: : 
 : saree c Soe 2 : : Sao 
 
 Rt 
 
 Sear stereos 
 
 Sess 
 
 oo 
 
Library of the Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON ee NEWeikRSEY 
 
 “Sp” 
 
 7 Gift of 
 Samuel Agnew, Esq. 
 1855 
 
 Graves, Richard, 1763-1829. 
 
 Select scriptural proofs of the Trinity : arra 
 in four discourses delivered in the Chapel < 
 College, Dublin : to which are annexed not 
 
LJ 
 he Mi 
 ; re mie ith 
 eet ia 
 
 ' 
 f 
 | 
 iu 
 ft 
 ‘ 
 te , : | 
 Pe eyed ; ; 
 iW v ea 2 i \ Dati 
 nee ie qi : ate Te 
 
 an ie 
 ae me 
 
 ih a mer : at ui : i vl . Une | f 
 H \ " _ Vi i y 7 ‘ Fi \ A) it ; ry sary} ; 
 ret ; i { nie) . 7 4 aS , i} F a i . y, 0 Le i ' 7 | fl , 
 wai Oa a oe fh 7 ve Te yg. 
 7 nf iA i n a <i a AD: ] Mite! »| ; 
 i) 
 
 uve 
 
 . ‘ale 
 
 vs ue 
 
 ay 
 _ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library © 
 
 https://archive.org/details/selectscriptural0Ograv . 
 
i. 
 a 
 
 ae) ‘A, : i 
 a 
 
SELECT SCRIPTURAL 
 
 PROOFS OF THE TRINIT 
 
 A 
 po 
 
 ® 
 
 ARRANGED IN FOUR DISCOURSES, 
 
 DELIVERED IN 
 
 THE CHAPEL OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. 
 
 TO WHICH ARE ANNEXED 
 
 NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 BY 
 
 RICHARD” GRAVES, D.D. 
 
 Late Dean of Ardazh, and Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Dublin. 
 
 DUBLIN 
 WILLIAM CURRY JUN. AND COMPANY. 
 SAMUEL HOLDSWORTH, LONDON. 
 
 J. H. PARKER, OXFORD. 
 
 1840. 
 
a Ge 
 ww 
 
 rete Be 
 
 LEEy?. “FEDOREIN “ee 
 “PRINTED BY JOHN §. FOLDS, | 
 Bachelor’s-walks pS i 
 
 i 
 od 
 
 oe 
 
 oa 
 
 We 
 ue 
 
 a 
 if 4 
 
 Ma 
 
 +, 
 
 art 
 
 4 
 
 Khe 
 bn pes 
 ee? 
 
 Py: ye i 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE great truth defended in the following pages has been 
 recently assailed in England, with unprecedented activity, in 
 publications of every form, and with every art of controversy. 
 This attack has roused the zeal of its defenders, and led to the 
 production of many works, able, learned, and elaborate, which 
 have most successfully maintained this essential doctrme of 
 Christianity, exposed the errors and the sophistry of its oppo- 
 nents, vindicated the authority and illustrated the sense of 
 Scripture, with great extent of erudition, acuteness of argu- 
 ment, and accuracy of biblical criticism and historical research. 
 But in this, as in almost every controversy, the attention of 
 the writers has been engaged by those topics which required 
 illustration and defence, rather than by those which were more 
 clear and undisputed ; and has therefore in many instances been 
 devoted to discussions more adapted for the information of the 
 critical student of theology, than for the general class of readers. 
 Many of these latter might not possess learning, or leisure, or 
 patience, to enter deeply into such inquiries; and yet might be 
 affected by the impression, that a doctrine against which, (as 
 well as for which,) so many arguments appeared to be pro- 
 duced, could not be so clear or so certain, as to require a 
 prompt and sincere faith, and to form the basis of their reli- 
 gion. For such readers it would be evidently desirable, to 
 select the most clear, decisive, and undisputed proofs of this 
 radical doctrine of the Christian faith; to disentangle them as 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 far as possible from the intricacy, and free them from theper- 
 sonality, of controversy ; to exhibit them in such an arrange- 
 ment, as might mark out their mutual connexion; and to | 
 express these vital truths of the Gospel themselves in such a 
 manner, as might not only convince the understanding, but 
 impress them on the heart. 
 
 Such is the object attempted in the following selection. In 
 forming it the writer has been materially influenced by recol- 
 lecting, what were the scriptural arguments and views, which 
 at an early period of his life, had decided his own opinion on 
 this sacred subject ; and which, after studying the controversy 
 upon it, he still thinks the most convincing. ‘That they may 
 equally satisfy the minds of his readers, is his most anxious 
 wish; as he does not hesitate to declare his firm conviction, 
 that, in whatever portion of the Christian church this great 
 truth is denied, or even neglected and unattended to, the foun- 
 dation of true Christianity will be gradually subverted, and a 
 rapid and deplorable decay of religious faith and of reverence 
 for the holy Scriptures will follow; until ultimately, infidelity 
 and irreligion will undermine Gospel truth and Gospel piety. 
 This conviction produced the following tract, and will, it is 
 hoped, apologise for the unexpected length to which the notes 
 annexed to it have extended. 
 
 Happy indeed would the writer be, if they should contribute 
 to impress, upon a single ingenuous mind, that FAITH IN THE 
 Farner, Son, AND Hoty Guost, which is the sum of the 
 Christian religion, the basis of piety and virtue, and the guide 
 to heaven. 
 
DISCOURSE IT. 
 
 MATT. XXVIII. 18, 19, 20. 
 
 “‘And Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in Heaven and in 
 earth: go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” 
 
 Tuis solemn declaration and command of our Divine Lord to 
 the apostles, whom he selected to instruct and reform the world, 
 deserves most particular attention, because, (as I shall endea- 
 vour to prove,) it establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt or 
 controversy, that grand peculiar doctrine of the Christian Reve- 
 lation, the existence of Three Persons in the Divine essence, 
 forming together the one Godhead, the exclusive object of our 
 adoration and obedience; but, in the Divine dispensations 
 towards man, and especially in the grand scheme of Redemption, 
 contributing each their distinct parts, which supply distinct 
 grounds of gratitude and reverence to each of these Divine 
 Persons. 
 
 In addition to the truth of this great doctrine, this passage 
 of Holy Writ asserts what is too often unattended to, the 
 direct practical tendency of that doctrine; since- it 1s connected 
 by our Lord, with that scheme of instruction, which ‘teaches 
 men to observe and do all things whatsoever he had commanded;” 
 a purpose to which, if it were not necessarily subservient, it 
 would not thus be expressly united. 
 
 These two subjects deserve each a distinct consideration. 
 For the present, let us confine ourselves to the evidence, which 
 this distinguished passage, and the corresponding testimonies of 
 the divine Word in other passages afford, to the important 
 doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. 
 
8 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Here it is necessary to remark, that the genumeness and 
 authenticity of this signal testimony to the existence of Three 
 Persons in the Godhead, is, by the most strenuous opponents* 
 of this great truth, acknowledged, (however reluctantly,) to be 
 clear and unquestioned ; it is found in all manuscripts and ver- 
 sions; it is admitted to have dictated the form of baptism 
 regularly used in the primitive Christian church; and to supply 
 the only explanation of that singular, and long prevailing rite— 
 triple immersion at Baptism ;+ the adult convert pledging himself 
 at each immersion, to faith in one of each of these Three 
 Divine Persons. : 
 
 The direct conclusion which follows from the founder of our 
 holy religion having thus, in the form of baptism which he 
 enjoined, united the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Supreme 
 Father as equally objects of the Christian’s faith, appears 
 clearly to be, that they must all partake the same divine nature, 
 and form one Godhead, the exclusive object of Christian adora- 
 tion and obedience. But to this it is objected ; that to be bap- 
 tized in the name of any one, is no proof of his divinity; but 
 merely an acknowledgment, that the person in whose name the 
 convert is baptized, is the head of the sect into which he is 
 admitted. 
 
 To expose the extreme frivolousness of this objection in the 
 present instance, let us consider the impression which the bap- 
 tismal form must have made on an intelligent and unprejudiced 
 heathen, and the opinions which it must have led him to form. ~ 
 
 He would, in the first instance, necessarily conclude, that the 
 acknowledgment now required from him, contained the leading 
 principle of the Christian scheme, the germ from the unfolding 
 of which would be developed all the truths and duties of this 
 new religion. He would also see that these Three Persons were 
 proposed to him, as equally the objects of faith and acknowledg- 
 ment, and that though in the order of names, and therefore in 
 precedence of dignity, the Father was placed first, yet for all 
 practical purposes, the Son claimed an equal authority, declaring 
 that all power was given unto him in heaven and in earth, re- 
 guiring that all nations should be taught to observe all things he 
 
 *See Note 1. +See Note 2. 
 
DISCOURSE f. 9 
 
 had commanded, and promising to exert an effective influence of 
 assistance and protection to his apostles and followers, even to 
 the end of the world. 
 
 Of the Holy Spirit he could at first only know, that to him 
 were ascribed those marvellous gifts and graces, which dis- 
 tinguished the first Christian teachers, which attracted all atten- 
 tive observers with such powerful influence, and impressed on 
 their minds such an irresistible conviction of the Divine origin 
 of that religion thus proved and sanctified. 
 
 From this view the convert would certainly infer an equality 
 in nature and in power, in authority and influence, amongst 
 these three objects of faith thus proposed to him. 
 
 It is utterly inconceivable and incredible, that any intelligent 
 and unprejudiced convert would have suspected or believed, that 
 of these Three Persons, the first alone was the Supreme God, 
 the sole Creator and Ruler of the universe ; the second a mere 
 man,* who had no existence before his human birth, and of 
 whom ‘‘it was not declared, that in the usual course of the 
 moral administration of Providence, he should retain any Im- 
 mediate agency, or in any way directly influence the minds of 
 his future disciples ;” while the third did not denote any dis- 
 tinct person whatsoever, but merely an attribute or power of 
 the Father, or rather the gifts and graces which by the exercise 
 of this power, were dispensed to the first Christians. No 3 
 such a meaning, any. sound and _ plain understanding would 
 instantly reject as absurd and incredible : and, concluding on the 
 real existence of three distinct persons, and their equality in 
 nature, powers, and rights, would proceed to inquire what were 
 the nature, the powers, and the rights which all three must be 
 admitted, in common, to possess. 
 
 With this conviction on his mind, the convert would proceed 
 to inquire into the declarations of Scripture with respect to the 
 common nature and powers belonging to those sacred Beings. 
 He would there find, that to the Father was attributed infinite 
 perfection and majesty, with the characters of Creator, Saviour, 
 and Judge of the world, all-seeing omniscience, resistless power, 
 
 *Vide Dr. Carpenter’s « Unitarianism, the doctrine of the Gospel.” Second 
 Edition, p. 7, and 293. 
 
 VOL. III. B 
 
10 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 unbounded mercy, and unerring justice, with an exclusive claim 
 to the obedience and adoration of all his creatures. ‘The Son 
 and Holy Spirit, therefore, which the convert had. previously 
 seen, were, bythe primary and essential doctrine of the Christian 
 scheme, put forward as participating in the nature and dignity of 
 the Father, he would now judge, must also partake his perfection 
 and his majesty, and be like him entitled to the humblest adora- 
 tion and obedience. Otherwise he would see that this new 
 religion which professed to adopt all the principles of the more 
 ancient faith on which it was founded, as to the baseness and 
 guilt of idolatry, would act as a snare to involve mankind im 
 that very guilt, and transfer to a crucified man, the authority 
 and the worship of the one self-existing God—and this not 
 incidentally, or by the perversion or abuse of its disciples, but 
 in its very essence and foundation, in the very first doctrine it 
 taught, and the first act of obedience it required. | 
 
 Thus, it is evident, that all attempts to weaken the force of 
 this conclusion, by lowering the import of the expression, ‘‘ being 
 baptized in the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit,” are vain 
 and abortive; since the dignity ascribed, and the homage paid 
 to them by this solemn rite, are clearly the same as the dignity 
 ascribed, and the homage paid to the Supreme Father, the great 
 First Cause, the eternal self-existent God. Such dignity, there- 
 fore, must be divine; such homage must include the humblest 
 adoration, the most implicit obedience. ‘Thus, the right of the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit, to the same faith, the same glory, the 
 same adoration, the same obedience, as are due to the Supreme 
 God, the eternal Father, is here declared to be such a primary 
 and essential truth of the Christian revelation, that without a 
 full acknowledgment of it, no human being can be admitted 
 amongst the followers of Christ, or entitled to the privileges 
 which baptism confers on sincere believers : who, provided they 
 do not forfeit these privileges by unpardonable apostacy, or final 
 impenitence, are, by the merciful covenant of grace, recognized 
 as members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the 
 kingdom of heaven. 
 
 This great truth is therefore put forward by the founder of 
 _ our holy religion, the author and finisher of our faith, not as an 
 obscure and unconnected dogma, which may be rejected because 
 
DISCOURSE I. Il 
 
 mysterious, or disregarded as non-essential, but as the great con- 
 Session of faith, indispensably required from all who seek admis- 
 sion into His church on earth, or hope to be received as His 
 followers in heaven. ; 
 Ido not, in thus asserting the importance of this great truth, 
 mean to pronounce any sentence of uncharitable condemnation 
 against those who may question or deny it.. To the all-searching 
 God, who alone knows the sources of every man’s opinions, the 
 sincerity of his faith, and the singleness of his heart, must the 
 final decision be referred: ‘‘to his own master must every man 
 stand or fall.”* But the rank in which this leading doctrine is 
 placed by the divine teacher Himself, must not be lowered or con- 
 cealed, from an affectation of a liberality, which is only another 
 word for indifference to religious truth, a sacrifice of the doc- 
 trines of God, to the applause of man. ‘* Whether men will] 
 hear or whether they will forbear,”{ the minister of the Gospel 
 must proclaim its clear truth aloud, and spare not; he must 
 endeavour to rouse the careless to serious inquiry, to check the 
 presumption of the arrogant disputant, by placing in a clear light 
 the greatness of that authority which such men disregard, and 
 to fix the faith of the wavering, by exhibiting to them the danger 
 of incurring serious guilt, by making shipwreck of their faith. 
 And certainly there can be no tenet of Christianity, the admission 
 of which appears more necessary, or its abandonment more 
 dangerous, than this, which our divine Lord places at the very 
 Soundation of his system, and the acceptance of which, he marks as 
 the indispensable condition of admission into his church. | 
 It is important to remark the place in which this great truth 
 here stands—even in the first written of all the Gospels; and 
 which, according to the clear testimony of antiquity, was pub- 
 lished in the first instance for the use of the Jews. This circum- 
 stance gives to its testimony additional conclusiveness and weight; 
 because nothing had raised, or could raise, a greater impedi- 
 ment to the spreading of the Gospel amongst this prejudiced 
 and bigoted race, than such a doctrine. Our Lord’s declaration, 
 “that He was the Son of God,”t from which they rightly 
 inferred, that ‘“‘ He made Himself equal with God,” had roused 
 their indignation so strongly, * that they sought to kill Him.” 
 
 * Rom, xiv. 4. + Ezek, ii, 5. } John, y. 17, 18, &c. 
 
12 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 When He assumed to Himself the attribute of eternal self- 
 existence, declaring, “ before Abraham was, Tam,”* his hearers, 
 enraged at the supposed blasphemy, instantly rushed forward 
 to stone Him. And finally on this ground they justified His 
 crucifixion; for when driven from every other pretext of accu- 
 sation, by the undeniable mnocence of His life, and the moral 
 excellence of His doctrine, they rested their charge on this, 
 ‘‘we have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He 
 made Himself the Son of God,” clearly and truly understanding 
 that this high title imported, not that He was merely the creature 
 of God, equally with every other human being, but that He was 
 the Son of God so peculiarly, as to partake the divine nature, and 
 inherit all the divine perfections. ‘Thus, it appears, that during 
 His whole life, and peculiarly at His death, the doctrine that 
 our Lord “ was in such a sense the Son of God, as to be equal 
 with God,” was the great stumbling-block of the Jewish nation, 
 the great stimulus to their accusation and outrage. Surely, then, 
 St. Matthew, who wrote with the express design of instructing 
 and conciliating the Jews, would never have revived this doctrine 
 in such a solemn and authoritative manner, if he had not taught 
 it under the irresistible control of his Divine Lord’s command, 
 enjoining the promulgation of this truth, as so essential, that 
 its acknowledgment was the indispensable condition of admission 
 to the Christian covenant. 
 
 If from the Jews we turn to the heathen, we shall perceive a 
 strong additional proof, that the doctrine contained in this cele- 
 brated passage, would never have been brought forward by the 
 first teachers of the Gospel, if it had not been established by an 
 authority most clear and decisive, such as this solemn declara- 
 tion of our divine Lord supplies. The strong ground on which 
 the first Christians assailed heathenism was the absurdity and 
 impiety of idolatry. ‘To this they imputed all the profanations 
 and crimes, which polluted and degraded the heathen world ; 
 declaring, that ‘‘ as when they knew God, they glorified him not 
 as God, but changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped 
 the creature, more than the Creator; therefore, God gave them 
 up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which were not con- 
 venient, being filled with all unrighteousness.”{ This was the 
 
 * John, viii. 58. + John, xix. 7. { Rom. i, 21, 25, &c. 
 
DISCOURSE I. 13 
 
 accusation which the apostle of the Gentiles hesitated not  t 
 advance against the lordly Romans, and philosophic Athenians, 
 whom he charged with excessive superstition, and with ignorance 
 of the true God, ‘‘ who made the world and all things therein, 
 in whom we live and move and have our being,”* whom he calls 
 on them to worship, and, ‘‘turning from idols, to adore the 
 living God, &c. no longer to believe that the Lord of heaven 
 and earth dwelleth in temples made with hands,” or that the 
 Godhead could be ‘‘ like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven with 
 art or men’s device.” Now, to this idolatry charged on the hea- 
 thens, the deification of Christ seemed to be exactly similar. ‘To 
 deify a crucified man, must even have appeared to the heathens 
 a more degrading idolatry, than to exalt among the gods, heroes 
 and legislators, the benefactors and rulers of mankind ;—and 
 this accusation was, iz fact, retorted upon the Christians with 
 all the insolence of triumphant scorn. Thus was Christ crucified, 
 and then worshipped, to the ‘‘ Jews a stumbling-block, and to 
 the Greeks foolishness.”| Never then would the Christians 
 have exposed themselves to this retort, (so overpowering had it 
 been well founded,) if they had not distinctly known, that they 
 could fully vindicate their holy faith from the foul calumny, by 
 showing the clearest proofs, that in that same Jesus who was 
 crucified, dwelt the fulness of the Godhead, “ the glory as of 
 the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” To 
 suppose that to an error so fatal as this, (if it had been an 
 “ error,) countenance should have been given by the solemn decla- 
 ration now before us, as the primary and leading doctrine of the 
 primitive church, is utterly incredible. No; nothing but the 
 divinity of Christ, being clearly established by irresistible proofs, 
 could have justified the Christians’ conduct, or vindicated their 
 religion from the imputation of idolatry and impiety, the most 
 inconsistent and degrading. When, therefore, our Lord had 
 commissioned His disciples, ‘‘ to go and teach all nations to 
 observe all things whatsoever he had commanded,” and at the 
 same time enjoined them ‘‘to baptize all whom they received 
 into His church, in the name of the Father, Son, and: Holy 
 Ghost,” he loaded his religion with a weight, which must have . 
 
