f id ’ é OR ae ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. PAGE 28, line 21, additional note, “« Mr. Aspland +.” + Mr. Aspland, the professed moderator between the con- tending parties in this controversy: though a decided par- tizan of Mr. Belsham’s, yet contrives to reconcile two things apparently incompatible, and even contradictory; the general and the particular sense of the term Unitarian; so as to serve all the purposes of proselytism that the managers of the term, ** the proper Unitarians’? may require. His ingenuity can only be conceived by reading his Letters, in the Repository. See Dean Magee’s Postscript, p. 358 The following astronomical illustration of the various shades of mextal obscuration attached to the several classes of pro- fessed Unitarians ; ascending, from the thick and settled darkness of the benighted Sabellian, up to the highest, and least obscured, the Semi-Arian or “ almost Christian :? is far- nished by the Dean, and. addressed to a distinguished oppo- nent of Mr. Belsham’s. Postscript, p. 358. ** I cannot better represent the nature of this term Unita- vian, as it is now used, than by an illustration, which there is undoubtedly one Unitarian who will comprehend; but he, a Unitarian far removed from the class to which Mr. Belsham would confine the name; as he has proved by his writings in the controversy to which I have referred. It will be readily understood, and for obvious reasons, that J mean Mr. Frend.’’ ‘¢ The illustration to which I allude, is derived from the lunar shadow [in solar eclipses]: which, if the term [shadow] be restricted to the direct cone, [converging ] sends its darken- ( 300 ) sng influence but to a small portion of the earth’s surface, Fnamely, that which it covers with its tip] but if the term be conceived to extend to the [diverging] penumbral space, spreads its partial obscuration to a comparatively wide spuce indeed. ‘In like manner, to the [proper] Unitarian (in Mr. Bel- sham’s more contracted use of the appellation), to whom, the whole Sun or Ricureousness (Mal. iv. 2.) is eclipsed, the ‘range is proportionally contracted: but they, to whom in a greater latitude of the term, different degrees of encreasing illumination are transmitted, spread over a wider extent, enjoy the benefit of progressively increasing light; until at length, [receding totally from the central darkness,| they [xeach, and | pass the [penumbral limits, or] boundaries of partial ob- scuration, and emerge into the bright sunshine of open and perfect day.’’ (Prov. iv. 18.) This elegant and apposite imagery, (here expanded, for the sake of less informed readers), will, I trust, have due weight with the sczentific scholar, to whom it was, and is, immediately: addressed ; and lead him ingenuously to pass those penumbral dzmets in theology, within which he has been hitherto unhappily confined, by early prejudices of education, and perhaps, by want of leisure since, to explore the mystery of the Gospel. As an Hebrean too, Mr. Frend is more competent to judge of the comprehensive ‘ prophetic argument,” in support of Christ’s divinity, now perhaps, first brought to a brighter focus of illustration, in these shects, AppitionaL Text. Page 3], line 18. “ Vol. x. p.398.” This association, is not unlikely to spread, among the Literary classes, especially ; from the sudiale sophistry of that fashionable historian’ and mischievous metaphysician, Flume, the Deist, so congenial to Sabellian Unitarianism. In Ireland, if we may judge from the parliamentary debates, some association | seems to be already formed. A leader of the Uideralists in the house of commons, Sir John Newport, near the close of the last session, ‘¢ moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend that (( 307 } toleration to the Unitarians of Ireland, which they now enjoy in England. The laws directed against persons who did not believe in the ‘Trinity, enacted in England, by the 1st of Wil- liam and Mary, and 2d of Anne, had been extended to res land: what he wished was, to extend to Ireland the 53d Geo. Uf. chap. 4. by which the toleration laws had been repealed in England ; and also, 19th Geo. II. chap. 4. by which, in- stead of a declaration of belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, a declaration was admitted, in certain cases, of a belief that the Scriptures contained the revealed will of God.” “ Mr. Peel and Mr. Croker doubted whether the act of 53 Geo. III. did not actually extend to Ireland.