 * Acts, xvii, 28, &e, ¢1 Cor. i, 23, Griesbach reads féveci. 
 
14 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 sunk it for ever, if it had not been sustained by the evidence of 
 divine truth, and the co-operation of divine power. 
 
 Surely, then, every Christian pastor must, like the holy 
 Ananias, who acted under the immediate direction of the Spirit, 
 call on each convert admitted to baptism, to receive Christ with 
 
 ‘the faith, adoration, and obedience due to God, as the indis- 
 pensable condition of pardon and acceptance. ‘* Arise,” said 
 Ananias to St. Paul, ‘“‘arise and be baptized, and wash away 
 thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”* From this 
 important fact, how clearly does it follow, that the great apostle 
 of the Gentiles, from whom at his baptism, such faith in Christ, 
 and such adoration of Him had been thus authoritatively 
 demanded, would from all whom he himself should afterwards, 
 convert, require, as indispensably due to the Hi et similar 
 faith and similar adoration. 
 
 This argument becomes almost irresistible, on our seeing, 
 that the great apostle of the Gentiles, although, when noting 
 and condemning the worship of idols, he brings forward the 
 unity of God in direct contrast with them, yet in the very same 
 sentence speaks of the divine majesty of Christ, in strict union 
 with the majesty of God the Father. ‘‘ As concerning, there- 
 fore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto — 
 idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that 
 there is none other God but one.”t ‘Thus, he asserts the unity 
 of the Godhead, in opposition to the idols of polytheism. But, 
 he adds; ‘‘ For though there be that are called gods, whether 
 in heaven or in earth, as their be gods many, and lords many, 
 but to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, 
 and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
 things, and we by him.” Now let me ask, is it conceivable 
 that at the moment of thus pronouncing on the nothingness of 
 idols, and proceeding to condemn those, ‘‘ who with a con- 
 science of the idol eat any thing as offered unto an idol”—that 
 is, who conceive that by doing so, they share in, or countenance 
 the worship of a false God—is it conceivable, that at the very 
 same moment, the apostle would lay such a snare to involve 
 men in idolatry, as he certainly would, by extending to Christ 
 
 * Acts, xxiii. 16, + Cor. vii. 4 to 7. 
 
DISCOURSE I. 15 
 
 the honour due only to the one God, if that honour were not 
 really his—declaring that ‘‘ besides God the Father of whom 
 are all things, there is one Lord Christ by whom are all 
 things;” that is, that as we all exist in the Father, this 
 existence is at the same time sustained by the instrumentality 
 of the Son? Is it possible, that the incommunicable attributes 
 of creating and sustaining all things, would have been thus 
 divided, as it were, between the great First Cause, the uni- 
 versal Father, and Christ the Lord, if the Godhead of the 
 Father and the Son were not one and the same, co-equal and 
 co-eternal ? 
 
 It is alleged,* in order to weaken the force of the proof from 
 the solemn declaration of our Lord in the text, ‘that it is 
 evident, it was not intended to prescribe an invariable formula” 
 in the administration of baptism; for the apostles themselves 
 baptized simply into the name of Jesus; and for this, different 
 instances are referred to. Let us consider the principal of them 
 distinctly. 
 
 We are referred to one instance of certain Jews, who having 
 been “baptized unto John’s baptism, had never so much as 
 heard of the Holy Ghost;” on discovering which, St. Paul 
 declared it necessary they should be again baptized “in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus.”+ Surely we cannot suppose, that by 
 omitting the name of the Holy Spirit in this new baptism of 
 these converts, that great defect in their previous faith, which 
 this very baptism was intended to remove, should be still per- 
 mitted to remain. We may, therefore, certainly conclude, that 
 the entire form of baptism prescribed by our Lord was here 
 observed, though thus briefly described as a baptism in the 
 name of Christ. In truth, if we were at this day speaking of 
 the reception of heathen converts into the church, we would 
 naturally express it, by saying, they were baptized in the name 
 or into the faith of Christ, without ever supposing or meaning 
 to imply, that the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost 
 were omitted at the administration of the baptismal rite. ‘This 
 
 * Vide Note on the text in the improved version of the Unitarians. | 
 + Acts, xix. 2. | 
 
16 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 conclusion once established, can be easily applied to every 
 other instance where the same brief description is employed. 
 There appear additional and distinct reasons why it should 
 be applied to that signal one, the baptism of the devout Cor- 
 nelius, and those assembled with him, the first fruits of the 
 Gentile world, to whom St. Peter, by a particular divine com- 
 mand, was expressly sent to instruct them in the Christian 
 faith. Let us consider whether the manner in which this 
 apostle speaks of Christ on this illustrious occasion, weakens 
 the evidence of his divinity. Of the Gospel and its divine 
 Author he thus speaks: ‘‘ The word which God sent unto the 
 children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord 
 of all:) that word ye know;’* thus interrupting the direct 
 course of his narrative, to introduce by anticipation, as it were, 
 this declaration of the universal dominion, and by consequence 
 the divinity of Christ—for who but God can be said to be the 
 ‘* Lord of all;” an expression so evidently equivalent to that of 
 our Lord, ‘* All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” 
 He then proceeds to describe his character and miracles in the 
 most exalted terms. He describes him as “ going about doing 
 good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God 
 was with him;” and finally he declares, that ‘“*‘ He was ordained 
 to be the Judge of the quick and the dead, and that whosoever 
 believeth in him, should receive remission of their sins.” How 
 decidedly these characters of Judge of all, and Author of the 
 remission of sins, attest the divinity of Christ, we shall here- 
 after consider. ,They certainly are most signal instances of 
 exercising that universal dominion, which the apéstle had before 
 ascribed to our Lord. ‘The narrative concludes with declaring, 
 ‘that while Peter yet spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them 
 which heard the word, and they spake with tongues, and mag- 
 nified God:” then answered Peter, ‘‘Can any man forbid 
 water, that these should not be baptized, who have received 
 the Holy Ghost as well as we? and he commanded them to be 
 baptized in the name of the Lord.” Now can it be supposed, 
 that in the baptism then administered, the name of that Holy 
 
 * Acts, x. 36. : t Acts, x. 47, 
 
DISCOURSE I. 17 
 
 Ghost should be omitted, whose gifts were at that instant 
 poured on the converts, or the name of that God the Father, 
 whom the influence of that Spirit impelled them to magnify? 
 Surely this were incredible. It is then obvious, that to be 
 baptized in the name of the Lord, is merely a brief expression, 
 denoting most naturally the entire form prescribed by our Lord, 
 from its most peculiar and distinguishing part. Belief in God 
 the Father, might have been part of the convert’s original 
 religion; belief in the Holy Spirit alone, might have been 
 mistaken for an acknowledgment of the gifts of the Holy Spirit ; 
 but to be baptized in the name of Christ, implied unambigu- 
 ously the belief in a person distinct from the Tather, and a 
 person by-this solemn rite associated with him and the Holy 
 Ghost, as partaking his divinity; and therefore, this expression 
 briefly and accurately denoted the entire form which our Lord 
 prescribed. ‘To affirm therefore that this entire form was not 
 uniformly employed, is a vain subterfuge which serves but to 
 expose the fallacy of the opinion it is adduced to support, and 
 affects not the force of the argument, that the three names thus 
 united in this solemn rite, must therefore express three divine 
 and equal persons forming the one Godhead, which we are 
 bound to believe mm, worship, and obey. 
 
 This most important conclusion derives additional and power- 
 ful evidence, from an independent though similar argument, 
 founded on the forms of benediction, with which St. Paul 
 frequently commences and concludes his epistles, particularly 
 that remarkable one concluding the second epistle to the Cor- 
 -inthians, in which he prays, ‘‘ The grace of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy 
 Ghost, be with you ail, amen.”* If this be considered as a 
 prayer, it is evidently addressed to the three persons of the 
 Godhead, as forming one united object of faith and adoration. 
 If it be merely a solemn wish, that the blessings it enumerates 
 may be enjoyed by the devout Christians, for whom the inspired 
 apostle is interested, still it recognizes three great blessings, as 
 flowing from three distinct sources, even the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, all united in the great work of redeeming and 
 
 ¥* 2 Cor, xiii. 14. 
 
18 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 blessing the true followers of Christ, though each contributing 
 his distinct part in effecting this scheme of divine mercy: while 
 the usual order of the names being departed from, so as to 
 place that of Christ first in the series, shows how completely all 
 ideas of his inferiority in nature, were excluded from the 
 apostle’s mind. This benediction is also evidently designed as 
 an example, and an encouragement to all Christians, to implore 
 the same blessings for each other, from the same divine sources 5 
 and must therefore habituate the pious, to look up to these three 
 persons as united in Godhead, though distinct in operation. 
 
 I must here repeat an observation made before, that it could 
 never occur to any plain unprejudiced mind, that of the three 
 names thus united, both in the baptismal rite, and in the apos- 
 tolic benedictions, one meant the supreme God, a second, a 
 created and therefore infinitely inferior being, and the third, 
 no distinct person or being whatsoever, but merely the mira- 
 culous spiritual gifts conferred upon the first Christians. Yet 
 such is the sense maintained by Unitarian commentators,* with 
 this singular addition, ‘‘ that it is improper to use this text as a 
 form of benediction in public assemblies, because it is improper 
 to express a wish for the participation of those spiritual gifts, 
 which were peculiar to the apostolic age, and which have been 
 long since withdrawn.” How chilling and heart-depressing is 
 " this system of opinions to the humble Christian—thus shutting 
 him out from the communion of the Holy Spirit, and all those 
 precious infiuences of divine grace, which alone can renew and 
 sanctify his soul! How contrary to the cheering promise of 
 our divine Lord to his faithful followers, “I will be with you. 
 always, even to the end of the world.” But of this promise and 
 this hope also, these interpreters would rob us; extending this 
 promise of our Lord “ only to the end of the age ;” that is, (as 
 they explain it,) ‘‘to the end of the Jewish dispensation, until 
 the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple—soon after which,” 
 (say they,) ‘miraculous powers were withdrawn, and no personal 
 appearances of Jesus Christ recorded.”t As if (even taking 
 their own meaning of the term, ‘‘ to the end of the world,”’) the 
 
 - ® Vide Note to 2 Cor. xiii, 14, in the improved version of the N. T, by the 
 Unitarians. 
 + Vide Note on Matt. xxviii. 20, in the improved version. 
 
DISCOURSE I. 19 
 
 Jewish dispensation was to terminate with the destruction of 
 the temple; as if the Jews were not still preserved under the 
 peculiar direction of a controlling Providence, to bear witness 
 to the prophecies, and to the truth of revelation, until the 
 fulness of the Gentiles being come in, shall make way for the 
 re-admission of the Jews into the church of God, and “ Christ 
 shall be all in all;” and, with a still more glaring inconsistency, 
 as if all the superintending care of our divine Lord over his 
 Church, all divine assistance to diffuse the Christian faith, to 
 assist believers in fulfilling their baptismal covenant, and enable 
 the ministers of the Gospel to teach, and the world to learn 
 ‘‘ the observance of all things whatsoever our divine Lord com- 
 manded ;” as if all this, the very vital principle and support of 
 Christian faith and piety, was to cease and expire, within forty 
 years after our Lord’s appearance on earth, before his church 
 had any where firmly fixed its roots, before the empire of 
 idolatry had, in any one nation, or country, been finally 
 overthrown—such is this gloomy system! Happily it is as 
 repugnant to the rational interpretation of the Scriptures, 
 to the truth of history, and the dispensations of Providence, 
 as it is inconsistent with the brightest views of faith, and 
 chilling to the warmest feelings and most ennobling hopes of 
 piety. 
 
 I have directed your attention to the benediction of St. Paul, 
 recognizing equally, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because 
 it is most exactly correspondent to the declaration of our divine 
 Lord contained in the text. But, with respect to the divinity of 
 our adorable Saviour, it is equally decisive to remark, that this 
 great apostle, in whose recollections that divinity seems ever 
 uppermost, a never-failing source of joy and hope and devotion, 
 begins.every one of his epistles* (that to the Hebrews only 
 excepted) with imploring, as the highest blessing he could 
 ' # Vide Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i.3; 2 Cor. i. 2; Galat. i. 3; Ephes. i. 2; Philip: i. 2; 
 Coloss. i. 2; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess.i. 2; 1 Tim.i.2; 2 Tim.i. 2; Titus, 1.4; 
 Philemon, i. 3. 
 
 N. B.—From this enumeration, the epistle to the Colossians is to be omitted, 
 according to Griesbach, who omits the words, ¢ and from the Lord Jesus Christ,” in 
 the second verse ; and in the first to the Thessalonians, he questions the genuineness of 
 the entire clause, “from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus,” &c. But when we 
 _ reflect how decidedly his authority establishes the genuineness of the clause, in eleven 
 
 epistles of St. Paul, we may omit the two instances he objects to, without weakening 
 the force of the argument, 
 
20 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 ‘bestow on the pious converts to whom he addressed these 
 epistles, *‘ grace and peace,” or ‘‘ grace, mercy, and peace be 
 with you all, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 
 Is it not then as certain as the word of inspiration can render it, 
 that these invaluable blessings, which assuredly God only can 
 bestow, are to be eqally expected, and equally to be implored 
 from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour ? 
 This the apostle distinctly declares, when he prays for his con- 
 verts among the Thessalonians; ‘‘ Now our Lord Jesus Christ 
 himself, and God, even our Father, who hath loved us, and 
 hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through 
 grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good 
 word and work.”* ‘Therefore, both the Father and Christ, the 
 Son, are equally the objects of that faith and adoration, that 
 gratitude and love, which can be due only to God; and, there- 
 fore, they are equally God. Or perhaps it may be more 
 accurately true to say, that the great blessings here prayed for 
 are not to be expected or implored from either of these divine 
 persons separately from the other; but that as their Godhead is 
 one, and their union in that Godhead complete, so also their 
 union in the great work of redemption, and the parts they act 
 in it, though distinct are yet inseparable, so that grace, mercy, 
 and peace are to be looked for only from both united, or from 
 God the Father, through the mediation of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. Is it not also evident, from the constant, affectionate, 
 and fervent repetition of this blessing in this unaltered form by 
 the apostle, that this great truth of the divinity of our Redeemer, 
 and his union with God the Father, is not merely a speculative 
 dogma, necessary indeed ‘to our entrance into the church of 
 Christ by baptism, but which may be afterwards neglected, 
 or forgotten; but, that as with the holy apostle, so with us, 
 it should be ever uppermost in our recollection, as a source 
 of faith and hope, of gratitude and love, and adoration to 
 those divine persons, equally united in the majesty of the 
 Godhead, and also equally united in the work of our salvation. 
 It would be an unpardonable omission in this argument, not 
 to observe, that the benediction thus imploring “ grace, mercy, 
 
 *2 Thess, 2, 16, 17. 
 
DISCOURSE I. O49 
 
 and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ,” 
 as inseparably uniting in the divine majesty of the Godhead, 
 and in redeeming love, is not peculiar to St. Paul. It 1s adopted 
 by St. John the beloved apostle: ‘* grace be with you,” says he, 
 ‘‘mercy and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”* Thus 
 also, he affirms most distinctly, that the Father and Son are 
 inseparably united as objects of that faith, which is essential to 
 salvation. ‘* Whosoever transgresseth,” says he, ‘* and abideth 
 not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God; he that abideth in 
 the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” 
 Thus also St. Jude in his epistle, short as it is, uses the same 
 blessing in substance, though not exactly in phrase. ‘‘ Jude,” 
 says he, ‘*a servant of Jesus Christ, to them that are sanctified 
 by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called, 
 mercy unto you, and peace and love be multiplied.” Andin the 
 close of his exhortation, ‘‘to contend earnestly for the faith once 
 delivered to the saints,” he unites the Three Persons of the 
 Trinity, so as to prove they are equally the objects of that faith, 
 and equally, though distinctly engaged in the work of redemp- 
 tion. For thus he exhorts: ‘‘ But, ye beloved, building up 
 yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 
 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, unto eternal life.” Thus also, St. Peter, ad- 
 dressing the collective body of Christians, calls them, ‘those 
 who have obtained like precious faith with us, through the 
 righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ;”{ thus unit- 
 ing them in the power of bestowing righteousness or justification, 
 which is surely an incommunicable power of the moral Ruler of 
 the world, the supreme God. And he adds, ‘‘ Grace and peace 
 be multiplied unto you, ae ough the knowledge of God, and of 
 Jesus, our Lord.” 
 
 We thus have proved, how accurately all the apostles fulfilled the 
 injunction of our Lord in the text which formed the subject of 
 this discourse. Not only did they baptize men every where, in 
 the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; but they 
 perpetually inculcated on them this great truth, that these divine 
 
 * 2 John, v. 3. + Jude, 1, 2, 20, 21. +2 Peter, i. I, 2. 
 
yy SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 persons were united in the majesty of the Godhead, and in the 
 glorious work of redemption, as a tenet that should be ever 
 deeply impressed on their memories, and warmly cherished in 
 their hearts, as the foundation of the Christian faith, the source 
 of holy hope and joy, of gratitude and love to God—a tenet which 
 they fearlessly and openly inculcated, though fully aware that, 
 to the Jews it was the great stumbling-block, and to the heathens 
 foolishness ; the occasion of calumny, scorn, and contempt; 
 but which, from our Lord’s solemn command, that it should be 
 authoritatively taught to all nations, and unequivocally received 
 by every convert on his admission into the baptismal covenant, 
 the apostles knew was the ‘‘ power of God, and the wisdom of 
 Godunto salvation.” Assuch, my friends, may we humbly receive 
 and steadily retain it! In my next discourse I shall endeavour 
 further to confirm this great truth. In the mean time let us join 
 in that prayer to God, which our church has dictated,* as 
 suitable to that faith on this sacred subject, which we have been 
 taught to receive. 
 
 **O God, the King of glory, who has exalted thine only Son, 
 Jesus Christ, with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven, 
 we beseech thee, leave us not comfortless, but send to us thine 
 Holy Ghost to comfort us, and exalt us into the same place 
 whither our Saviour Christ is gone before, who liveth and reign- 
 eth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without 
 end.— Amen.” 
 
 ¥ Collect for the Sunday after Ascension Day. 
 
23 
 
 DISCOURSE IT. 
 
 JOHN Fk. 1, 2, 3, anv 14. 
 
 6 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in 
 the beginning with God; all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made 
 that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, 
 the glory as of theonly begotten of the Father, full ofgrace and truth.” 
 
 In my last discourse, in order to prove the divinity of the Son 
 and of the Holy Ghost, I adduced, first, the command of our 
 Lord, that their names should in the form of baptism be united 
 with that of the Father, as equally the objects of Christian faith, 
 adoration, and obedience; and next, their being also united in 
 the apostolic benediction, as equally the sources of those spiritual 
 blessings, which could proceed from the Divinity alone, and 
 which are essential to the present sanctification, and the final 
 salvation of every Christian soul. It thus appeared, that the 
 union of three persons in one Godhead was to be admitted as 
 an article of faith, essential to the reception of the Christian 
 covenant; and was also to be perpetually cherished in the recol- 
 lection of every believer, as the sure foundation of religious 
 peace, and hope, and joy: while the bigotry of the Jews, and 
 the idolatry of the Gentiles, rendering this doctrine to the Jews 
 _ a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness, proved it never 
 would have been insisted on by the apostles, except under the 
 clear authority of our Lord’s command. 
 
 I would now consider the decisive testimony to our Lord’s 
 divinity, derivable from the celebrated declaration of the beloved 
 apostle, contained in the text, and from the corresponding pas- 
 sages of the revealed word, which illustrate and confirm it. 
 Before we enter on this argument, it may be proper to remark, 
 that in the original, this important testimony of St. John* stands 
 
 * See Note 3. 
 
24 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 on clear and unquestioned authority. Found as it is in every ma- 
 nuscript and every version, no one presumes to suspect in it any 
 interpolation or alteration; and it is acknowledged to have certainly 
 been the genuine testimony of the beloved apostle: How clear and 
 decisive this testimony is, and how abundantly confirmed by the 
 concurring testimony of the other apostles, let us now consider. 
 Jesus Christ is here represented as united with God the Father, 
 In the work of creation; and this not as a subordinate agent, or 
 ministering spirit, but with such infinite power, exercised in such 
 unlimited extent, as cannot for a moment be supposed to belong 
 to any other being than the great First Cause, the supreme 
 Almighty God. ‘All things,” says the beloved apostle, “ were 
 made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was 
 made.”* ‘Thus, also, says St. Paul: By hin were all things 
 created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and in- 
 visible, whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or 
 powers; all things were created by him, and for him, and he is 
 before all things, and by him all things consist.”{ Can any words 
 more expressly declare, that Christ Jesus, in union with God the 
 Father, was the omnipotent Creator, not only of the material 
 but the intellectual system of the universe ? All the holy angels, 
 even the most exalted, whether they be thrones or dominions, 
 principalities: or power, not only owe to Christ their high pre- 
 eminence, their noblest faculties, nay, their very existence ; but 
 they all, and with them the entire universe, ‘all things visible 
 and invisible,” were formed for his service and glory ; ; not only 
 were all things made “by him,” but “for him.” Nor was the 
 power thus exercised by Christ, at the creation, a transitory act, 
 as if performed by an energy then communicated, but afterwards 
 withdrawn ; no, it is still equally exercised in preserving that 
 creation which it formed. Not only were all things created by 
 him, but the apostle adds, ‘‘ by him all things ConsIST ;” or, as in 
 another place it is expressed, not only by him who is ‘‘ the bright- 
 ness of his glory, and the express image of his person ;’ God who 
 *‘made the worlds,” but he it is who ‘* wpholdeth all things by 
 the word of his power.”{ Surely, my friends, the inference is 
 irresistible: he who created all things in heaven and earth, by — 
 whom all things consist, and who upholdeth all things by the 
 
 * John i. 3. + Col. i. 16, t Heb. i. 2, 3 
 
DISCOURSE It. 25 
 
 word of his power, must be united with the great First Cause in 
 nature, in attributes, in dignity ; he must be one with God, he 
 must be God. 
 
 - Concurring® as are these testimonies, and of unquestioned 
 authority, and, if the Scriptures be taken in their plain and literal 
 meaning, most clear and decisive, still many and strenuous are 
 the efforts, to question the justice of our translation of these pas- 
 sages, and to alter it in some such way, that it may not so directly 
 establish the pre-existence, the divinity, the creative power, the 
 incarnation, and the glory of the Redeemer. Instead of enter- 
 ing into a minute refutation of the various contradictory,* and, at 
 the same time, most ungrammatical meanings invented for this 
 purpose, I shall be content with noticing them very briefly, and 
 shall then proceed to support the true meaning, by bringing in 
 confirmation of it other passages of Scripture, as to which no 
 doubt can with any plausibility be raised, and which decidedly 
 support the sense ascribed to the text in our translation. 
 
 The passage (according to the Socinian improvers of the 
 sacred version) does not imply the pre-existence of Christ. 
 *‘In the beginning,” say they, means only in the beginning of 
 Christ’s ministry. ‘* The Word was with God,” means that he 
 withdrew from the world to commune with God, to be prepared 
 for his public teaching. ‘The Word was God,” means, he was 
 a god, that is, as Moses was a god to Pharaoh. 
 
 Not to dwell on the unnatural, forced, and obviously indefen- 
 sible tenor of this translation, let me ask how is it reconcilable 
 with the extraordinary but most explicit declaration of our Lord 
 to the Jews, which excited amongst them such high indignation ;f 
 “* Verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am,” thus 
 challenging a character peculiar to the great First Cause, even 
 to Jehovah himself, that of an existence independent, unchange- 
 able, eternal? How can we reconcile it with the Lord’s decla- 
 ration to his apostles, at the last solemn night, before his 
 crucifixion, when he instructed them plainly in his true nature 
 and dignity, to support them under this awful trial; then he 
 declared,t ‘* I came forth from the Father, and am come into 
 the world ;” again, ‘I leave the world, and. go to the Father ;” 
 and immediately after, in continuation of the same discourse, he 
 
 _* See Note 4, ¢ John yiii, 58, ¢ John xvi. 28. 
 Cc 
 
26 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 prayed to his Heavenly Father, saying,* ‘‘ Father, I have glori- 
 fied thee on the earth, I have finished the work which thou 
 gavest me to do; and now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine 
 own self, with the glory I had with thee before the world was.” 
 How clearly does this ascertain the meaning of the apostle 
 in the passage which we are now considering, to be that which 
 we ascribe to him! how unquestionably does it establish the 
 pre-existence, and the eternal glory of the Redeemer! ‘Thus 
 the apostles understood the former of these declarations ; for 
 they said unto him; “ Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and 
 speakest no proverb; now are we sure that thou knowest all 
 things; by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.” t 
 
 The apostle proceeds in the text; ‘the same Word was in 
 the beginning with God; all things were made by him, and 
 without him was not any thing made.” 
 
 Here the Socinian improvers of the Sacred text, directly 
 oppose the distinguished prelate, by whose authority they 
 attempt to sanction their translation,{ (while in every passage 
 opposing their own system, as in this instance, they reject his 
 authority,) for he explains this “‘of the creation of the visible 
 world by Christ.” No, say the Socinians, it only means ; ‘‘ that 
 all things in the Christian dispensation were done by Christ, that 
 is, by his authority, and under his directions ; and in the ministry 
 committed to his apostles, nothing was done without his warrant. 
 
 Here, without particularly noticing how utterly forced, unna- 
 tural, and almost incredible is this explanation, how extravagant 
 an attempt to deprive our Saviour of his dignity, as Creator of 
 the world—not to dwell on this, I would only ask, how can we 
 reconcile this Socinian interpretation with the declaration of St. 
 Paul to the Colossians, already quoted, when magnifying the 
 mercy of God? ‘* Who,” saith he, ‘hath delivered us from 
 the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the king- 
 dom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through 
 his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the 
 invisible God, the first-born of every creature. For by him 
 were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in 
 earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, 
 or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and 
 
 * John, xvii. 5. + John, xvi, 29. $ See Note 5, 
 
DISCOURSE II. 27 
 
 for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.’”* 
 But what, if even this sublime description of the Redeemer’s 
 works, as Creator of the world, is tortured and degraded, as, 
 ‘‘ meaning only the great change which was introduced into the 
 moral world, and particularly into the relative situation of Jews 
 and Gentiles by the dispensation of the Gospel.”t If this be 
 the sense of this and similar passages, it seems most strange 
 that artless, honest, pious men like the apostles, should thus 
 use so many sublime expressions concerning Christ, at first sight 
 so strongly misleading men to believe him truly God, while in 
 all these they had a reserved sense, meaning only that he was 
 miraculously inspired, gifted and exalted, but still a mere man, 
 Would such subtlety on such a subject be consistent with fair- 
 ness, truth, and piety ? 
 
 In truth and seriousness, my fellow-christians, if we deny 
 either “‘that the Word was in the beginning with God, and 
 was God, and that all things were made by him,” or on the 
 other hand deny, that the same Word dwelt among us, and 
 that ‘we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of 
 the Father, full of grace and truth,Ӥ we shall contradict the 
 plainest declarations of Scripture, and shall meet in every page 
 of the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles, a multitude 
 of inexplicable assertions, and irreconcilable contradictions. 
 Whereas, by admitting both the divinity and the incarnation of 
 the Redeemer, we find the all-pervading and connecting principle, 
 which solves the difficulties, and reconciles the apparent contra~- 
 dictions of Scripture, and gives to the entire scheme of reve- 
 lation, harmony and consistence. 
 
 If we admit that Christ was at once truly God and truly man, 
 we can reconcile the divine characters ascribed to Him, and the 
 humble adoration paid to Him on various occasions, with the 
 humiliation and sufferings ascribed to Him on others. Nay, 
 when both the divine and human characters are attributed to 
 Him in one and the same sentence, with what at first seems a 
 studied and irreconcilable opposition, we can perceive it is no 
 more than a full exhibition of these different truths. By uniting 
 
 * Coloss. i, 18-17. + Vide Burnet on Article II. his first argument. 
 . ~ $John, i, 1. _§ John, i, 14. 
 
28 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 these two truths we can understand the prophecy of the sublime 
 Isaiah, ‘‘ Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and 
 the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall 
 be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlast- 
 ing Father, the Prince of Peace;’* and that of Malachi, 
 ‘‘ Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the 
 way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come 
 to His temple; even the messenger of the covenant whom ye 
 delight in, behold He shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts ;’} and 
 that of Micah, ‘‘ Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be 
 little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He 
 come forth unto Me, He that is to be ruler in Israel, whose 
 goings forth have been of old, from everlasting ;*{ and that most 
 remarkable prediction of Zechariah, declaring at once the 
 infliction of sufferings on the Redeemer, and yet that the person 
 thus suffering was equal with God, ‘“‘ Awake, ch sword, against 
 my Shepherd, and against the man who is my fellow, saith the 
 Lord of Hosts; smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scat- 
 tered.Ӥ This prophecy our Lord, immediately before His suffering 
 applied to Himself, as predicting the desertion even of His chosen 
 apostles at that trying hour when He told them, ‘‘Allye shall be 
 offended, because of me this night, for it is written, I will smite 
 the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.”|| Now 
 the prophet had declared that the Shepherd, who as man was 
 thus to be smitten, was no other than He, ‘‘ who is my fellow, 
 saith the Lord of Hosts.” What but Christ’s being at once per- 
 fect God and perfect man, can reconcile ‘and harmonise these, at 
 first sight, inconsistent characters ? 
 
 Thus also we perceive the justice of St. Matthew’s application of 
 prophecy, when on the miraculous birth of our Lord, he declares, 
 ** Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled, which was 
 spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a Virgin 
 shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call 
 His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is God with 
 us.” 
 
 It should here be particularly remarked, that the acknow- 
 
 * Tsaiah, ix. 6. + Malachi, iii. 1. $ Micah, v. 2. 
 § Zechariah, xiii, 7, | Matt. xxvi. 31, q Matt. i, 22, 23, 
 
DISCOURSE It. 29 
 
 ledgment of the union of the divine and human natures in the 
 person of Christ, is the only key to explain the prophetic records. 
 This evidently appears from the reasoning of our divine Lord 
 Himself, when His adversaries endeavoured to entrap Him by 
 insidious questions, which, however answered, would (as they 
 hoped) discredit him with one or other of the parties, who held 
 opposite opinions on the subjects proposed to Him. After 
 having defeated their treacherous hypocrisy, by the manly plain- 
 ness and profound wisdom of His replies, He completely checked 
 and silenced their presumption, by questioning them in His turn. 
 For ‘* while the Pharisees were gathered together, (says St. 
 Matthew) Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ ? 
 whose Son is He? ‘They say unto Him, the Son of David: 
 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call Him 
 Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my 
 right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool :* if David 
 then call Him Lord, how is He his son? and no man was able 
 to answer Him a word, neither durst any man from that day. 
 forth ask Him any more questions.”{ Here our Lord refers to 
 a hymn of the inspired psalmist, which clearly predicts the king- 
 dom, the priesthood, the suffering, and the triumph of the 
 Messiah, but which is utterly inexplicable, except by admitting 
 the union of the divine and human nature in Christ. Thus it 
 was evident, that as man, ‘* He was the son of David;” but it 
 was only as God that ‘‘He could sit at the right hand of the 
 Most High, rule in the midst of His enemies,” and possess an 
 eternal priesthood, ‘‘ after the order of Melchisedec,” that is, 
 as the King of righteousness—a title typical of the eternal 
 Mediator, to whom every other priesthood was subordinate, 
 and by whom alone propitiation with God can be completed. 
 This inference from the reasoning of our divine Lord, rests 
 not on mine, or any mere human authority. It is sanctioned by 
 the great apostle of the Gentiles, who, from the very same pas- 
 sage of the inspired Psalmist, infers the superiority of the 
 Redeemer, above the highest orders of angelic beings. ‘* To 
 which of the angels, (the apostle asks,) said He at any time, Sit 
 on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool ? Are 
 
 * Psalm, cx. I. + Matt. xxii, 41-46, 
 
30 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them 
 who shall be heirs of salvation?”* Now, if we exclude from our 
 view of the character of Christ, His voluntary humiliation from 
 the participation of divine glory, to a state of human debasement, 
 and the suffering he endured as the atonement for human guilt ; 
 if we suppose Him only a prophet to teach, and an example to 
 guide mankind; how would He be distinguished from the supe- 
 rior spirits who minister to the heirs of salvation ? how would 
 the psalmist’s description or the apostle’s argument be pecu- 
 liarly appropriate to the Son of David? But how strict is the 
 application, how just the reasoning, when we contemplate the 
 unspeakably exalted idea the apostle exhibits of the Messiah. 
 ‘ God,” says he, “‘ who at sundry times, and in divers manners, 
 spake in time past unto the. fathers by the prophets, hath in 
 these last days spoken unto us by His Son.” t . 
 
 Here our opponents affirm Jesus Christ is no otherwise the 
 Son of God, than any other pious teacher or inspired prophet. 
 How diametrically opposite is this to the apostle’s view of the 
 dignity annexed to Christ, as Son of God, that Son ‘* whom 
 He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the 
 worlds; who being the brightness of His glory, and the express 
 image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of 
 His power, when He had by Himself, purged our sins, sat down 
 on the right hand of the Majesty on high ; being made so much 
 better than the angels, as he hath by inherttance obtained a more 
 excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said 
 He at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
 thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shail be 
 to mea Son. And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten 
 into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship 
 Him.”{ Shall we, my fellow-Christians, hear this from the 
 inspired word of God, and refuse to bow to Him whom angels, 
 even the most exalted, are bound to adore? Strongly and 
 clearly indeed, does the apostle contrast the dignity of angels, 
 however exalted, with the divine Majesty of Christ: “ Of the 
 angels (says the apostle) God saith, who maketh His angels 
 spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire; but unto the Son He 
 
 * Heb. i, 13, 14, +Heb i, 1, 2. t Heb i, 2-6, 
 
DISCOURSE II, ol 
 
 saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of 
 righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”* This is the great 
 Being whom the presumptuous scepticism of blind and feeble 
 mortals dares to undeify, to dethrone from heaven, and wrest 
 from His hand that sceptre of righteousness, which is the 
 sceptre of His kingdom. O, my fellow-Christians, let us with 
 unfeigned sincerity renounce such scepticism and such presump- 
 tion; and remember the declaration of our Lord himself, as 
 transmitted to us by the beloved apostle, ‘that all men should 
 honour the Son even as they honour the Father; he who 
 honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent 
 Him.”f 
 
 Thus awful is the danger of rejecting those peculiar doctrines 
 of the Gospel, which some men think unimportant, because as 
 they suppose they have no necessary connexion with the truths 
 or the duties of what they term the religion of reason and nature, 
 to which exclusively they would confine their regard. No, my 
 friends, to despise the doctrines of a clearly attested revelation, 
 is to deny the truth, and shake off the authority of the Lord of 
 nature, and the God of truth. 
 
 That the apostles, and the primitive Christians, who derived 
 from the apostles immediately the doctrines of Christianity, ful- 
 filled the obvious duty arising from the express revelation of the 
 divinity of Christ, to pay divine honours to Him, the crucified 
 Redeemer, may be proved from the entire tenor of the apostolic 
 writings, and the clear evidence of ecclesiastical history. We 
 have seen proofs of this in the form of baptism, in the apostolic 
 benediction employed by St. Paul, and by many of the other 
 apostles. We may add the example of St. ‘Thomas, who, when 
 his disbelief was removed, was constrained to address his 
 Redeemer with the solemn and emphatic language of adoration; 
 ‘© My Lord and my God!” adoration which, had it not been 
 exactly such as the apostle, (with the knowledge he then pos- 
 sessed of our Lord’s nature,) ought to have directed to him, our 
 Lord would certainly have rejected, as He had before repressed 
 the young man who applied to him, ‘‘ Good Master, what good 
 thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life ?’§ Our Lord 
 
 e Pp, zly. 6. + John, v.23. John, xx. 28,  § Mark, x, 17. 
 
32 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 here censured this language, because the person who used it, 
 viewing Christ merely as a man, (though a man inspired,) ought 
 not to apply to Him as man the epithet of good, which our 
 Saviour declared belonged only to God. Now can we believe 
 that our Lord, thus careful that no one should transfer to any 
 being whom they did not know to be God, a single particle or 
 title of honour belonging to God, can we believe he would have 
 permitted St. Thomas to apply to Him, the transcendently 
 highest titles of “‘my Lord, and my God,” which it is affirmed 
 was a mistaken application of these titles, proceeding from sud- 
 den surprise? Assuredly, if there had been here such an error, 
 our Lord would have instantly and clearly correctedit. Whereas, 
 on the contrary, he accepts these titles: ‘* Jesus. saith unto him, 
 Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed ; blessed 
 are they which have not seen, and yet have believed :” thus 
 accepting the worship, and applauding the faith of the apostle, 
 he encouraged all future believers to adopt the same faith as 
 that of St. Thomas, and authorized them to display it in the 
 same adoration. : 
 Thus also St. Stephen, at the hour of martyrdom—when to. 
 Support and to reward his glorious constancy heaven was 
 opened to his view, and he was permitted, to behold the glory 
 of God, and Jesus sitting at the right hand of God—terminated 
 his life by addressing Christ with language of adoration, exactly 
 similar to that, which, when hanging on the cross, Christ had 
 addressed to his Heavenly Father. Both, with their expiring 
 breath, implored pardon for their persecutors ; and as Jesus had 
 prayed his Heavenly Father, ‘into thine hands I commend my» 
 spirit,” so the holy martyr implored his Redeemer, ‘ Lord 
 Jesus receive my spirit ;’* thus accurately fulfilling the decla- 
 ration of our Lord, “that all men should honour the Son even 
 as they honour the Father.” , 
 Surely it were a plain perversion of Scripture, to affirm with 
 the Unitarians, that no Christian can at the hour of sorrow or 
 of death, commit himself to the protection of his Redeemer, or 
 adore his Majesty like the holy martyr, except, like him, he is 
 favoured with the same miraculous view of his celestial glory. 
 
 * Acts, x. 54, 60. 
 