—Sir J. New- poré was of opinion it did not.” “ Leave was given to bring in the bill.” This motion, and the leave thus given, in a desultory way, as a mere matter of course, furnishes a subject of serious and awful consideration, to the zealous friends of the Established Church; when they see “ the ancient landmarks’’ of the con- stitution, ‘‘ set up”’ by the wisdom and virtue of our “ fore- Jathers,” and sealed with their blood; so insidiously and sur- reptitiously ‘* removed,”’ at the close of the session of 1813, and hurried through thin houses of parliament; while the Prelates, those constitutional guardians of the rights of the Church, were absent on their respective visitations: as loudly complained of by the primitive Bishop of St. Davia’s, in his Brief Memorial, or public protest against the passing of the act of 53 Geo. III. and the repeal of the 9th and 10th Wolliam III. God grant that the nation at large, may not have cause to repent at leisure of such a precipitate infraction of that prime and fundamental article of our religion, ‘* Or Farry 1x tHE Hoty TRINITY.” Sir John Newpori, however, does not, I presume, speak the general sense of the dissenting body; if we may judge from the letter of a respectable presbyterian minister of the academy at Belfast, in the north of Ireland, Dr. Bruce. In this letter, published in the Theological Repository, Vol. viii. and dated ( 302 ) June 10, 1813, he complains, that he and some of his intimate friends and associates in the ministry, the Rev. Dr. Moody, Mr. P. Taylor, and his partner Mr. Armstrong, the late Mr. Abernethy, &c. have all been pressed into the ranks of Socini- anism, by “ the excessive spirit of proselytism, not always con- fined to the living, which actuates so many of that sect.”—Of which letter, the following is a further extract: EMIT RY *¢ Upon looking into your Repository, for Dec. 1812, p. 753, I find my name introduced in a manner liable to misconcep- tion. It is one of those-instances, in which your readers are often misled, by the usurpation of the title of Unitarians, on the part of the Socinians. ‘This 1s a constant source of confu- sion, in your publication, and sometimes exposes it to the sus- picion of disingenuity. As I accept the denomination of Arian, without subscribing to the creed of Arius; I shall take the liberty of addressing you as a Socinian, without insinuating that you adopt any “opinions of Soctnus which you disavow. «« T have a very general knowledge of the Dissenters of this: country (Ireland) and can venture to assert, that there is not one Socinzan congregation [among them] in Ireland. In the southern association, one or fwo ministers, and about a dozen of - the laity * may entertain such sentiments. “ In the Northern counties, which contain between four and Jive hundred thousand Presbyterzans, including Seceders, 1 do not know of one minister who denies the pre-eaxistence of our Lord, though f am intimately acquainted with the most dzberal divines of that body. The Methodists, Covenanters, Moravians, and Evangelical societies, cannot be suspected of Socinianism : and the Quakers have, of late, been anxious to disclaim that doctrine. “ WILLIAM BRucE. « P.S. Since writing the above, I have been corroborated in my account, of Soctnians in Ireland, by letters from the most respectable authorities on that subject.” * Query. Does Sir John Newport, of Waterford, belong to this class 2 ( 303 ) Dr. Bruce, who professes himself an Arian, but not impli- citly, I am informed, is a Seceder, and his association does not comprize more than ten or a dozen ministers, with their con- gregations. He is not a member of the Ulster synod; who, I am told, by the presbyterian minister of this town (K7llesan- dra), profess the doctrine of the Zrinity, as taught by Dr. Doddridge and his school; and who certainly form the most considerable, and