DISCOURSE II. 353 
 
 No; the reality once shown, is a sure foundation for similar faith 
 and adoration to the end of the world. The suffering or 
 dying Christian, is for ever called, with steady endurance to 
 seek and to wait for the same consolation; in the midst of the 
 most malignant persecution to imitate the martyr’s benevo- 
 lence; and, at the last struggle of expiring nature, to lift the 
 eye of faith to heaven, and behold the glory of God and 
 Jesus sitting at the right hand of God ready as his Mediator, 
 his Redeemer, and his. Judge, to crown him with never-fading 
 glory, and exalt him to immortal happiness. 
 
 The attempt to deprive the Christian of the benefit of this 
 ennobling example and encouragement, supplies a melancholy 
 instance of the depressing and chilling power, with which the 
 narrow and heartless system of Socinianism, would repress the 
 warm feelings, and crush the aspiring hopes of genuine Christian 
 faith and Christian piety. 
 
 Equally decisive is the example of the apostles worshipping 
 the Lord immediately after he was parted from them, and 
 carried up into heaven.* At that moment, either Christ was 
 God indeed, or his apostles were inexcusable idolaters, as they 
 violated the law which Jesus himself had instructed them to 
 revere; and Jesus, who did not check and reject such homage, 
 outraged the Supreme Being whom he professed to serve, and 
 who at that moment was receiving him to glory, and by this his 
 last solemn act on earth, overthrew his own so frequently 
 inculcated principle, ‘* Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
 and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve.” f 
 
 Thus also, the prayer of the apostles for divine aid to assist 
 them in the choice of a successor to Judas, was evidently 
 addressed to Christ.{ He it was, who had originally chosen 
 the twelve apostles to be the witnesses of his ministry, his 
 sufferings, and his resurrection. This also was to be the 
 business of the new apostle about to be chosen. It is surely 
 then unnatural, nay, almost incredible, that the apostles should 
 not look up to Jesus as the person to select this new apostle. 
 The word ‘* Lord,” was the constant title by which they dis- 
 tinguished him; when, therefore, they prayed, and said, ** Thou, 
 
 * Matt, xxviii. 17, + Luke, xxiv, 52. t Acts, i. oO” u 
 
34 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Lord, which knowest the hearts of all, show whether of these 
 two thou hast chosen,” the Lord Jesus was undoubtedly meant. 
 It cannot be supposed that St. Peter would hesitate to ascribe 
 to this his Lord, the power of knowing the hearts of all; a 
 power which had been so recently and so signally exercised 
 with respect to himself,* and which he had so distinctly and so 
 feelingly acknowledged, when, on his Lord repeating a third 
 time the question, ‘* Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me,” the 
 apostle, grieved at a repetition which so clearly, and yet with 
 such delicacy, referred to his third repeated denial, replied, 
 ** Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love 
 thee.” If this reasoning be admitted, we have here an instance 
 of a solemn prayer addressed to our Lord, by all the apostles, 
 with the ascription to him of that omniscience, which to the 
 supreme God alone can be attributed, consistently with truth 
 and piety. 
 Not less clear is the example of St. Paul: when what he terms 
 a thorn in the flesh was inflicted on him,f lest he ‘‘ should be ° 
 exalted above measure, through the abundance of the reve- 
 lations” vouchsafed unto him, he ‘‘ besought the Lord thrice 
 that it might depart from him.”{ It has been admitted that the 
 apostle invoked Christ; but it is alleged that here also was a 
 personal appearance of Christ; for the apostle adds, ‘‘he (that 
 is, Christ) said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for my 
 strength is made perfect in weakness.” This inference is not 
 strictly conclusive; the apostle might have been instructed that 
 this was the decision of Christ, by the internal impression of 
 inspiration, as easily as by a repetition of any such personal 
 and glorious appearance of our Lord, as had been employed at 
 his first conversion. -But if it be admitted that our Lord was 
 seen on this occasion in a miraculous vision, and heard to pro- 
 nounce this, as when he appeared to him ‘in a trance at the 
 temple of Jerusalem,”§ on the apostle’s praying, (doubtless to 
 this his Lord,) and commanded, ‘‘ Depart, for I will send thee 
 far hence among the Gentiles;” ‘‘if this were admitted, it 
 would not lessen the authority of the example. If the Redeemer 
 * Luke, xxii, 31-34, compared with John, xx. 15-18. 
 f 2 Cor. xii. 7, ¢ See Note 6, § Acts, xxii. 17-21. 
 
- DISCOURSE II. 35 
 
 could be invoked as God, without idolatry under any circum- 
 stance, it must then have been known he was God; and if this 
 was then true, he must be God for ever. 
 
 Here, as in the cases of St. Thomas, of the Ascension, and of 
 St. Stephen, though the same immediate, miraculous, and awful 
 events, which called forth these instances of devotion, can never 
 occur to any Christian at this day, yet the eye of faith, reverting 
 to these great events, will employ them as the means of exciting 
 devotion towards that adorable Redeemer, who was acknow- 
 ledged by the apostle as his Lord and his God, to whom the 
 martyr committed his departing spirit, and who, having ascended 
 on high, was worshipped by all the apostles. ‘To say that this 
 is unnecessary, or impossible for Christians at this hour, is to 
 limit the efficacy of miracles to the moment of their exhibition, 
 to render useless all the means of grace, and to despise the 
 declaration of our Saviour, ‘** Blessed are those who have not 
 seen, and yet have believed.” 
 
 But we do not rely solely on these instances, however striking 
 and conclusive, as the only proofs of that adoration being due 
 and paid to Christ, the Messiah, which could not be due or 
 paid to him, if he was not truly God. Our Lord himself, on the 
 last solemn meeting with his disciples, before his crucifixion, 
 authorized and commanded all Christians to offer up prayers 
 in his name, with the assurance that he would himself hear and 
 answer them, and this in such a manner as to identify himself 
 with the Father, in a way utterly inexplicable and indefensible, 
 except we believe him to partake of the same Godhead. In one 
 place he tells them, ‘‘ Believe me, that I am in the Father, 
 and the Father in me, or else believe me for the works’ sake.”* 
 _ And after assuring them, that he would communicate to them 
 the power of working miracles, he adds; ‘‘ Whatsoever ye 
 shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be 
 glorified in the Son: if ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will 
 do it.” In another place he declares ‘‘ Whatsoever ye shall ask 
 the Father in my name, he will give it you.’t Thus the Father 
 and Son would equally hear and equally grant the prayer of the 
 ‘aithful, offered in the name of Christ. Does it not follow irre- 
 
 * John, xiv, 8-14, + Compare John xiy. with John xy, 16, 
 
36 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 sistibly, that they must equally possess omniscience and omnipo- 
 tence, and be alike the objects of faith, and hope, and adoration ? 
 
 How express and clear, in declaring that adoration was due 
 to our Saviour, is the apostle John in his first epistle. After 
 testifying the indispensable necessity to our salvation, that 
 Christ should reign in our hearts, ‘‘ for (saith he) he that hath 
 the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not 
 life ;” he adds, ‘‘ this is the confidence that we have in him, that 
 if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us; and if 
 we know that he hears us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we 
 have the petitions which we desired of him.”* 
 
 To the authority which thus enjoined adoration to the Son of 
 God, the practice of the Christian church was perfectly confor- 
 mable. In truth the worship of Christ was so universal, and so 
 remarkable, that it early became the distinguishing character 
 of the Christian church, both among friends and enemies; and 
 to be a Christian and worshipper of Christ, became appel- 
 lations perfectly synonymous. ‘Thus, when the Jews persecuted 
 the first converts to the faith, before they were distinguished by 
 the name of Christians, they were distinguished by the character 
 of worshippers of Christ. Thus Ananias, when our Lord had 
 appeared ina vision, and directed him to go to Saul, and heal 
 him, he declares ‘‘ Lord, he hath authority from the chief 
 priests to bind all that call upon thy name.”+ And when, from 
 a persecutor, Saul became an apostle, he also adopted the same 
 language, and to the Romans avowed it to be the object of the 
 ministry of the Gospel to declare, that ‘* whosoever calleth 
 upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”{ And again he 
 addresses the church of Corinth, ‘‘ To them that are sanctified 
 in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place 
 call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours, 
 grace be unto you, and peace from God the Father and the 
 Lord Jesus.” § 
 
 In addition to this clear apostolic testimony—in another 
 region of the world, and about seventy years afterwards, Pliny 
 the heathen, who had made himself accurately acquainted with 
 the religious worship of Christians, by the complaints of enemies, 
 
 *1 John, vy. 11-15. + John, ii, 14. + Rom, x.18, $1 Cor. i. 2. 
 
DISCOURSE It. o7 
 
 the confessions of apostates, and even the putting to the torture 
 persons of inferior rank, who assisted as servants in their 
 religious assemblies, even he describes, as the very first and 
 most prominent feature in these assemblies, ‘‘ that they met 
 before day to sing a hymn to Christ as God.”* 
 
 I have dwelt the longer on this point, not only because the 
 adoration paid to Christ, is the clearest conceivable proof that he 
 was universally revered as God by the primitive Christians, but 
 because it forms the most direct and essential effect and pre- 
 servative of that reverence, and constitutes the first practical 
 and obvious distinction between those who revere and honour 
 as they ought the Son of God, the Saviour of man, and those 
 who entertain much lower views of his nature and character, 
 and thence unhappily labour to degrade him from the dignity 
 ascribed to him as God incarnate; and who would thus deprive 
 Christians of their brightest consolation, and their dearest 
 privilege: for oh! how great is the consolation to the penitent, 
 suffering, sorrowing sinner, who deeply feels his unworthiness 
 and his weakness, to be allowed to offer up prayers and suppli- 
 cations to that Jesus, the Son of God, who hath “ passed into 
 the heavens,” and who, ‘being placed at the right hand of 
 God, ever liveth to make intercession” for the sincerely contrite 
 heart. ‘This is the motive by which the apostle encourages our 
 prayers. ‘* We have not (says he) an high priest who cannot 
 be touched with a feeling of our infirmities, but one who was in 
 all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin; let us there- 
 fore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain 
 mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”f 
 
 Yes, my fellow-Christians, in the hour of temptation and 
 trial, of dejection and sorrow, of terror and suffering, invaluable 
 is the privilege, heart-reviving the consolation of being per- 
 mitted to approach this our all-merciful Redeemer, of confessing 
 to him our manifold sins, imploring his mediation, throwing 
 ourselves on his mercy, and claiming the benefit of his all- 
 sufficient atonement. ‘This alone can soothe the sorrow which 
 mourns for the friend of our heart, and cheer the gloom of our 
 own approaching dissolution. 
 
 * Vide Pliny’s celebrated letter to Trajan. + Heb. iv. 14-16. 
 
38 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 It is such rational faith and devotion towards this our glorious 
 Saviour, which alone can prepare us to join that grand chorus | 
 of all the host of heaven, and all the redeemed from earth, 
 whom the beloved apostle was permitted in prophetic vision 
 to behold: even ‘‘a great multitude which no man could 
 number, of all nations and kindreds, and people, and tongues, 
 who stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, and cried 
 with a loud voice, Salvation to our God, which sitteth on the 
 throne, and unto the Lamb.” ‘There also he beheld the four 
 angelic living creatures, and the four and twenty elders who 
 surrounded the eternal throne; ‘‘having every one of them harps, 
 and vials full of odours which are the prayers of the saints: 
 and they sung a new song, saying, ‘Thou art worthy to take the 
 book, and to open the leaves thereof; (that book which con- 
 tained the decrees of Providence ;) for thou wast slain, and hast 
 redeemed us unto God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and 
 people, and nation.”* Such is the adoration which the redeemed 
 are described as paying to their Saviour. Nor is this all; the entire 
 creation is represented as uniting him with the eternal Father, 
 whose throne he shares, in the prayers which they pour forth 
 before that celestial throne. 
 
 May we, my friends, be, by the grace of God, so animated 
 with this faith and devotion, that we may be called to join 
 this assembly of the blessed, who having ‘‘ washed their robes, 
 and made them white in the- blood of the Lamb, shall stand. 
 before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his 
 temple, and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among 
 them; they shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; 
 neither shall the sun light on them, neither any heat; for the 
 Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall lead them unto 
 living fountains of water, and God shall wipe away all tears 
 from their eyes.’’f 
 
 That such may be our steady faith now, and such our blessed 
 lot hereafter, may God of his infinite mercy grant, through the 
 merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer— 
 to whom be glory, now and for ever! Amen. 
 
 * Rey. Ve 8, 9, + Rey. Vii, 14-17, 
 
39 
 
 DISCOURSE III. 
 
 JOHN, V. 21, 22, 23, 
 
 ** As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He 
 will; for the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men 
 
 should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father; he that honoureth not the Son, 
 honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him,” 
 
 Ir shall be my object in this discourse to inquire, how far the 
 divine nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is attested by the 
 powers attributed to Him in the Scriptures, and the part he is 
 described as sustaining in the formation and government of the 
 human race. The result of this inquiry will, I trust, be found 
 most convincing, as derived from facts which form the basis of 
 the Scripture history, and which cannot be removed from it, 
 without overturning the entire superstructure, and changing the 
 order and harmony of the divine dispensations into a mass of 
 contradiction and perplexity. 
 
 On this inquiry I trust it will appear, that the nature and 
 extent of the powers exerted by Christ, were not only such as 
 no other prophet ever before claimed or exercised; but that they 
 were also employed in a manner indicating a degree of autho- 
 rity and self-direction, which no other prophet ever assumed; 
 and which would have been entirely unjustifiable in any being not 
 possessing, in his own person, the power and authority of God 
 Himself. 
 
 Every Christian acquainted with the Scriptures will recollect, 
 how carefully they every where inculcate, that God alone is the 
 Creator, the Preserver, the Lord, and J udge of man; that God 
 alone can bestow any supernatural power ; that to Him alone is 
 to be ascribed every miracle which is performed; that God alone* 
 knoweth the thoughts and searcheth the hearts; that God alone 
 “can kill and make alive, neither is there any that can deliver 
 
 * Deut. xxxii, 39. 
 
40 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 out of His hand.” Now, if they observe that to Christ Jesus 
 are attributed the same powers and offices, of Creator, Saviour, 
 the Author of life, the Ruler and Judge of man, it will clearly 
 follow, that he is identified with that God, to whom by the 
 whole tenor of the Scriptures, these characters exclusively belong. 
 
 Thus also the’ reader of the Scriptures will recollect how 
 vigilantly, I may say how jealously, they maintain the exclusive 
 right of God to the glory and the honour of every word and 
 work for which His supernatural interference is required. ‘I 
 -am the Lord, that is my name, and my giory will I not give unto 
 another.’’* | 
 
 Whenever any human being, however highly favoured or 
 miraculously assisted, did not take care, in every instance, to 
 ascribe the glory of every great work to God alone—when he 
 gave the slightest indication that he claimed as his own any 
 share of the power which was wrought, and the praise which 
 was due to it, that instant he was rebuked and punished. 
 
 Moses and Aaron were commanded in the desert of Zin, to 
 ‘“‘ speak unto the rock, before the assembled congregation, that 
 it should give forth water for them to drink :”’t they spake unad- 
 visedly, they said, ‘‘ Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you 
 water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and with 
 his rod he smote the rock twice, and the waters gushed out 
 abundantly.” This word and gesture of Moses (otherwise the 
 meekest of ment) offended God, because it gave Him not the 
 undivided glory of this miracle. The Lord spake unto Moses 
 and Aaron, ‘‘ Because-ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the 
 eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this 
 congregation into the land which I have given them.” 
 
 This is the uniform language of Scripture. Now compare 
 with this, the conduct and language of Christ, and a most 
 remarkable distinction will appear. It is true, he frequently 
 and clearly speaks of God the Father, as He who ‘‘ sent Him 
 into the world, to do the mighty works He wrought ;” yet of 
 His own part in these works, He speaks in a language wholly 
 different from any other prophet. Who ever said, ‘*’The Father 
 who dwelleth in me, He doeth the works; believe me, that I am 
 
 * Isaiah, xiii. 8. + Numbers, xx, &, 12, $ Numbers, xii, 3. 
 
DISCOURSE III. Al 
 
 in the Father, and the Father in me, or else believe me for the 
 very works’ sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that 
 believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater 
 works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father, and 
 whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the 
 Father may be glorified in the Son; if ye shall ask any thing in 
 my name I will do it.”* Is not this an assumption of authority 
 and power, a promise of perpetual assistance and support, to 
 proceed directly from himself; which nothing could justify but His 
 participation of the nature and power of God? 
 
 Thus again; after healing the impotent man at the pool of 
 Bethesda, ‘‘ The Jews sought to slay Jesus, because He did 
 these things on the Sabbath day,”t how remarkable was our 
 Lords reply. ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” 
 Could any language more clearly identify Himself with God? 
 And so it was understood by the Jews, who sought the more to 
 kill Him, because ‘“‘ He not only had broken the Sabbath, but 
 said also, that God was His Father, making Himself equal with 
 God. Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, Verily, verily, I 
 say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what he seeth 
 the Father do, for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth 
 the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth 
 Him all things that Himself doeth: and He will show Him 
 greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the 
 Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the 
 Son quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, 
 but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men should 
 honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that 
 honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath 
 sent Him.” From all this does it not irresistibly force itself upon 
 us, ‘‘did ever man speak like this man?” Could any mere human 
 being speak thus ‘‘who had no existence before his human 
 birth, and of whom we cannot certainly learn from the Scrip- 
 . tures, that in the usual course of the moral administration of 
 Providence, He has any immediate agency, or in any way 
 directly influences the minds of His disciples.”{ Would such 
 
 * John, iv. 11. + John, v. 16—31. 
 ¢ Dr. Carpenter’s Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel, p. 7, and 263. 
 DB 
 
42 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 an assumption of union with God, in power, in works, even the 
 most awful works—would such an assumption have been tole- 
 rated; much more would it have been favoured and glerified, 
 by such stupendous co-operation, in a mere man; in any being 
 not really united with God, in nature and will, in dignity and 
 authority ? 
 
 Having called your attention, my fellow-Christians, to this 
 general principle on which the argument of this discourse rests, 
 I shall now proceed to examine the nature and extent of these 
 various powers and works, by which this areas is exemplified 
 and confirmed. 
 
 It may, however, be necessary previously to obviate an appa- 
 rent objection, arising from the declaration of our Lord, ‘* The 
 Son can do nothing of Himself; but what He seeth the Father 
 do ;” words which have been supposed to indicate such a depend- 
 ence and inferiority m the Son, as excludes all idea of equality 
 of nature with the Father, and therefore prove Him not to be 
 God. But if we consider these words, in context with the fol- 
 lowing, the whole passage will clearly establish such an union of 
 power and will, and operation, as clearly proves an identity of 
 nature. Itis evident, that if the Son claimed or exercised a 
 power of doing what he had not seen the Father do, this would 
 prove that He either possessed some power or powers different 
 from any which God the Father possessed, which would be 
 inconsistent with the infinite perfection of the great First Cause, 
 or that He exercised His power in an eatent beyond that in which 
 it was exercised by God the Father, an opinion irreconcileable 
 with the infinitude, eternity and variety of the divine operations. 
 Either case would impress an idea not so much of equality of the 
 ‘Son with the Father as of disunion and opposition between them. 
 Their natures would appear not to be one and the same, but 
 different. and contrary; their designs and operations jarring and 
 adverse. While, on the contrary, our Saviour declares, that the 
 Son, ‘though He doeth nothing but what He seeth the Father 
 do,” which implies the most perfect union of will and operation, 
 yet He can do every thing, which he seeth the Father do; “‘for what 
 things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son like- 
 wise.” Surely this proves, He must possess equality of wisdom 
 and power, and therefore of nature and dignity. Is it not suffi- 
 cient to prove our Lord to be God, that He can do every thing 
 
DISCOURSE III. t 43 
 
 which God the Father doeth; or can it be necessary to show 
 that He can do more, or that He can and does employ His - 
 powers in a different manner from the all-perfect God? This 
 were surely impious and absurd. 
 
 Very different is the view of their perpetual union and concur- 
 rence, shown by the very next words of our Lord’s declaration: 
 “that the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all 
 things that Himself doeth;” that is, that He communicates 
 to the Son, and unites Him with Himself, in the entire 
 scheme of His divine government, and the entire series of 
 His infinite dispensations. Now, could this be possible, 
 if the Son did not partake of the same divine nature and per- 
 fections? Could He otherwise fully comprehend all the counsels 
 _ of the Divine Ruler, and perpetually co-operate in all His will ? 
 Could the Son do this, if He were not Himself infinite in wisdom 
 and power, and if He did not Himself possess the attributes, 
 and act according to the immutable rules of all-perfect justice, 
 mercy and truth—and must He not therefore be Himself truly 
 God ? 
 
 Further still, our Saviour goes on to declare, that he will 
 himself communicate to his followers, the power of working even 
 greater miracles than those which he himself performed ; thus 
 giving to human weakness a power of calling into action, as it 
 were, the Divine Omnipotence, by the assistance of the Son 
 of God. Must He not Himself then partake of this Omnipo- 
 tence, and be himself certainly and truly God? This conclusion 
 is abundantly confirmed by the nature of those particular powers, 
 which our Lord proceeds to declare He possesses, and will exer- 
 cise in common with God the Father, powers which we shall 
 now proceed to consider. 
 
 On this subject, the observation which appears most obviously 
 and powerfully to force itself on the mind, from perusing the 
 account of our Saviour’s miracles, is this—that though on many 
 occasions he asserts the constant union and co-operation of God 
 the Father in all his works, so as to assure us He never acts with- 
 out his concurrence both in power and will, yet in many instances 
 He speaks and acts as if entirely from Himself, and so as not to 
 lead the spectator to look beyond Him, but rather to ascribe 
 to Him directly the power and the glory of the mighty works He 
 performed. 
 
44 . SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Thus immediately after the Sermon on the Mount, (in which he 
 had assumed the character of a divine Lawgiver, withan authority 
 which astonished his hearers,) when a leper came and worshipped 
 him, saying, ‘* Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean,”* 
 (thus appearing to pay him homage, and ascribe to him a degree 
 of power belonging only to God,) our Lord replies, ‘* I will; be 
 thou clean,” accepting that homage, and exercising that power. 
 
 Thus again, when the pious centurion soon after approached, 
 beseeching him, and saying, ‘* Lord, my servant lieth at home, 
 sick of the palsy, grievously tormented,”t our Lord instantly 
 replies, *‘ I will come and heal him ;” a reply which certainly did 
 not lead the Centurion to look beyond his own immediate power. 
 And it is evident he viewed our Lord as possessing in himself a 
 degree of authority which it is scarcely possible to imagine 
 should belong to any being but God, that of commanding all 
 the powers of nature, and all the springs of life, so that he 
 could in a moment cure all diseases, in all individuals, even 
 though absent, and at places however remote merely by a word. 
 ‘“‘ Lord,” said he, ‘* I am not worthy thou shouldest come under 
 my roof, but speak the word only, and my servant shall be 
 healed; for I am a man under authority, having soldiers under 
 me, and I say to this man, go, and he goeth; and to another, 
 come, and he cometh; and to my servant, do this, and he doeth 
 it.” Surely here, were our Lord a mere man, possessing no in- 
 herent power of thus commanding absolutely all the elements, 
 and controlling all the operations of nature, he would necessarily 
 have corrected the misconception of the overzealous supplicant, 
 and directed his attention to the Supreme God, as alone 
 possessing such power, by declaring, that he was merely his 
 delegate, appointed in particular cases to dispense his mercies 
 and execute his will. But on the contrary, our Lord declares 
 the opinion the Centurion had formed of his power was accu- 
 rately just, and he highly applauds the faith which dictated this 
 opinion, and rewards it with an immediate grant of his humble 
 request. ‘‘ When Jesus heard it, he marvelled,” (doubtless at 
 finding a person who, not likely to have been conversant in the 
 Jewish Scriptures, had such just ideas of the Divine nature and 
 powers of the Messiah,) ‘‘and he said to them that followed 
 
 * Matt, viii, 2, 3, f Matt, viii, 5—14, 
 
DISCOURSE III. 45 
 
 him, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” He also 
 takes occasion to impress upon his hearers, that such a faith as 
 this, which acknowledged and revered the divine and boundless 
 power of the Messiah, was essentially necessary for obtaining 
 admission into his kingdom, and salvation by his interposition. 
 ‘* And I say unto you, that many shall come from the East and 
 from the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and 
 Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven; but the children of the 
 Kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness; there shall be weep- 
 ing and gnashing of teeth; and he said unto the Centurion, 
 Go thy way, and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto 
 thee ; and his servant was healed in the self-same hour.” From 
 the entire of this transaction, it appears to me most certain that 
 the Centurion believed that Christ possessed permanently and 
 inherently in His own person, the same power, as is usually 
 believed to belong exclusively to God, and therefore looked up 
 to Him as God; and that our Lord confirmed and applauded 
 this faith, and therefore assumed to Himself a dignity and power, 
 which, had He not been really God, would have been criminal 
 and impious. 
 
 Soon after this, when our Lord had entered into a ship, and 
 His disciples followed Him, behold ‘there arose a great tempest, 
 insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves.”* Hereit 
 appeared how deeply the disciples were impressed with the con- 
 ‘Viction, that our Lord possessed that power to direct and control 
 ‘all the elements of nature, which we usually attribute to the 
 God of nature alone. Instantly they applied to Him, and awoke 
 Him, saying, ‘‘ Lord, save us, we perish.” Our Lord does not, 
 like Moses, refer the supplicants to God—* Fear ye not; stand 
 still, and see the salvation of the Lord.”t ‘ He saith unto 
 them, why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then He arose, 
 and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was agreat calm.” { 
 This naturally led the awe-struck spectators to consider this 
 stupendous power, as inherent in their master. ‘ They now 
 marvelled, saying, what manner of man is this, that even the 
 winds and the sea obey Him?” Now what could have produced 
 this surprise, in men accustomed to read of so many apparently 
 
 * Matt. viii, 23—27, + Exod, xiy. 13, ¢ Matt, viii, 26 
 
46 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 greater miracles, wrought by Jewish Prophets, through the 
 acknowledged interposition of God, but their opinion, that this 
 miracle was performed by a power, inherent in Jesus Christ 
 Himself, that the winds and the waves obeyed Him? an opinion 
 doubtlessly produced from the manner of our Saviour having 
 indicated, that He acted from His own power. 
 
 A subsequent occasion of a somewhat similar nature, soon 
 aiter took place ; where the disciples were in a ship tossed by 
 the waves, and He, in the fourth watch of the night, appeared to 
 them walking on the sea. ‘‘ When the disciples saw him they were 
 troubled, saying it is a spirit, and they cried out for fear ; but 
 straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer, 
 it is 1; be not afraid.”* Then follows the remarkable circum- 
 stance of Peter’s requesting, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come 
 unto thee upon the waters; and the Lord said Come, and he 
 walked on the waters to go to Jesus,” sustained by the almighty 
 power over the elements, which our Lord now exerted for him. 
 ** But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid.” The 
 Searcher of hearts perceived the criminal terror, and for an 
 instant withheld his secret aid; when the terrified apostle 
 ** beginning to sink, cried, Lord, save me; immediately Jesus 
 stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O 
 thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? and when they 
 were come into the ship the wind ceased.” This repeated exer- 
 cise of power over the elements, naturally impressed the disciples 
 with a strong conviction, that their Lord possessed the same 
 power as the God of nature, and therefore was entitled to the 
 same homage. ‘*'Then they who were in the ship came and 
 worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.” 
 The circumstances prove, that by this high title they did not 
 mean that -he was merely like any other man, a creature of God, 
 or like the greatest of prophets, inspired and assisted by God, 
 but that He was in such a peculiar sense the Son of God, as to 
 partake of the same nature, and the same power as God, and 
 was entitled to the same adoration. Would the pious and hum- 
 ble Jesus have permitted this error to arise from His own con- 
 duct, and leave it uncorrected if it had been an error ? would 
 
 * Matt. xiv, 24 
 
DISCOURSE IIi. 47. 
 
 He have accepted of this title and this homage, if they had not 
 of right. belonged to Him ? 
 
 A very remarkable instance of the same nature occurs in the 
 man born blind, whose cure, recorded by St. John, was so 
 singular in its manner, and so publicly and severely scrutinized 
 by our Lord’s enemies, the Pharisees—a scrutiny which the 
 grateful object of this miracle sustained with firmness, estab- 
 lishing, with manly and irresistible argument, the divine power 
 and authority of Him who wrought the cure. ‘‘ Since the 
 world began was it never heard, that any man opened the eyes 
 of one that was born blind; if this man were not of God He 
 - eould do nothing.” Our Lord rewarded his honest and firm 
 faith, by revealing His own true character and dignity ; he 
 questioned him, ‘‘ Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He 
 answered and said, Who is He Lord, that I might believe on 
 Him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and 
 itis He that talketh with thee! and he said, Lord, I believe, and 
 he worshipped him.” Was not this an act of religious adoration, 
 produced by our Lord’s avowing clearly His divine nature and. 
 character, and accepted by him as an homage, which to that 
 nature and character, when known, was strictly due ? 
 
 Various other examples might be collected from the Evangelic 
 history, in which the nature of the mighty works wrought by our 
 Lord, combined with the circumstances attending them, evi- 
 dently tended to produce a strong impression on the minds of 
 the spectators, that the power thus displayed was inherent in 
 our Lord Himself, exercised according to His own choice, and 
 so stupendous in its nature, so unlimited in its extent, that it 
 could not belong to any being less than the God of Nature, the 
 Creator and Ruler of the world. 
 
 The same examples also tend to prove, that our Lord did 
 not correct this impression as exaggerated and erroneous, or 
 check the expression of it, as unwarrantably transferring to him 
 the honour due only to God—a precaution which every other 
 prophet so vigilantly observed, and which was so peculiarly 
 adapted to our Sayiour’s pious and humble character. But, on 
 
 * John, ix, 1—38, 
 
48 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 the contrary, it appears, He received the homage thus paid, as 
 clearly due to Him, and encouraged the faith which dictated it, 
 as consistent, rational, and praiseworthy. 
 
 Such impressions as these, seem to me to form a powerful 
 argument in favour of the divine nature of the Son of God; an 
 argument much less liable to error, and much more difficult to 
 refute than proofs derived only from the interpretation of isolated 
 texts. But I shall rest satisfied with the examples on this sub- 
 ject already adduced; and will now proceed to examine how far 
 the nature and extent of some other most signal powers, attri- 
 buted to our Lord, establish His divinity. 
 
 We have already noticed,* that the power of CREATION is 
 ascribed to our Lord, with such an unlimited extent, as cannot 
 for a moment be supposed to belong to any other being, than 
 the all-wise Almighty God. And surely, this is a most decisive 
 proof of His divinity. ‘*‘ He by whom all things were made,” t— 
 so accurately all, that the apostle repeats, ‘‘ without Him was 
 not any thing made which was made; He by whom all things 
 were created, that are in heaven and in earth, visible and invi- 
 sible ; whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or 
 powers all things were created by Him;” and not only by Him, 
 but for Him, that is, to gratify His beneficence, and display His 
 glory—He can be no other than God. 
 
 Still more; the same power, which was exerted to create, is 
 still employed to maintain them. ‘‘ By Him all things consist ;”t 
 ‘¢ He upholdeth all things by the word of His power.’§ Surely 
 the being, to whom all this is ascribed, must be united with the 
 Great First Cause in nature, in attributes, in dignity ; He must 
 be one with God, He must be God. 
 
 Another power, which the Scriptures unequivocally ascribe to 
 our Saviour, to such an extent as appears exclusively applicable 
 to the all-powerful God, is that of restoring life. Sngle instances 
 of resurrection from the dead had, it is true, previously been 
 effected by divine power: one had been granted to the prayers 
 of Elijah, and another to those of Elisha; but these were avow- 
 edly the work, not of the prophets, but of God, interposing to 
 
 * Page 24, ~ + John, i. 1. + Col. i, 16, 17, § Heb. i. 3. 
 
DISCOURSE III. 49 
 
 establish the authority, and gratify the benevolent desires of His 
 faithful servants. In a similar manner the apostles frequently 
 obtained from God, the same convincing proof of divine co-ope- 
 ration. But in all these instances the prophets and the apostles 
 disclaimed all power in themselves to effect this mighty work. 
 Far different, however, was the case with our Redeemer. ‘Tuer 
 POWER OF ORIGINALLY COMMUNICATING, OR OF RESTORING 
 LIFE, it is expressly affirmed, existed in Him as constantly, as 
 unlimitedly, as permanently, as in the great First Cause. ‘‘As 
 the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to 
 have life in Himself; and as the Father raiseth up the dead, 
 and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He 
 will.” 
 
 Now, is it possible to conceive, that this powerin this extent, 
 should be communicated to any other being than God—to any 
 being not clearly entitled to share with God the Father, that gra- 
 titude, obedience and adoration, which the original grant of exis- 
 tence, or its restoration must attract, from every creature on whom 
 such existence is conferred ? What an irresistible temptation 
 to bestow on a creature, the honour due only to the Creator, if 
 that creature possessed and exercised the power of bestowing 
 life and all its enjoyments, or of restoring them when lost! 
 Reason cannot form any distinction, more exclusively appropriate 
 to the great First Cause, than the power of originally creating 
 any being, or recalling to existence any which had_ been blotted 
 from the creation. How expressly does the Jewish Lawgiver 
 declare this power to belong exclusively to God, whom he 
 describes as thus claiming it to Himself; ‘* See now that I, even 
 I, am He, and there is no God with me; I kill and make 
 alive ; I wound and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver 
 out of my hand.”* But.in the passage of Scripture to which I 
 have this day directed your attention, our Redeemer affirms, 
 ‘that He can make alive,” not merely one or two, ‘‘ but whom 
 He will.” i 
 
 Moreover, in His manner of performing these most impressive 
 of all miracles, as in others noticed before, we may observe in 
 
 * Deut. xxxii, 9 
 
50 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 some instances the same appearance of acting altogether from 
 His own will, and by His own power, without leading the spec- 
 tators to look up to God the Father alone, and to consider him- 
 self as a mere subordinate agent in these mighty works. 
 
 Thus, when Jairus came and fell down at His feet, saying, 
 ‘‘ My daughter is even now dead, but come and lay thy hands on 
 her, and she shall live,”* our Lord accepts this homage; and, 
 immediately complying with his humble prayer, follows him to 
 accomplish the cure. When on his way, a messenger met the 
 Ruler of the synagogue, who said, ‘“‘ Thy daughter is dead ; 
 why troublest thou the Master any further?” our Lord, at 
 this crisis, does not desire the anxious father to rely upon the 
 Supreme God, who could still by Ais hands perform this cure, 
 but simply says, ‘‘ Be not afraid, but believe ;” evidently mean- 
 ing, continue still to believe, (as you already have declared, ) 
 “that if I lay my hand on her, she shall live.” And when 
 arriving at the house, he found the people bewailing her, 
 as knowing her to be dead, and that they mocked Him when 
 He gave a hope of her recovery; He entered in with her 
 parents and His disciples, where the damsel was lying, and, 
 without any further preface, pronounces His almighty fiat, 
 ‘‘Damsel, I say unto thee, arise: and she arose and walked.” 
 Here the Evangelist observes, they were astonished with a 
 great astonishment, doubtless at seeing one, who appeared as 
 man, thus assuming and exercising a power which they had 
 believed, (and rightly so,) belonged exclusively to God. 
 
 Thus also at Nain, when the only son of a widow was car- 
 ried out to burial, and Jesus met the bier, it is said, ‘* When 
 the Lord saw her he had compassion on her, and said, Weep 
 not; and he came and touched the bier, and they that bare him 
 stood still: and he said, Young man, I say unto thee, arise ; 
 and he that was dead sat up, and began to speak; and he deli- 
 vered him to his mother; and there came a fear on all, and they 
 glorified God, saying, that a great Prophet is risen up among 
 us, and that God hath visited his people;’} meaning, as 
 appears from corresponding passages, that God had visited his 
 
 * Mark, v, 22—43, + Luke, vii, 11—17. 
 
DISCOURSE Iv. ol 
 
 people, by sending amongst them the great Prophet, the 
 expected Messiah; thus known by his possessing a divine mhe- 
 rent power of raising the dead, even as the Father raiseth the 
 dead, and quickeneth whom he will. 
 
 There is indeed one instance of resurrection from the dead, 
 which illustrates and confirms the divine nature of Christ, as 
 distinct from his human nature, and the unparalleled extent of 
 his power, more clearly, perhaps, than all other instances com- 
 bined—even his own resurrection ; which he directly attributes to 
 his own power. ‘* Therefore,” says he, ‘‘ doth my Father love 
 me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again: no 
 man taketh it from me; I lay it down of myself; I have power 
 to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”* And he 
 declared to the Jews, ‘* Destroy this temple, and in three days 
 I will raise it up :’t in this says the apostle, ‘* he spake of the 
 temple of his body.” ‘Thus, when his earthly part was lodged 
 in the grave, and the union of the divine nature with it sus- 
 pended, that divine nature still existed unimpaired in power, 
 and exerted that power in restoring to life the man Christ 
 Jesus. If then there is truth in Christ, that which he engaged 
 to do, even to raise his own body, he most assuredly fulfilled. 
 Now this restoration is repeatedly ascribed to the mighty power 
 of God: ** This Jesus hath God raised up,”{ says St. Peter. 
 Can we reconcile these assertions without admitting, that Jesus 
 was one with that God, who raised him up, and was Himself 
 essentially and truly God ? 
 
 This conclusion is decidedly supported by our Lord on 
 another occasion, when in proof that His faithful followers would 
 be for ever safe under his protection, he declared, ‘* My 
 Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all, and none 
 is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand; I and my 
 Father are one.Ӥ In truth, this union in nature and power 
 and will, can alone account for the various attributes and ope- 
 rations ascribed to Christ, as creating, sustaining, and restoring 
 existence, exactly as the same powers and operations are 
 ascribed to the great Jehovah, the supreme self-existing God. 
 
 * John, x. 17, 18, + John, ii. 19—21, t Acts. ii, 32, 
 § John, x, 29, 30. 
 