the most respectable branch of the Dissenters in Ireland. But though the Unitarian association, as an ostensible body, may be inconsiderable in Ireland; for so we may infer from Dr. Bruce’s account; yet their existence cannot be doubted, from Sir John Newport’s motion. And there is no small rea- son to apprehend that their tenets are secretly spreading among sndividuals, especially in the upper classes:—Sir John New- port himself, may, not unfairly, be reckoned one, and at a recent trial for perjury in Dublin, Oct. 31, 1817, the plaintiff, Roger O'Connor, Esq. (brother to Arthur O’Connor, impli- cated in the rebellions of 1798 and 1803), upon his examina- tion in court, when questioned “ as to his religion,’ after appealing against the question to the protection of the Judges, Daly and Mayne, who informed him that “ he would not be subject to pains or penalties, on account of his answer ;? openly and explicitly avowed, that ‘‘ He did not believe in the divine mission of Jesus Christ ;” that “ Jesus Christ, though not an impostor, might have been deceived himself, and have become the dupe of enthusiasm ;” ‘ that he did not believe ail the Jewish dispensation in the Old Testament.’ When “ gen- tlemen of rank and education,” can thus openly and uncon- trouled, deny the established religion of their country, and yet “* profess, and call themselves Christians,” there is no small cause to dread the contagious influence of this “ pestilence that walketh in darkness,” this deleterious heresy! Pace 31. The leading points at issue, &e. _aiguelaapail page 45, note. ~- «* Dele first six lines of the note, and substitute the fol- lowing, in continuation of the note page 44, ( 6M } But those * presbyters,’? were not lay-elders, but clerical, or priests, corresponding to the Scribes : “ the brethren,’ cor- responded to the Jay-elders in the Sanhedrim: “ the apostles,” to the chief-priests ; and St. James, ‘“‘ the Lord’s brother’? or cousin-german, presided in the synod, (Acts xii. 17.5; xv. 12, 1%.) like as the high-priest Caiaphas at the trial of Curis?, (Matt. xxvi. 57, &c.) and of Stephen, (Acts vi. 12—15.5 vii. 1.) and Ananias, at the trial of St. Paul (Acts xx. 30.5 xxlil. 1—5.). Pacer 45. This analogy between the Jewish and Christian Churches, &c. Pace 56. SAcRIFIcE To THE TRUTH ALONE §. Addi- tional note. § This prime canon is borrowed from Lucian. ws ds icto grav cuyypeGine %* How to write history, well.” Tom. ll, Pe 53, &c. Mon Sureoy 77 ArnSsia—ruv 0 arAwy coravrar apernteov. 6 The historian ought to sacrifice to the truth alone—regardless of all other considerations,” —pet adrnderas nas moppnovas, ‘¢ with truth and frankness.” . The same rule is recognized by Cicero, De Oratore, Libs ii. §. 15. Quis nescit primam esse Historia legem, ne quid falss dicere audeat? ne quid veri, non audeat? ne qua suspicio gratia sit in scribendo? ne qua, simultatis? “ Who knows not, that the prime law of history is this? Neither dare to say any thing false 5 nor to suppress any thing true : in writing, give no room for any suspicion either of partiality or of malice.” Which the poet Shakspeare has copied : ** Nothing extenuate, Nor set down aught in malice.’? | Pace 70, line 24, Mass of our population §. Additional note. § Mr. Belsham thus boasts of the success of their labours, in his Letters to the Bishop of London, 1815. Pp. 69,70, 79. “© The Unitarian system, has been hitherto regarded with cool indifference, by the mass of the community. [And we may ( 305 ) _ venture to add, even by the legislature]. It has little indeed to captivate the affections: notwithstanding which, it feels confident of an ultimate triumph.” ‘ The progress of truth, though sure is slow ; and we must wait with patience, till the little leaven shall spread its influence through the whole mass.” *« Even in the present day, since efforts have been made to bring the Unitarian doctrine into general notice, and to render it generally intelligible; it is surprizing to see what numbers of persons in the inferior classes of society, have abandoned the systems of mystery and enthusiasm, for that of pure and uncor- rupted Christianity.’ Fas est et ab wostTe docert. Our ruling powers both in Church and State may learn wisdom, even from the information of a decided “ enemy’? to both: the wisdom of precaution and prevention, in preference to’ * cool indifference.”’ Establishments indeed, in general, want the energy and activity of sectarism and_faction. They wish to enjoy, otium cum dignitate, “ tranquillity with their dignity.” But, as the great Roman orator and patriot judi- ciously remarked : Nonnunquam, cunctatione et tarditate, dum otium volunt etiam absque dignitate retinere, ipsi utrumque amittunt! ‘* Sometimes, however, it happens, by tardiness and procrastination, that while they wish to retain tranquillity even without dignity, themselves lose beth !” The entire passage, descriptive of the state of parties at Home, in Cicero’s time, is given, with a’ close translation, from his instructive political oration pro Sextio, in Hales’s New Analysis of Chronology, Vol. I. p- 513. And seems re- markubly apposite to the present times in these countries. Pace 79, line 1. Proper shape §. Additional note. § The “ proper shape”? of Sabellian Onitarianism, when touched by the critical spear of Truru, and stripped of its disguise, is simple Deism. This, is ably shewn by a modern “* Ithuriel,” the present learned and respectable Bishop of London, in his primary Charge to his Clergy, 1814; and strange VOL, 'Y, Bp ( 306 ) co tell, is unwittingly confirmed by ‘ the minister of Essex- street chapel,” in his Letters to the Bishop, 1815, indignantly repelling the charge ! The name of Dezsts (we may premise) was first assumed by some writers in France and Italy, about the middle of the sixteenth century ; who were willing to cover their opposition to the Christian Revelation by a more honourable name than that of Atheists. ‘They professed to believe a God, but shewed no regard to. Jesus Christ, and considered the doctrine of the Evangelists, as dreams and fables. The first, in this country, and by far the ablest, who formed Deism into a system, and asserted the sufficiency, universality, and absolute perfection of Natural Religion, with a view to discard all extraordinary revelation as useless and needless, was the celebrated Lord Herbert of Cherbury, whose principal work, De religione Gentilium, was published at Amsterdam, 1663, in quarto, and again in 1700, octavo; and an English translation of it was published in London, m 1705. Lord Herbert was followed by Hobbes, Blunt, Toland, and Lord Shaftesbury; Collins (the Freethinker), Woolston, Tindal, Morgan, Chubb, and Lord Bolingbroke ; and these were suc- ceeded by Hume, Gibbon, Paine, &c. These Deisis, or Freethinkers, having been discomfited in controversy by the champions of revealed religion, Leland in his able view of the Deistical Writers, Bishops Conybeares Clayton, Douglas, Watson, &c. Bentley, Adams, Campbell, &c. ceased to shew themselves as an ostensible body of infidels : a body, indeed, which the sober-minded piety and native good sense of the British nation, has always held in contempt, and reprobated their principles with abhorrence. Depressed, though not extinguished, the sperzt of Deism lately revived under another form, and assumed the uninvi- dious appellation of Unitarians, as the best disguise for pro- pagating their tenets without exciting suspicion. This spirit appeared in the writings of Priestley, and his associates, Lind- _ say, Evanson, &c, down to Belsharn and Carpenter, at the present day. Cae The following manly censure of their tenets is furnished by the Bishop of London in his Charge, p. 22. “< I do not hesitate to aver my conviction, that the profes- sion of Unitarian tenets affords a convenient shelter to many who would be more properly termed Deists ; and who are dis- tinguished from real Unitarians, or such as conscientiously reject the peculiar dogmas, but admit the general truths of Christianity : 1. by the boldness of their interpolations, omis- stons, and perversions of Holy Writ ; 2. by the indecency of their insinuations against the veracity of the inspired writers ; 5. by their familiar levity on the awful mysteries of religion ; and 4. by their disrespectful reflexions on the person and actions