52 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Thus clearly is the divinity of Christ, at once the Son of 
 man and the Son of God, established by his having life in Him- 
 self, even as the Father hath life in Himself; and displaying this 
 attribute, (the peculiar character of the great First Cause,) in 
 creating the universe for his glory, and raising from the dead 
 the whole human race. 
 
 But perhaps the divinity of our Redeemer is still more illus- 
 triously conspicuous in the moral powers ascribed to him, than 
 in his physical power of bestowing or restoring life. To him is 
 ascribed the same ALL-SEARCHING DISCERNMENT, THE SAME 
 UNBOUNDED KNOWLEDGE, as to the supreme omniscient God. 
 
 If the psalmist declares of God, “ Lord thou hast searched’ 
 me out, and known me; thou understandest my thoughts long 
 before ; thou art about my path, and about my bed, and spiest 
 out all my ways; for lo, there is not a word in my tongue, but 
 thou O Lord, knowest it altogether ;”’* the apostles, in lan- 
 guage equally clear, attribute the same all-searching penetra- _ 
 tion, the same perpetual omniscience, to Christ. He pronounced 
 the pious Nathanael “to be an Israelite indeed, in whom 
 there was no guile;”{ and when questioned, ‘* Whence knowest 
 thou me?” Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘ Before that 
 Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw 
 thee.” Here the reference to some remarkable train of thought, 
 or of secret devotion, which, at that particular moment 
 had engaged the mind of this pious man, was so distinct 
 and clear, as directly and decidedly to satisfy him, that none 
 could thus have discerned it, but the omniscient God; for he 
 instantly exclaimed, ‘“‘ Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou 
 art the King of Israel.”{ And the same apostle, who records 
 this, declares, that ‘* Jesus knew all men, and needed not 
 that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in 
 man:’§ and that He ‘‘ knew from the beginning, who they 
 were that believed not, and who should betray him.”|| When 
 the Pharisees ‘‘ said within themselves, This man blasphe- | 
 meth,” Jesus knowing their thoughts, exposed their malignity. 
 ** Why,” said He, ‘ think ye evil in your hearts?” And this 
 
 * Psalm, ¢xxxix. 1—7, ‘+ John, i. 47, ¢ John, i. 49, 
 §John, ii, 24, 25. | |] John, vi. 64 q Matt, ix. 3, 4, 
 
| DISCOURSE Iv. 538 
 
 occurred not once only, but frequently, on occasions so remote 
 and different, as to prove that this power, which is surely exclu- 
 sively appropriate to God, dwelt permanently and uniformly in 
 Christ. Its exercise and effects perpetually appeared in his 
 entire intercourse with men, whether with the people in general, 
 or his chosen apostles. His reasonings and instructions were 
 adapted to their secret thoughts, to their concealed fears and 
 doubts, to their prejudices, however imperceptible even by 
 themselves—for all were clearly and equally seen by the 
 Searcher of hearts. This adaptation of our Lord’s language 
 and conduct, to the secret thoughts, as well as the avowed 
 sentiments or actions of his hearers, is a peculiarity found in 
 every part of the Gospel narrative, and found in no other. In 
 truth, no human experience could have suggested it; and no 
 character, except his, who with the nature of man united the 
 omniscience of God, could have sustained it. It stands a deci- 
 sive and unerring mark of the divinity of Christ. 
 
 Another character of divinity ascribed to our Redeemer, and 
 and to him alone, is, the POWER OF FORGIVING sINS—not as 
 declaring from a superior authority a conditional pardon, to be 
 confirmed, when the person to whom it is offered shall have 
 attained certain dispositions, or performed certain requisites ; 
 but a power of pronouncing absolutely, that the sins of certain 
 individuals, to whom this declaration of mercy is made, were 
 at that moment forgiven. The importance of this attestation 
 to the divinity of our Redeemer will be materially illustrated, 
 by carefully observing some of the principal occasions on which 
 it was given. 
 
 The first occurs when a man sick of the palsy was brought,* 
 and (the surrounding multitude stopping every other access,) 
 was let down through the roof into the apartment where Jesus 
 was. Our Lord, highly approving the sincere and active faith, 
 both of the suffering patient and his friends, said unto the sick 
 of the palsy, “‘ Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven 
 thee.’ Instantly his watchful enemies judged, and truly 
 ‘udged, that He had assumed to himself an incommunicable 
 attribute of God. Instantly they said in their hearts, ‘* Why 
 
 * Matt, ix. 2; and Mark, ii, 7. 
 
‘54 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins 
 but God only ?” The justice of this their opinion as to God, 
 the teacher of truth never controverts; but He proceeds to 
 show, by plain and decisive facts, that their inference, that this 
 power belonged not to himself, was mistaken; and He displays 
 that all-searching wisdom, which instantly perceives every 
 thought and every movement of the soul, and that almighty 
 power which forms and commands the springs of human life. 
 He asks, ‘* Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 
 whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, thy sins be 
 forgiven thee, or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk ? 
 But that ye may know, that the Son of Man hath power on 
 earth to forgive sins, He saith to the sick of the palsy, Arise, 
 take up thy bed, and go thy way unto thine house.” Asif He 
 ‘had said, you cannot doubt, that as I can penetrate into 
 and lay open every thought and feeling of your own hearts, so 
 can I discern the true state of this poor sufferer’s soul, with all 
 its moral maladies ; and as surely as my word can restore his 
 ‘outward frame to health and soundness, so can I, with equal 
 ease, remove the diseases of his soul, and pronounce his sins 
 forgiven. Your senses assure you of the outward miracle; 
 your reason must assure you, that I therefore act with the 
 power and the authority of God, and can perform the moral 
 cure, and grant the pardon which attends it, as certainly and 
 effectively as I can restore vigour and activity to the palsied 
 frame. | 
 The instant accomplishment of this cure, on the sick of the 
 palsy, appears to have wrought a powerful conviction in every 
 mind, not blinded by prejudice, or hardened by malignity. 
 *“* They were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never 
 saw it on this fashion.” And when He went forth again, all 
 the multitude resorted unto him—anxious undoubtedly to hear 
 an instructor thus gifted not only with wisdom to teach and with 
 power to heal, but with authority also to pardon sin; and one 
 who, though appearing as the Son of Man, was thus proved to 
 be the Son of God, possessmg the divine attributes, and dis- 
 pensing divine mercies. | 
 Equally striking was the case of a woman, who in the house 
 of a Pharisee had approached our Lord, and by her deportment 
 
‘ 
 
 DISCOURSE III. 05 
 
 clearly evinced the humility of sincere repentance, and the fervour 
 of genuine piety. ‘The proud Pharisee saw that her humilia- 
 tion was graciously accepted by our merciful Lord, and instantly 
 his indignation was roused; he concluded our Lord ignorant of 
 the human heart, and indifferent to the distinction between vice 
 and virtue. ‘‘ He spake within himself, saying, this Man, if he 
 were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of 
 woman this is that toucheth him, for she is a sinner.”* This 
 unforgiving hard-heartedness, this injurious suspicion, though 
 concealed in sullen silence, did not escape the Searcher of hearts ; 
 He detected and exposed it with a wisdom and benignity truly 
 divine: He directly met the thoughts of the Pharisee, yet com- 
 pelled him to give a decision which should condemn his own 
 hardness of heart. Jesus answering said unto him, “ there was 
 a certain creditor who had two debtors; the one owed him five 
 hundred pence, and the other fifty ; and when they had nothing 
 to pay, he frankly forgave them both: tell me, therefore, which 
 of them will love him most. Simon answered; I suppose he to 
 whom he forgave most; and our Lord answered; thou hast rightly 
 judged.” This development of the principle and the efficacy 
 of God’s dealing with smners, showing how the powerful influ- 
 ence of sincere repentance transforms the whole nature of the 
 soul—this surely opens a view of divine mercy, which none but 
 God ever did, or could open to the human mind. 
 
 But thé sequel of this most interesting narrative, still more 
 plainly speaks the unequalled mercy, and the divine power of the 
 Redeemer. After having compared the coldness of the Pharisee 
 with the humble and zealous devotedness of the penitent, he 
 adds, ‘‘ wherefore I say unto thee, her sins, which are many, are 
 forgiven, for she loveth much; but to whom little is forgiven, 
 the same loveth little: and he said unto her, thy sins be forgiven ; 
 thy faith hath saved thee; goin peace.” Though, in this instance, 
 the fitness of the penitent to receive pardon, and the reasons for 
 granting it, were thus clearly explained by our divine Lord, still 
 such of his hearers as regarded him only in his human character 
 were scandalized and offended. ‘‘ They that sat at meat with 
 him, began to say within themselves, who is this that forgiveth 
 
 * Luke vii, 36-50. 
 
56 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 sins also?” So clearly did reason dictate, that the authority to 
 forgive sins, which our Lord thus assumed could belong only to 
 God. 
 
 The last instance of his exercising this divine power, is in the 
 case of the malefactor on the cross. Here, while our Lord 
 hung depressed with sorrow, writhing in torture, and yielding 
 his soul to death, yet his ear caught the first sound of sincere 
 penitence and steady faith; and to the humble prayer, ‘‘ Lord 
 remember me, when thou eomest into thy kingdom,” he gave the 
 prompt and merciful answer, ‘‘ this day shalt thou be with me in 
 paradise :”—an answer which bespoke not only the tenderness 
 of divine mercy, but the consciousness of divine power, at a 
 moment when all human hope and power were utterly extinct. 
 
 The particulars of these facts unite with the whole tenor of 
 Scripture, and the voice of reason, in assuring us, that the sin- 
 ner will never. be pardoned, except such a change is wrought in 
 his soul, as makes it a fit object for pardon, and qualifies it for 
 admission into the society of the blessed, and the presence of a 
 just and holy God. ‘* The pure in heart only can see God.” 
 “‘‘The unrighteous cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.” 
 ‘‘ We can be forgiven only as we forgive.” ‘ There is no peace, 
 saith my God, to the wicked.” ‘ Except ye repent, ye shall all 
 likewise perish.” This change must evidently include sincere 
 sorrow for those crimes which stained the soul; detestation of 
 sin, as offensive to God, and degrading to ourselves; a reliance 
 on the pardoning love of God, as the only hope of salvation ; the 
 subjugation of every impure, every malignant, every criminal 
 desire, succeeded by fixed resolutions of obedience, by extended 
 benevolence, steady faith, and fervent piety. Now, who but 
 God can perfect this change in any human heart, by that 
 various moral discipline, and those multiplied means of grace, 
 which He only knows how to employ, and to apply? And who 
 but God can discern the secret of the hearts, and the inmost 
 movements of the soul, and discover certainly that this change is 
 wrought? And, above all, who but God can command the whole 
 series of causes and effects, which to all eternity must operate, 
 to inflict punishment on the incorrigible, or secure the happmess 
 of the pardoned sinner? ‘Truly, therefore, was it concluded 
 ‘‘ that none can forgive sins but God alone,” and that our Saviour, 
 
DISCOURSE III. 57 
 
 in assuming to himself the power to do so, declared himself to 
 be truly God; and if not truly God, would stand convicted of 
 all that impiety which his enemies, on such a supposition, so 
 repeatedly imputed to him. Thus clear is the attestation which 
 these facts bear to the divinity of Christ. 
 
 The last power I shall at present notice, clearly and exclu- 
 sively attributed to our Lord, and which as clearly and irrefutably 
 establish his divinity—is his power, to act as JupGE or Man- 
 KIND, at the great day of final retribution.* This our text dis- 
 tinctly affirms to belong to him, and at the same time clearly 
 states as its necessary consequence, that the Son fully partakes 
 the divine power and dignity of the Father. ‘The Father 
 judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, 
 that all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the 
 Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the 
 Father which hath sent Him.” 
 
 At that great consummation will the crucified Messiah return, 
 crowned with the unclouded glory of the supreme divinity. 
 Then those various powers, which we have marked as exhibited 
 by him during his ministry on earth, (each of which separately 
 supplied a clear and decisive character of divinity,) will all be exer- 
 cised with united energy and transcendent glory. That power 
 restoring life to the dead, which was displayed in raising from 
 their graves a selected number, and above all in his own resurrec- 
 tion, by which ‘ He led captivity captive,” and triumphed over 
 all the terrors of death, this power will he at the last day exer- 
 cise in recalling to existence the whole human race, from Adam 
 to the very last of his posterity. ‘* Verily, verily, (says our 
 Lord Christ,) the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead 
 shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall 
 live; for as the Father hath life in himself, so hath He given to 
 the Son to have life in himself.’ 
 
 This is so stupendous an exertion of almighty power, that 
 human imagination cannot reach, or the sublimest imagery of 
 prophetic vision adequately paint it. Licar one prophetic apostle : 
 ** We shall all be changed, in a metic xt, in the twinkling of an 
 eye, at the last trump, (for the tr: i shall sound,) and the 
 dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed :”t 
 
 * See Note 17, page 110. + John y. 25—30, ¢1 Cor. xv, 51, 52. 
 
58 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 and another apostle: “‘ I saw—and the sea gave up the dead 
 which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which 
 were in them.”* Reflect on this, my fellow-Christians,—the voice 
 which shall command, and the power which shall effect this, 
 will be the voice of Christ, and the power of Christ. Surely, 
 we must therefore conclude, that his must be the voice and his 
 the power of Gop. This is a work which nothing less than 
 Omnipotence can achieve; this is a dignity which to the almighty 
 God only can belong. 
 
 But Christ, the Son of Man and Son of God, will then 
 appear, not only as the Lord of life and death, but as the 
 Searcher of all hearts, the supreme Moral Governor of the 
 universe, the God of truth and justice, the Judge of all the 
 earth. 
 
 These attributes and offices are, in every part of Scripture, 
 repeatedly and exclusively ascribed to JEHOVAH 5 and they are 
 with equal clearness ascribed to the Son of God, to whom ‘the 
 Father hath committed all judgment.” 
 
 ‘¢ The Lord,” says the psalmist, ‘‘ shall endure for ever; he 
 hath prepared his seat for judgment, and he shall judge the 
 world in uprightness.”t ‘ God,” says the royal preacher, 
 ‘‘ shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, 
 whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”{ Now it is as clearly 
 and as positively declared by the prophets, and in the New 
 Testament, that the person by whom this great work of judg- 
 ment shall be executed, is the Messiah, the Son of God and 
 the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. ‘I beheld,” says 
 Daniel, “till the thrones were placed, and the Ancient of 
 Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of 
 his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery 
 stream, and his wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued 
 and came forth from before him; thousand thousands ministered 
 unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood betore 
 him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” “ I 
 saw in the night vision, and behold, one like the Son of Man 
 was brought to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him 
 near before him: and there was given him dominion and glory, 
 and a kingdom that all people, nations, and languages should 
 
 * Revelation xx. 13, + Psalm ix. 7, 8. - $ Eccles, xii. 14, 
 
DISCOURSE III. 59 
 
 serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which 
 shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be 
 
 destroyed.”* 
 
 Thus clothed with the dominion and authority of the supreme 
 moral Ruler of the universe, he is to execute judgment: ‘‘ The 
 Father,” says our Lord, ‘‘judgeth no man, but hath committed 
 all judgment to the Son, and hath given him authority to 
 execute it, because he is the Son of Man.” Then, as if 
 apprehensive that his hearers might receive with incredulity, as 
 utterly impossible, the declaration, that an office which unde- 
 niably required the exertion of divine Omniscience and Omnipo- 
 tence, should be exercised by a Being, appearing, as he who 
 then spoke appeared, clothed in human nature, our Lord 
 repeated his declaration, and removed the apparent objection by 
 declaring that as man he could do nothing ; but that it was by 
 his perfect union in nature, power, and will with God the Father, 
 He should exercise the authority, and discharge the office of 
 Judge of all the earth. ‘‘ Marvel not,” said He, at this, “ for 
 the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall 
 hear his (the Son of Man’s) voice, and shall come forth; they 
 that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that 
 have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. I can of 
 mine own self (that is, as a mere human being,) do nothing; as I 
 hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not 
 mine own will, but the will of my Father which hath sent me.” 
 Here, to enemies who would not view him in any other than his 
 human character, and ‘‘ sought to kill him, because he not only 
 had broken the Sabbath,” by a miracle of healing on that day, 
 ‘but said also, that God was his Father, thus, (as they rightly 
 judged,) making himself equal with God;’t here it was indis- 
 pensably necessary, in order to refute the charge, and avert the 
 punishment of blasphemy, that He should unequivocally state, 
 that all the powers He claimed, and all the authority He exer- 
 cised, were exercised in consequence of his union with the 
 Father, and in concurrence with his will. But on another 
 occasion, when his apostles were apprized. of his divine as well 
 as of his human nature, he spoke of himself to them, and they 
 
 * Daniel, vii. 9, 10, 13, 14. + John, v. 25-31. ¢ John, v. 16-31, 
 
60° SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 spoke of him, as exercising, of his own right, as well as in his 
 own person, this stupendous dignity of universal J udge. Hear 
 our Lord describing this last awful hour: ‘‘ The sun shall be 
 darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars 
 shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be 
 shaken; and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in 
 heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and 
 they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, 
 with power and great glory, and He shall send HIs ANGELS, with 
 the great sound of the trumpet: and they shall gather together 
 HIS ELECT from the four winds, from the one end of heaven unto 
 the other.” And again, ‘“‘ When the Son of man shall come in 
 his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall He sit 
 upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered 
 all nations, and He shall separate them one from another, as a 
 shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats ; and these shall go 
 away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life 
 eternal.”* 
 
 Nor is this all. Not only is it Christ by whom we shall be 
 judged, but the law of Christ, and the gospel of Christ, is the 
 rule by which we shall be tried. Obedience to, and faith in 
 Christ, will be the conditions of acceptance ; the secrets of all 
 hearts will by Christ be discovered, and from him shall come 
 the sentence that shall fix our eternal destiny. 
 
 This is clear and unquestionable. In proof of it read the 
 parablest by which our Lord illustrates the principles which are 
 to direct this judgment; the descriptions of the faithful and 
 vigilant servant, contrasted with the careless and evil; of the 
 wise with the foolish virgins ; of the talents ; of the questions which 
 our Lord himself will put, to determine whether men are to be 
 classed with the righteous or the wicked. Hear also his awful 
 declaration ; ‘* Whosoever shall confess me before men, him 
 shall the Son of Man confess before the angels of God; but he 
 that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the angels of 
 God.”{ Consider that in the same manner shall be distinguished, 
 
 * Matt. xxiv. 29-32, and xxvi. 31 to the end. 
 t¢ Vide Matt. xiii. xvi. xviii. xix. xx. XXiV. XXV. 5 Mark, xii. xiii ; Luke, xviii. xix. 
 XX. xxi. xxii.; John, v, X. Xiv. XV. XVie 
 
 ¢ Luke, xii. 8, 9. 
 
DISCOURSE Ill. . 61 
 
 those who favour, from those who persecute ‘the Church of 
 God,” that is, ‘‘the Church of Christ.” And finally reflect, 
 that in the argument by which St. Paul cheers his Thessalonian 
 converts under persecution, he perpetually identifies Christ and 
 God as one and the same in dominion, and judgment, and 
 grace, and majesty. ‘‘ We ourselves,” says the apostle, 
 ‘¢ glory in you, in the churches of God, for your patience and 
 faith in all your persecutions and tribulations which ye endure ; 
 which is a manifest. token of the righteous judgment of God, 
 that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for 
 which ye also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to 
 recompense tribulation to them who trouble you; and to you 
 who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be 
 revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, 
 taking vengeance on them who know not God, and obey not 
 the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished 
 with everlasting destruction from the glory of his power; when 
 He shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in 
 all them that believe, because our testimony among you was 
 believed in that day.”* Oh, my friends, do not these solemn 
 warnings place the importance of believing or rejecting the 
 great truth, which we have been now discussing, as well as the 
 other great truths of the gospel, in a very serious and awful 
 light ;—very different, I fear, from that in which such belief or 
 rejection is too generally considered ? 
 
 And here I will, for the present, close this argument. Single 
 texts may be distorted, or refined away.f ‘The union of the 
 human with the divine nature in Christ, his inferiority to the 
 Father as touching his manhood, though he was notwithstanding 
 truly God, ‘for in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead ;”{ 
 this may and must produce many passages speaking of Christ 
 in his human nature, which may appear difficult to reconcile 
 with those which speak of him as God; but yet, that union of 
 nature does and must reconcile them. But what could explain 
 _ away the whole series of facts adduced in this discourse? What 
 
 can reconcile the idea of Christ being no more than a mere 
 human creature, and like other prophets and teachers sent from 
 
 * 2 Thes. i, 4—10. + See Note 18, page 61. Coloss. ii. 9. 
 
62 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 God, enlightened indeed with supernatural wisdom, and gifted 
 with miraculous powers, yet, like other prophets, fallible and 
 peccable, not having existed before his human birth, and after 
 death merely a human spirit still, more excellent perhaps, and 
 more highly rewarded, than any other human soul, but merely 
 human still; limited in power and knowledge, and perfection 
 and glory, as the highest of the sons of men must necessarily 
 be limited? Is this reconcilable with his possessing the powers 
 of creating and of restoring to life; of searching the hearts of 
 men; of forgiving sins, of exercising dominion over all people, 
 and nations, and tongues; of raising from death the entire 
 human race; of sitting as judge of their eternal destiny—dis- 
 cerning the inmost thoughts and motions, and deciding on the 
 real merits of every human soul; and finally by his irreversible 
 sentence, fixing their eternal doom? Can any other be com- 
 petent to this, all this, than the CrEaToR aNnD RULER OF THE 
 WORLD, THE ALL-WISE, ALL-JUST, ALMIGHTY JUDGE ETERNAL, 
 THE TRUE, ALL-PERFECT Gop? 
 
 Surely this last great consummation will display to an adoring 
 world, the all-perfect justice and mercy, the infinite majesty and 
 dominion of Christ; to whom, with the Father and the Holy 
 Spirit, be all honour and glory, now and for ever. Amen. 
 
63 
 
 DISCOURSE IV. 
 
 JOHN, V. 22, 23. 
 
 © The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son ; that all men should 
 honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not 
 the Father which hath sent him.” 
 
 In my last Discourse on those words, I endeavoured to show, 
 that the Scriptures declare that our Lord possessed and exer- 
 cised the powers of CREATION, OF DIRECTING AND CONTROL- 
 LING ALL THE ELEMENTS OF NATURE, OF CONFERRING AND 
 RESTORING LIFE, OF SEARCHING THE HEART, OF FORGIVING 
 sin, and, above all, or JUDGING THE ENTIRE RACE OF MAN 
 —powers so stupendous in kind, and exercised in so unlimited 
 an extent, and with such uncontrolled authority, as prove that 
 he PARTOOK OF THE NATURE, THE ATTRIBUTES, AND THE 
 DOMINION, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE Great First 
 Cause, the supreme and universal Lord, and that He was there- 
 fore truly God; as certainly as his appearance in the flesh, and. 
 his feeling, acting, and suffering like other human beings, prove 
 that he was truly man. 
 
 I shall, in this Discourse, attempt to point out the confirma- 
 tion which this conclusion derives, from its being required by 
 the unquestioned authority of the divine word, that ‘‘ all men 
 should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father’ — 
 which it were impious and idolatrous to demand, if he were not 
 one with the Father. Or to express the same truth more 
 plainly and fully, I shall endeavour to direct your attention, my 
 fellow-Christians, to the heartfelt faith and humble adoration which 
 the Scriptures perpetually inculcate as due to the Redeemer; the total 
 dependence on him for salvation; the fervent gratitude, the unre- 
 served obedience, the surrender of the whole heart to him, every 
 where required—feelings and affections, which it were irrational 
 and impious to suppose due to any other being than God him- 
 
64 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 self{—for who but God can be the legitimate object of such 
 faith, such gratitude, such obedience, and such adoration ? 
 
 It is unnecessary to bring forward any detail of proofs, to 
 show how exclusively, nay, how jealously, all honour due to 
 God was confined to the one Jehovah. ‘‘ Thou shalt worship 
 the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve,’* was the 
 grand principle of the law, and was sanctioned by our Lord as 
 the primary truth of religion, under the Gospel. 
 
 God distinguished himself amongst the Jews, by the name of 
 “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, andthe God of Jacob;’f 
 and the prophet Ezekiel selected the names of Noah, Daniel, and 
 Job, as the most illustrious examples of righteousness, as secure 
 _of salvation, and high in the favour of God.{ Yet:not a shadow 
 of religious reverence was ever paid to any one of these great 
 _ patriarchs ; the very thought would have been rejected with ab- 
 horrence, by the well-instructed Jew, as impious and idolatrous. 
 
 Thus also, it is scarcely possible to conceive, that any human 
 being should rank higher than the Jewish lawgiver did with his 
 own nation, for private virtues, for public services, and for dis- 
 interested patriotism; as the teacher of their law, the founder 
 of their religion, and the parent of all their national institutions ; 
 as exalted not only by divine approbation, but by direct converse 
 with the Deity, of whose glory, as it were, some rays were per- 
 mitted to rest upon him ; and as illustrious for miracles the most 
 ‘stupendous, and authority the most extensive.§ ‘‘ And there 
 arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the 
 Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and the wonders which 
 the Lord sent him to do, in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and 
 _to allhis servants, and to all his land; and im all that mighty 
 hand, and in all the great terror which Moses showed in the 
 sight of all Israel.’’| Yet whether living or dead, never was a 
 single act of religious homage permitted to be so much as thought 
 of towards him. On the contrary, lest theregard his bodily remains 
 might naturally attract, should degenerate into any thing like re- 
 ligious homage, lest they should excite any feeling or affections 
 connected with:such homage, Divine Providence, by a special 
 
 * Matt. iv. 10. + Exod, iii. 15, + Ezek. xiv, 14. 
 § Exod. xxxiv. 29. {| Deut. xxxiv. 10, 11,12 ; 
 
DISCOURSE IV, 65 
 
 interposition, removed them beyond all human sight. ‘‘ The 
 Lord buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, and no man 
 knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day,”* says his historian ; nor 
 was any human research ever permitted to discover it. 
 
 The New Testament displays, as perpetually as the Old, this 
 constant vigilance to exclude every mere human being, however 
 distinguished by piety or zeal, by miraculous powers or spiritual 
 gifts, from sharing any part of that honour due only to God, or 
 being regarded with the same feelings or affections, which ought 
 to terminate in God alone. When Cornelius, revering Peter 
 as the delegate of God, fell down at his feet and worshipped 
 him, instantly the apostle checked the misdirected reverence, say- 
 ing; ‘‘stand up, I myself alsoamaman.”t When the people ran 
 together on the miracle of the man lame from his birth, restored 
 to perfect soundness by Peter and John, instantly they directed 
 the attention of the multitude from themselves to its true object. 
 ‘*Ye men of Israel,” said they, ‘‘why look so earnestly on 
 us, as if by our own power or holiness we had made this man to 
 walk ?” f 
 
 When the people of Lystra, on a miracle performed by Paul 
 and Barnabas, exclaimed, ‘ the gods are come down to us in 
 the likeness of men,” and would have done sacrifice to them, 
 instantly they ran in among them, and rent their clothes, exclaim- 
 ing, with a pious indignation, “‘sirs, why do ye these things? 
 we are also men of like passions with you, and preach unto you, 
 that ye should turn from those vanities unto the living God.” | 
 
 When different parties formed in the Corinthian Church, 
 extolled, each their chosen leader, as entitled to peculiar reve- 
 rence, and distinguished themselves by his name, raising them, 
 as it were, to a participation of honour with Christ himself, 
 while they severally said, ‘‘ I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and 
 I of Cephas, and I of Christ ;” how indignantly does St. Pav] 
 rebuke the impious error! ‘Is Christ,” he asks, ‘‘ divided, was 
 Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of 
 Paul ?’’§ 
 
 Nor is this exclusion from any share in the honour due to God 
 
 *Deut. xxxiv. 6. 4 Acts, ili. 12, + Acts, x. 26, 
 | Acts. xiv. 11, 14, &c, §1 Cor. i, 12, 13; and chap, iii, the entire. 
 
66 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 peculiar to man alone; it extends to the highest order of angelic 
 beings ; as when St. John fell at the feet of the angel, employed 
 to reveal to him the secrets of divine providence, and the glories 
 of the eternal world, he is instantly checked and rebuked: ‘* See 
 thou do it not: I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren 
 who have the testimony of Jesus: worship God.”* 
 
 Here then, of all existing beings, whether men or angels, 
 - Christ Jesus stands, the single exception to this eternal and uni- 
 versal law. He, and He only, shares that honour which is due to 
 God, to him alone piety bows with a homage, which far from 
 being checked and repressed, is received and encouraged. ‘‘ All 
 men are to honour the Son, even as they honour the Father,’’t 
 to him alone { adoration was offered, by St. Peter, by St. Thomas, 
 by St. Paul, by St. Stephen, by the glorious company of the 
 apostles, the noble army of the martyrs, and the holy assembly 
 of the primitive Christian church throughout all the world ; nay, 
 by the glorious spirits which surround the throne of God: ina 
 word, every creature in heaven and in earth are represented as 
 proclaiming, in joyful adoration, ‘blessing, and honour, and glory, 
 and power be (not only) unto Him that sitteth on the throne, 
 (but) and unto the Lamb—who is in the midst of the throne,— 
 for ever and ever.’§ 
 
 All this has, I trust, been proved before: and surely this alone 
 were sufficient to establish beyond controversy the divinity of 
 Christ. But how strongly is this conclusion confirmed, when we 
 observe, that every part of the Christian scheme is conformable 
 to the same principle ;|| that every feeling and affection, which can 
 be conceived to form part of the honour paid to God, has also 
 Christ for its object ; and that every kind of obedience and sub- 
 mission, required as due to God, is also required as due to the 
 Redeemer. Let us consider a few examples of this, separately 
 and distincily. 
 
 And first as to Fairy. Faith in the great Jehovah is the lead- 
 ing principle, the essential foundation of all religion. ‘* Without 
 faith, (said St. Paul,) it is impossible to please God, for he who 
 cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the 
 
 * Rev, xix. 10. + Vide supra, Discourse II. { See additional Note, page 115. 
 _§ Rev. v. 13, & vii. 17, | Vide Note 19, page 112, 
 
DISCOURSE IV. 67 
 
 rewarder of all who diligently seek him.”* But to all who have 
 an opportunity of receiving the gospel, faith in the Son, and in 
 the Holy Ghost, is by the very form of baptism declared to be 
 equally essential with faith in the supreme Father; and this in- 
 dispensable necessity of faith in Christ is as perpetually and 
 strongly enforced in the gospel, as faith in the God of Israel, by 
 the law. Thus, ‘“‘he who believeth and is baptised, shail be 
 ~ saved: but he who believeth not shall be damned.’t Thisis the 
 uniform denunciation under which Christianity is offered to our 
 acceptance. ‘Thus our Lord, when his apostles were dejected 
 and terrified at the approach of his sufferings and death, exhorts 
 them, ‘* Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, 
 believe also in me.”t The effects of this faith are spoken of as most 
 important and glorious: ‘‘the Word which was with God, and was 
 God, who was in the world, and the world was made by him, and 
 the world knew him not : he came to his own, and his own received 
 him not; but to as many as received him, to them he gave power 
 to become the sons of God, even to as many as believed in his 
 name :” and our Lord himself declares, ‘‘ this is the will of him 
 who sent me, that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on 
 him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the 
 last day.” | 
 
 How exalted is the dignity and the power on which this faith 
 is founded, how unspeakably important the objects to which it 
 is essential! *‘ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, 
 but have everlasting life.”|| And again, ‘the Father loveth the 
 Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on 
 the Son hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth not the Son 
 shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.Ӥ 
 
 Is it credible that he who is thus described, on whom we are 
 called thus to believe—is it credible or conceivable, he should be 
 a ‘*mere man, who had no existence before his human birth ; 
 of whom it is doubtful whether, in the usual course of the moral 
 administration of providence, since miracles have ceased, he has 
 any immediate agency, or in any way directly influences the minds 
 
 * Heb. xi. 6. + Mark, xvi. 16. ¢ John, xiy. 1. 
 | John, iii, 16, § John, ili, 35, 36, 
 
68 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE ‘TRINITY. 
 
 of his disciples ?”* Surely this is utterly incredible: he who is 
 thus associated with God, as the object of that faith which is 
 essential to salvation; on whom we are called to believe, as ‘‘ the 
 only begotten Son of the Father,” sent into the world to save it, 
 ‘‘ whom God hath so loved, as to give all things into his hand ;”f 
 He towards whom such faith as this is required, must partake of 
 the divine nature, and power, and dominion; He must be one 
 with God, he must be God. 
 
 Thus again, we are taught to believe that ‘* Christ is the 
 PROPITIATION for our sins :”{ that by his death we are recon- 
 ciledto God ;]| that ‘‘ all men have sinned,” but that through the 
 sacrifice of Christ, and by faith in him, they are accepted as 
 righteous by God—such faith purifying their hearts and opening 
 their eyes, ‘‘turning them from darkness unto light, and from 
 the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness 
 of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by 
 faith in Christ.’’§ 
 
 I am aware that all this is denied by those who deny the divinity 
 of Christ. But really it is so plainly and so repeatedly incul- 
 cated, both by the prophets and apostles, that this denial seems 
 rather to prove the strong connexion between those two great truths, 
 than to shake the evidence of either: and the doctrine of the 
 ATONEMENT has been so recently and so fully established by very 
 eminent writers, that it is altogether unnecessary for me to do 
 more, than hint at a few of those scriptural testimonies by which 
 it is so irrefutably proved.—‘‘ The Messiah,” says one prophet, 
 ‘<¢ shall be cut off, but not for himself,” but ‘‘to finish the trans- 
 gression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for 
 iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.” ‘* Surely,” 
 says another prophet, ‘‘ he hath borne our griefs and carried our 
 sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and 
 afflicted: but he was wounded for our transgressions, he was 
 bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was 
 upon him, and by his stripes we are healed; all we like sheep 
 have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and 
 the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”** 
 
 * Carpenter on Unitarianism, p. 7, 293. ¢ John iii. 16, 17, 35. 
 
 $1 John, ii.-1, 2. 1 Tim. i, 15. | Rom. v. 6, 12. — § Acts, xxvi, 18, 
 € Daniel, ix. 24, 26, ** Tsaiah, lili, 4. tt Matt. xxvi. 28, 
 
DISCOURSE IV. 69° 
 
 Nor are the apostles less express in testifying this great truth 
 than the prophets. ‘* This,” says our Lord, ‘‘ is my blood of the. 
 new testament which is shed for many, for the remission of 
 sins.”* How clear is the beloved apostle: ‘‘ If any man sin, we 
 have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; 
 and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but 
 also for the sins of the whole world.”t And St. Peter, when in- 
 structing the first converts of the Gentiles in the faith of Christ, 
 declares, ‘*'To him give all the prophets witness, that through 
 his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of 
 sins.”{ And again; ‘‘ Christ also hath once suffered, the just for 
 the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in 
 the flesh, but quickened in the spirit.”|| And St. Paul, after 
 having fully proved, that ‘all men have sinned and come short 
 of the glory of God,” declares, that God hath set forth Christ 
 to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his 
 righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past through the 
 forbearance of God.”§ And again, ‘“‘ He hath made us accepted 
 in the beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, 
 the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” 4 
 
 Taking for granted, then, this great truth, that Christ ‘* was 
 delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justifica- 
 tion,”** I cannot avoid remarking, how admirably this truth har- 
 monizes with the acknowledged divinity of Christ, and how 
 difficult it would be to reconcile it with any other system of 
 belief. True it is, we must not presume to be wise above 
 what is written. We could not form any opinion on a subject 
 so awful and so remote from all human comprehension, but as far 
 as divine wisdom has condescended to reveal. We could not pro- 
 nounce any method of satisfying divine justice, possible or impos- 
 sible, any thing necessary or unnecessary for the salvationof man, 
 except as the wordof God has declared it. But when the truths 
 of the DIVINITY oF CHRIST, and HIS ATONING FOR THE SINS OF 
 MAN, are thus clearly revealed, we are surely at liberty to examine 
 their connexion, and thus endeavour to find new reasons to admire 
 the wisdom of the divine dispensations. 
 
 * Mat. xxvi. 28. +1 John, ii. 1, 2. ¢ Acts, x. 45. 
 {| 1 Peter, iii. 18. § Romans, iii. 20. Ephes. i. 6, 7. ** Rom. iv. 25. 
 
70 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 And now, my friends, when we reflect on the universal and 
 all-powerful efficacy thus ascribed to the Redeemer’s intercession 
 and atonement, does it not forcibly impress upon our minds 
 the conviction, that this great Redeemer cannot be himself a 
 created being, and as created, infinitely removed from the great 
 First Cause—that He cannot be himself fallible, limited, changeable, 
 dependent ? Would it not be evidently preposterous and incre- 
 dible, that any one human being should be taught to look up to 
 another mere human being, as having acquired such superior 
 merit, and by that merit (if one may so express it,) such influence 
 with the common Creator, the common Lord, the common Judge 
 of both, as to be able by his intercession to propitiate God to his 
 fellow-creature, by his merits and works of supererogation to 
 obtain pardon for another’s sins, and by his sufferings to atone 
 for his fellow-creature’s transgression? ‘This would surely be 
 most strange and incredible: and yet, if we compare any two 
 created beings together, however exalted one may appear above 
 the other while comparison reaches no farther than themselves, 
 still when both are compared with the Great JeHovAH, their 
 common Creator and common Lord, on whom both are equally 
 dependent, and whom both must equally bow down to and adore, 
 does not all difference in the degrees of inferiority to the supreme 
 God vanish into nothing ? and must not the most exalted of the 
 heavenly host, when compared with this great God, stand on a 
 level with the humblest of mankind? Are not in this view all 
 created beings brethren? so that the declaration of the Psalmist 
 is as strictly applicable to all classes of creation, as to all ranks 
 and descriptions of mankind: ‘* no man may deliver his brother, 
 nor make agreement unto God for him, for it cost more to redeem 
 their souls, so that he must let that alone for ever.’”’* 
 
 Thus again, if all created beings are equally bound to con- 
 stant and unlimited obedience to the supreme God; if all their 
 powers, all their exertions, are equally due to his gift, and should 
 be equally devoted to his service, is not our Saviour’s declara- 
 tion as strictly applicable to the highest angelic beings, who 
 stand, as it were in contact with the throne of God, as to the 
 humblest of mankind? ‘So likewise ye, when ye shall have 
 
 * Ps, xlix. 7, -8. 
 