of THEIR Saviour. And thus betray the true’secret of the fimsy disguise they have assumed, as a covering from the odium of professed infidelity”? Eager to repel this charge, Mr. Belsham, in his Letters, &c, steps forward as the champion of his sect. He contends, that the Deists, or Free.thinking Infidels, could not have the slightest temptation to form any such association with his sect : “© What inducement,” says he, “ could they possibly have, to take refuge with us? what protection could we afford them, who were ourselves, till very lately, exposed to the same inhu- man and persecuting statutes with them ? what advantage could they expect from seeking refuge under our name ? (even 7f we had been willing to receive them into our community.) In our ¢nsulated society they could have found neither power, nor honour, nor emolument + we have no civil dignities, we have no ecclesiastical preferments to bestow: Lhe world is not with us, nor the world’s law.’—We are stil] but < a little flock’ — * a few sheep in the wilderness’—a sect, few in number, un- fashionable, unpopular, despised, hated, calumniated, < every where spoken against,’ and represented as ‘ men who would turn the world upside down.?.*? Letters, &c. pp. 48. 79. Certainly this is no very flattering picture, either of Mr. x2 ( 308 ) B.’s inconsiderable and tnrbulent sect, as in his vexation* he truly describes it; nor of “ the manner of spirit which he himself is 0f:’’ thus maligning the fundamental statutes of the realm, and bulwarks of the constitution : panting for the pos- session of that political power, those honours, and those emolu- ments, in Church and State, which are wisely and prudently withheld from Non-conformists ; not brooking toleration in its utmost extent and widest latitude. Mr. B. proceeds to assure his Lordship, that ‘ if this ob- noxious party of Deists had openly offered to associate them- selves with the Unitarians, their alliance would have been re- jected with indignation and disdain.” P. 49. « Ip this he has said truly.”—The “ wisdom of the serpent” would unquestionably have led him and his party to reject, with every appearance of indignation and disdain, any such overture, (or open offer of association) because it would blast their reputation, and ruin that popularity for which they hunt: but if the Deists sought a private union, a secret coalition, to blind the eyes of the public; he does not say, that such a covert proposal would have met with a “ very cold reception 5”? that such a junction of confederate forces against the esta- blished Church, (which both parties hated and reviled with equal animosity) would have been considered as ‘¢ ¢ntrusion, equally uninvited, and unwelcome.” Pp. 49. Listen to the following invective against the established reli- gion of his country, which he does not scruple to introduce in this apology for U: nitarianism. . “ The Christian Religion, as 2 is generally professed, and as it is exhibited in popular symbols, creeds, and catechisms, is go involved in corruption and errors, that it affords a broad mark to the shafts of infidelity, whether they are pointed with And is such an audacious argument or ridicule.” P. 49. and virulent invective at all likely * to strike afidelity with awe; so that her weapons drop from her hand, her shafts are lost in the air, and, conscious of inferiority and defeat, she + Veratio dat intellectum, “ Vexation sharpens the wit.’’ / € S09.) retires with shame from the contest ??’—according to his high. flown imagery. P. 50. On the contrary, will not infidelity rather hail such Unitarianism as a powerful auxiliary? and will not both cordially unite their shafts and their weapons [of sophistry and ridicule] against the corrupt and erroneous Church, in their estimation, to pull it down to the ground, and trample upon it; and then to set up on its ruins their Deistical tabernacles ? In referring to the Bishop’s four charges, Mr. Belsham readily allows, that ‘* persons really liable to them, and against whom they may be proved, are not Christians.”’ P. 56. How far he may be liable himself, let the reader judge from his own concessions respecting each charge. 1. ** Unitarians investigate and interpret the Scriptures in a way which to many of their fellow-Christians, may appear bold and disrespeciful ; but which, in their estimation, disco- vers the greatest respect for the Supreme Being.’’ P. 57. Here are contradictory ‘ estimations’? of the many and of the few ; the latter too, judges in their own cause. Whether of the twain is more likely to be true? 2. He roundly asserts: ‘* The writers of the New Testament lay no claim to immediate supernatural suggestion, Lor inspi- vation] for what they zndited, or wrote.’ P. 59. This is not true: they do repeatedly lay claim not only to divine inspiration, but even to higher ¢lumination, in ‘ the word of wisdom, and the word of knowledge,” or the mysteries of the New Testament, and the prophecies of the Old: if we may depend. upon St. Paul’s account, 1 Cor. xil. 8—10; Heb. x. 32. But we have still higher authority—our blessed Lord himself, immediately after his resurrection, “ gave spi- ritual gifts’? to his disciples and apostles: ‘* He thoroughly expounded (dinpunvevev) in all the Scriptures, the prophecies con- cerning himself,” Luke xxiv. 25; nay, what is more, “ He thoroughly opened their mind (Sevoev avtwy tov vev) that they might understand the Scriptures,” or the Scripture-prophecies * inthe Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, a ( 310 ) concerning him,” Luke xxiv. 44, 45. He, moreover, breathed upon, or tnspired them, (evepuonce auToss) and said, ‘“* Recesve ye a holy spirit,’ John xx. 22; as an earnest and pledge of that fuller inspiration and permanent illumination, which he promised them, ‘ not many days hence,” Acts i. 5; and they actually received, ten days after, on the auspicious day of Pentecost. When, by the Hoty Spirit resting upon them, in a fiery form, they were enabled to speak a great variety of strange tongues, which they never had learned, and moreover, to declare to the ‘ astonished multitude assembled out of every nation under heaven, the marvellous dispensations of God,” (7a psyarex 78 Oz) Acts ii, 1—12. And to this double testimony from heaven, the apostles boldly appealed in confirmation of their own evidence vouch- ing Christ's resurrection : “ And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is the Hoty Guosr also, which hath shed Jorth this which ye now see and hear, and which Gop hath given to them that obey him.’? Acts ii. 33; v. 32. In particular, to St. Peter was made known in a symbolical vision, preparatory to the conversion of Cornelius, the great mystery of the calling of the Gentiles, Acts x. To St. Paul, the most highly illuminated apostle of the remoter Gentiles, ‘“‘ abundance of revelations was vouchsafed,” 2 Cor. xii. 7; even by Jesus Curist himself, from the time of his conver- sion, Acts ix. And he fervently prays, that “ utterance might be given him in frankness to declare the mystery of the Gos- pel,” Ephes. vi. 19; Col. iv. 3. And the beloved disciple, St. John, repeatedly mentions his being “ in the spirit,” (ev mvevuars) or ** inspered plenarily, both to see, and to write his most mysterious and stupendous visions,” Rev. i. 10; iv. 2; XVil.,.3, &c. And to crown all, our blessed Lord graciously promised his disciples “ to send them rue Srinit or TruTH, to guide them into all the truth of the Christian dispensation ; and to bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever he had said unto thera; and to abzde with them for ever,’? John xiv. 26; (em) xvi. 7. 13; not only to guard them from error in their preach- ing, but,what was of more lasting consequence, in their writings. And accordingly, of the “ writers of the New Testament,’’ five were apostles, namely, Matthew, John, Peter, Pau/, and Jude; and the other two, the evangelists, Luke and Mark, wrote their Gospels as they were “ zndited,” by “ the eye-witnesses themselves of tHE OnracLeE;” Luke, as is said, under the guidance of St. Paul; and Mark, of St. Peter. And they wrote, “ that the world might know the certainty of the doc- trines they were orally taught by the immediate ministers of THE Orac te,” Luke i. 1—4. How then could Mr, B. with such a cloud of witnesses to confront him, hazard so “ idle an assertion ?’? How could he imagine, that he would not be called to a strict and severe account for it, both here and hereafter ? Matt. xii. 36. 3. Mr. B. boldly denies ‘ the mysteries of the Trinity, of the Jncarnation, of the Atonement, and the like.” ‘To us, (Sabellians,”’) says he, “ they are as unmeaning and incredible as the mystery of transubstantiation, or the sacrifice of the mass, p.61. “ merely human inventions,” p. 84. Such is the indecent language in which he expresses his contempt of the most sacred and awful mysteries of our most holy Faith! while by a strange obliquity of intellect, he is unable to distin- >? and ** matters con- guish between “ matters above reason, trary to reason,” with that mighty master of reasoning, Locke, in his Essay, book iv. chap. xviii, § 7, 8. 4. And to fill up the measure of his hardihood, he thus de- grades his present Saviour, and (by his own account) his future Judge, in objecting to his Godhead:—as “ a human being—an infant in a cradie”—“ subject to the same ignorance, prejudices, and frailties, as other men’—-“ and expiring upon across.” Letters, p. 69. Calm Enquiry, p. 447. Could the veriest infidel, even Yoltazre himself, speak more disrespectfully of our adorable Lonp—Krne or Kincs, AND Lorp or Lorps—“ to whom every knee shall bow,” in reii- gious worship, ‘‘ and every tongue profess” faith and obcdience throughout the universe. Phil. ii. 9—11. Rev. xix. 16. S$ ( 312 ) I will now appeal to every unprejudiced reader, and ever to the Unitarian body at large, Dr. Eslin, Mr. Frend, &c. whether Mr. B. has not confirmed the Bishop’s allegations throughout; and whether he has not furnished sufficient, nay, “« damning proof,” that he is not a Christian himself :— a true Christian indeed, without guile’—* who loves the Lorp JESUS uncorruptedly,” and “ in szncerity.” (Ephes. vi. 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 22; Phil. i. 16, 17; Rom. viii. 35.) For surely, a true Christian could not possibly wéter such revolting lan- guage: “ his tongue would cleave to the roof of his mouth,” in speechless horror, at the attempt. Unconscious, alas! of all this, Mr. B. is © under no anxiety for the result of the severest scrutiny,” p. 83. “He declares, however, that ** Unztarians will ever be most sincerely grateful for any detection of fallacy in their principles, in their reason- ings, or in their conclusions ; even though correction may not be administered in the mildest, or most conciliatory form ; that they seek not victory, but truth.” P. 82. If Mr. B. be sézcere in his declarations, I may claim some share of his gratetude for this “ correction ;” which he has un- dauntedly challenged, and I have freely and fairly adminis- tered. May it lead him to “ retrace his erring steps, and return to his former courses,” (p.'72.) before he became * the advocate of a crazy wisdom ;” idly rejecting mysteries in reli- gion, although they equally abound in the works, and in the word of Gon, as “ thunder in a clear sky *,” &c, &c. ADDITIONAL Text.—Page 153. line 23. Satan to tempt David.” And in like manner the divine Son of David was “led by the Hoty Sririr inte the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil.” Matt. iv. 1; Luke iv. 1. * Parcus DeonuM cultor, et infrequens, : Insanientis dum sapientie Consultus, erro; nune retrorsum Vea dare, atque iterare cursus Cogor relictos : namque Dresriten, &c. &e. Hor. Ode I, xxxivs C2818) P. 153. 1. 24. for. ** both,” read “ these.” P. 165. 1. 6. for “as” read “ as if” P. 176. second note, line last, after “ Vol. ii. p. 705. 709.” add “ or p. 94, 95. foregoing.” ‘P, 243. note. line 7. a fine. after “ attached thereto,” add « which Griesbach indeed noticed, but properly denied ad- mission into the text:” and upon, &c. P. 247. line 14. for “ Johni. 18.” read “ John i. 1—18.” END OF VOL. Ii. ee rrene rer RRA TSA Ct AEST A CC NL IE Printed by R. & R, Gilbert, St. John’s Square, London. IN MY DATE DUE vU D im = ‘ GAYLORD Ml Py Bik ian ses ma . ea ie aa es 7 att meas 1 { ser PAG tht ial , hie on avy x a qe cunt aay ean ve | nf I ' kek Le z ~ i 7 i ' | my : 1 on at Hs My i) heath i ne Ky NR NE SSein reat rece Ste ees = >See