DISCOURSE IV. TA 
 
 done all these things which are commanded you, say, we are 
 unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to 
 do.”* On this supposition, where were the room for any one 
 created being making atonement for the sins of another ? 
 
 Thus clear is the harmony, thus inseparable is the connexion, 
 between those two great truths, of the divinity and atonement 
 of Christ. Thus impossible it is to receive one doctrine revealed 
 by the divine word, and deny another, without involving our- 
 selves in inextricable confusion and perplexity. 
 
 Let us next observe the importance attached by the Scriptures 
 to the interposition of Christ for the salvation of man, and reflect 
 whether this interposition stands on a level with the exertions 
 which have been made, and the effects which been produced, 
 by other prophets and teachers and martyrs, who have taught 
 and toiled, or suffered and died, to prove the sincerity and esta- 
 blish the truth of their opinions, to instruct men in the principles 
 of religion, or recall them to the practice of virtue: or whether 
 such superiority of importance and efficacy, is not ascribed to 
 the interposition of Christ, as cannot be accounted for, without 
 allowing to this our Redeemer a divine dignity, and attributing 
 the efficacy of his redemption to a divine power. 
 
 We may then in the first instance remark, that on this great 
 event, the interposition of Christ for the salvation of man, the 
 entire scheme of revelation centres. ‘The law was but the pre- 
 paration for the gospel, ‘‘ the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, 
 that we might be justified by faith.”{ The ceremonies and 
 sacrifices of the law were typical of, and superseded by the 
 sacrifice of Christ and by the more spiritual and exalted system 
 of Christian faith and Christian perfection. ‘*The spirit of 
 prophecy was to bear testimony to Jesus.”{ ‘* God,” says St. 
 Paul, ‘‘ who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in 
 times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days 
 spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all 
 things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the bright- 
 ness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and uphold- 
 ing all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself 
 purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on 
 
 * Luke, xvii. 10, } Gal. iii, 24. t Rey. xix. 10. 
 
72 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 high’—being superior to angels ; for ‘* when he bringeth the first: 
 begotten into the world, he saith, let all the angels of God wor- 
 ship Him.”* 
 
 Correspondent to the supreme dignity of the lawgiver, is the 
 supreme importance of the law. For thus St. Paul reasons: ‘ If 
 the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression 
 and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how 
 shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first 
 began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by 
 them that heard him ?”f or as he still more emphatically expresses 
 it in another passage, ‘‘ He that despised Moses’ law, died with- 
 out mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer 
 punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under 
 foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, 
 wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done 
 despite unto the Spirit of grace ?”} 
 
 And the efficacy of redemption is by the same great apostle 
 ascribed to the eternal existence and intercession of the Re- 
 deemer: ‘* Christ (says he) is able to save them to the utter- 
 most who come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make 
 intercession for them.”|| And again, ‘‘ now once in the end of the 
 world, hath he (even Christ) appeared to put away sin by the 
 sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, 
 but after that the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear 
 the sins of many, and unto them that look for him shall he appear 
 the second time without sin unto salvation.’§ 
 
 Nor let it be thought, that the zeal of St. Paul led him to 
 state the importance of the religion he taught, or the dignity of 
 the master whom he served, more strongly than the other apostles. 
 We shall find in all the same efficacy ascribed to the interposi- 
 tion, the same dignity to the person of Christ. ‘Thus St. Peter, 
 when examined as to the good deed done to the impotent man, 
 declares to the assembled nation of Israel: ‘* be it known unto 
 you all, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom 
 ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth 
 this man stand here before you whole.” ‘‘ This is the stone 
 
 * Heb. i. 1, 2, 3, 6. ft Heb. ii. 2. + Heb. x. 28. 
 \| Heb. vii. 25. § Heb. ix. 27, 28. 
 
DISCOURSE IV. 13 
 
 which was set at nought by you builders, which is become 
 the head of the corner, (neither is there salvation in any other, ) 
 for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby 
 we must be saved.”* And St. John, “ we have seen and do testify, 
 that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the 
 world: whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, 
 God dwelleth in him and he in God.”t And St. Jude, warning 
 Christians against those mockers of truth in Christ, who should 
 come in the last time, who should walk after their own lust, 
 exhorts all true believers, “‘ ye beloved, building up yourselves 
 on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep your- 
 selves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, unto eternal life.’’t 
 
 From all these testimonies I argue, that it is impossible to 
 believe, that all this authority, superior to all prophets and law- 
 givers and angels, this efficacy of redemption, this universal and 
 exclusive power over the salvation of man, should be ascribed to 
 ' one, who was himself a mere man, who had no existence him- 
 self before his human birth, and no agency or influence on his 
 followers, subsequent to his ascension. No, it is only recon- 
 cileable with the idea of his being not onLY man BUT Gop— 
 God manifest in the flesh, who having formed man after his own 
 image, when that image was defaced by sin, came to restore 
 it ; who having created man for happiness and immortality, when 
 that immortality and happiness were forfeited by disobedience, 
 came to rescue the work of his own hands from hopeless 
 misery and eternal death. This only can render such power 
 and glory and dominion, as the Scriptures ascribe to Christ, con- 
 sistent with the dictates of reason and the feelings of piety. This 
 only can explain the authority that the Son of Man assumed, 
 when as in one place he declares “that not one jot or one 
 tittle of law (given by God,) should pass away until all be ful- 
 filled :” || so in another place he equally declares, concerning his 
 own words, ‘‘heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words 
 
 * Griesbach suspects the genuineness of the clause enclosed in the parenthesis, 
 but this is of no moment, since the same doctrine is so clearly affirmed in the next 
 clause. 
 
 { 1 John, iv. 14, ¢ Jude, 20, 21. || Matt. v. 18, 
 
 F 
 
74 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY 
 
 shall not pass away.”* Assuredly this is to assume the authority 
 not of man, but of God. 
 
 I shall close this part of the subject, by leading you to observe 
 the great degree of gratitude and exultation, of confidence and 
 obedience, which the Scriptures declare are due to the Re- 
 deemer ; affections of which it is impossible to conceive any being 
 should be the legitimate object, in such a degree and to such an 
 extent, except God himself.t 
 
 Here it is important to remark, that our Lord speaks of his 
 own power and dignity, his own mercy and love to mankind, in 
 such a manner as is naturally calculated to call forth all those feel- 
 ings, and to direct them towards himself, as being in union with God 
 the Father, and therefore the natural object of the same faith, gra- 
 titude and obedience. ‘* Ye believe in God, believe also in me.”t 
 ‘* Call no man your father upon earth, for one is your Father 
 which is in heaven ; neither be ye called masters, for one 1s your 
 Master, even Christ.”§ ‘‘ All things are delivered unto me of my 
 Father, and no man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither 
 knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whom- 
 soever the Son willreveal him.”|| This double assertion, that 
 the Son does fully comprehend the nature of the great First 
 Cause, and that the nature of the Son and his relation with the 
 Father is such as the omniscient God alone can know, sup- 
 plies, as appears to me, in each of its parts, a probable proof 
 of the divinity of Christ, proofs which are at the same time 
 strengthened by their mutual connexion. 
 
 ‘¢ He who denieth me,” says our Lord, ‘‘ before man, shall 
 be denied before the argels of God.” ‘To those who reject 
 his apostles he declares, ‘‘ it shall be more tolerable for Sodom 
 and Gomorrah at the day of judgment than for them.”** Of 
 those who offend one of the little ones who believe on him, he 
 declares, ‘‘it were better for them that a millstone were hanged 
 about their neck, and that they were thrown into the midst of 
 the sea.” tT 
 
 And with a voice still more commanding, a claim to authority 
 still more exalted and divine—*‘ all power is given to me in 
 
 * Matt. xxiv. 35. +See Note 20,page114, John, xiv.1, — § Matt. xxiii. 9, 10. 
 i) Matt.xi, 27. Luke, xii, 8,9. ** Matt.x.1o. — ¢} Matt. xviii. 6, 
 
DISCOURSE IV.- qo 
 
 heaven and in earth. Go teach all nations to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you.’* ‘* He who believeth and 
 is baptized, shall be saved; he who believeth not, shall be 
 damned.”+ ‘I am the resurrection and the life: he who believeth 
 on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and he who 
 liveth, and believeth on me, shall never die.”{ Surely this is the 
 voice of God! Did ever any mere human being, however 
 inspired or exalted, use such language, or claim: such a power as 
 this? Could any being less than God arrogate to himself such a 
 power, without extreme impiety ? 
 
 Our Lord’s declarations of his mercy and his love to man, 
 and the blessings he confers on all believers, are not less striking, 
 as far exceeding any thing which any prophet or teacher merely 
 human, however exalted or inspired, could be supposed to feel, 
 or could be enabled to bestow. ‘* The Spirit of the Lord,” 
 saith our Redeemer, ‘‘is upon me, because he hath anoimted 
 me to preach the Gospel to the poor: he hath sent me to heal 
 the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and 
 recovering of sight to the- blind, to set at liberty them that are 
 bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.’§ With 
 what earnestness of affection, and what assurance of his full 
 power to relieve, does he encourage the contrite soul: ‘* Come 
 unto me all ye that are heayy laden, and I will give you rest.” 
 And again: ‘* The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that 
 which is lost.” 
 
 And above all, at his last solemn converse with his apostles 
 to prepare them for his sufferings, with what confidence does 
 he assure them of their final triumph and their eternal happi- 
 ness; with what exuberance of affection and mercy does he 
 provide for the salvation of every true believer in every climate 
 and period of the globe. ‘‘In my Father's house are many 
 mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you, I go 
 to prepare a place for you, and if I go to prepare a place 
 for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that 
 where I am, there ye may be also.” ‘‘ If any man serye me let 
 
 * Matt. xxviii, 18-20. + Mark, xvi. 16. ¢ John, xi. 25, 26. 
 § Luke, iv. 18.—Griesbach rejects the words “ to heal the broken-hearted :” that 
 
 these words should have been omitted is extremely improbable, as they are certainly 
 found in Isaiah, Ixi. 1; but their omission would not weaken the argument here 
 
 employed. 
 
76 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 him follow me, and where I am there shall my servant be. 
 I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” 
 ‘If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”* “ These 
 things have I spoken unto vou, that in me ye might have peace. 
 In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I 
 have overcome the world.” ‘* Neither pray I for these alone, 
 but for all who shall believe on me through their word.” f Surely 
 all this bespeaks a mercy and a power, far exceeding any 
 which a mere man, or any creature finite and imperfect, as 
 every creature must be, can be supposed to possess. 
 
 Let us now pass to the apostles and evangelists, and observe 
 whether they do not regard this their Lord with gratitude so 
 fervent, submission of the heart so profound, denkaenes sO 
 unbounded, obedience so prompt and universal, as prove they 
 looked up to him as Gop all-powerful, all-merciful, all-faithful, 
 and all-wise. | 
 
 How clearly does St. Paul express the divine dignity of the 
 Redeemer before his incarnation, the greatness of the humili- 
 ation to which he submitted for the salvation of man, and the 
 glory to which even his human nature is now exalted, with the 
 humble adoration due to him. Exhorting his Philippian con- 
 verts to lowliness of mind, and disinterested zeal for the 
 happiness of others, he says, ‘‘ Let this mind be in you which 
 was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself 
 of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, 
 and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in 
 fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
 unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God hath 
 highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every 
 name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
 things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
 ~ earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
 is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”{ How utterly inap- 
 plicable is this to any other lawgiver, prophet, or martyr, who 
 ever appeared in the world! how clearly does it attest the 
 unrivalled dignity, the adorable majesty of Christ ! 
 
 * John, siy. 2, 3, 13, 14; xii. 32. + John, xvi, 33; xvii. 20. 
 ¢ Phil. ii. 5-11. ; 
 
DISCOURSE IY. 77 
 
 _ The same topic he more briefly, but with equal clearness, 
 presses upon his Corinthian disciples, when exhorting them to 
 the exercise of benevolence and liberality towards their poor 
 fellow-Christians. He calls on them to show the sincerity of 
 their love; ‘‘ for,” says he, ‘‘ ye know the grace of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he 
 became poor, that ye through his poverty may become rich.”* 
 How unintelligible is this language, except on the supposition 
 of our Lord’s having pre-existed in a state of divine majesty, 
 and by his voluntary humiliation for the salvation of man, 
 acquired the most decided right to unbounded gratitude, and 
 perpetual imitation and obedience. 
 
 ‘** What things,” says St. Paul, ‘‘ were gain to me, those I 
 counted loss for Christ; yea doubtless, and I count all things 
 but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my 
 Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do 
 count them but dross that I may win Christ, and be found in 
 him; not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, 
 but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness 
 which is of God by faith.” ¢ 
 
 Can any words express more strongly the apostle’s estimation 
 of the supreme importance of the Redeemer’s interposition, his 
 total dependence for salvation upon faith in Christ, and his 
 anxiety that every other human being should look for salvation 
 only to the same source? And how triumphantly does he 
 exult in the certain salvation of those, who being sanctified 
 and purified by such faith, receive all the benefits, which result 
 from the redemption Christ has wrought! ‘* What,” he asks, 
 ** shall we say to these things? If God be for us, who can be 
 against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered 
 him up for us all, shall He not with him also freely give us all 
 things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect ? 
 It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is 
 Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at 
 the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” t 
 
 The apostle’s mind, thus filled and exalted, by contemplating 
 the blessings of redemption and the character of our Redeemer, 
 
 * 2 Cor, viii. 8, 9. + Phil, iii,:7,:8, 9, ¢ Rom. viii. 31-39. 
 
78 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 breaks forth into a strain of gratitude the most fervent, and 
 confidence the most joyful and triumphant, that ever glowed 
 within the breast of man. ‘‘ Who,” he asks, ‘‘ shall separate us 
 from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or perse- 
 cution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Nay, 
 in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him 
 who loved us; for I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, 
 nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, 
 nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other crea- 
 ture, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which 
 is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” 
 
 The same feelings we perceive in the other apostles. St. 
 James speaks of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, as “ faith in 
 the Lord of glory.” He exhorts Christians “‘to be patient, 
 and stablish their hearts, for the coming of the Lord draweth 
 nigh.”* 
 
 St. Peter speaks of ‘the faith of Christians unto salvation, 
 as more precious than gold that perisheth, tried (through mani- 
 fold temptations) as with fire; that it might be found unto 
 praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ ; 
 whom,” says he, ‘‘having not seen, ye love; in whom, though 
 ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable 
 and full of glory; receiving the end of your faith, even the 
 salvation of your souls.” He declares, ‘it was the spirit of 
 Christ, which was in the prophets, which testified beforehand 
 the sufferings of Christ, and the glory which should follow.” 
 He speaks of the Gospel as preached unto Christians, ‘ with 
 the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven: which things the 
 angels desire to look into.”t He speaks of ‘* Christ, who is 
 gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and 
 principalities, and powers being made subject unto him.” t 
 
 The same apostle thus exhorts Christians, who undergo the 
 fiery trial of persecution, ‘* Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are par- 
 takers of Christ’s sufferings, that when his glory is revealed, ye 
 may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for 
 the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of 
 God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but 
 
 * James, ii, 1; Vv, 7, 8 f +1 Peter, i, 7-12, +1 Peter, iii. 22, 
 
DISCOURSE IV. 719 
 
 on your part he is glorified.”* And he prays, ‘‘ that grace and 
 peace should be multiplied upon those who had obtained the 
 like precious faith with the apostles, through the righteousness 
 of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” The method by which 
 this blessing was to be obtained is, the ‘‘ knowledge of God and 
 of Jesus our Lord, according as his divine power hath given unto 
 us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the 
 knowledge of him that hath called us unto glory and virtue, 
 whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious pro- 
 mises that by these, ye might be partakers of the divine nature, 
 having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.” 
 
 When the same apostle exhorts them to cultivate every con- 
 ceivable grace and virtue that can exalt the human soul, the 
 motives to animate their exertions are: ‘‘that they may not 
 be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ :” that they may make their calling and election sure; 
 for so,” says he, ‘ an entrance shall be administered unto you 
 abundantly, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ.” And he concludes this most ardently 
 affectionate apostolic exhortation, with imploring them to “* grow 
 in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” 
 
 The beloved apostle, St. John, is as explicit in his Epistle as 
 in his Gospel, in ascribing to Christ a dignity belonging only to 
 God; bearing record, ‘‘ that God hath given us eternal life, 
 and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life; and 
 he that hath not the Son, hath not life.” With him, the con- 
 viction of the love of God in Christ, is the grand motive why 
 we should love one another; and the efficacy of his righteousness 
 the source of ours; for ‘‘ hence we know, that whosoever doeth 
 righteousness is born of him;” and the hope of his appearance 
 supplies the motive ‘for purifying ourselves, even as he is 
 pure.” ’ 
 
 Thus it appears, that with all the apostles, ‘* Christ is, as ié 
 were all in all.Ӥ They long to quit the world, and be with 
 
 * 2 Peter, iv. 14. + 2 Peter, i, 1-11; iii. 18. $1 John, v. 11; iii. 1-6, 
 
 ee eee 
 
 asserted by declaring, that all distinctions of nations and religion must be renounced 
 in obedience to him; “that Christ may be all, and in all,” These two chapters 
 
80 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Christ. Faith in him is their glory, his example their guide, 
 his word their law, his favour their highest hope, his coming 
 their perpetual theme, his sentence the determination of their 
 eternal destiny. Through him, they look for acceptance of 
 their prayers, justification before God, aid in trials, consolation 
 in sorrow, support in death, acquittal in judgment, and bliss 
 in heaven: and to him their obedience is total and unre- 
 served—‘‘ casting down imaginations, and every high thing that 
 exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into 
 captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.’* Can any 
 thing higher than this be claimed by God, as due unto himself ? 
 ‘** And you,” (says the apostle to the Colossians,) ‘‘ whatsoever 
 ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men, 
 knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of your 
 inheritance, for ye serve the Lord Christ.”f And again, 
 ‘* Beware, lest any man spoil you, through philosophy and vain 
 deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the 
 world, and not after Christ; for in him dwelleth all the fulness 
 of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete in him, which is 
 the head of all principality and power.’t 
 
 On a review of all these clear testimonies of scripture, let me 
 ask, 1s it conceivable, that the apostles could have thus associ- 
 ated Christ with God, as united with him in being the object of 
 such gratitude, such faith, such hope, such triumph ; as being 
 the agent united with God in this great work of redemption ; 
 and yet have believed, that this Christ was a mere man, ‘* who 
 had no existence before his human birth,” ‘* no influence after 
 his death;” whose sufferings in the cause of truth, and whose 
 labours in diffusing it, have’ been equalled by so many other men, 
 even by some of the apostles themselves? No, certainly ; nothing 
 could have excited or justified such feelings, if Christ had not been 
 of divine dignity ; his suffermgs unparalleled in their condescen- 
 sion and their efficacy ; and, in a word, if he had not been the Son 
 
 explain fully, what is meant by asserting, that all the religious affections, and ail the 
 moral motives which can sway the human heart, are made to centre in Christ: and 
 I beg the serious Christian to peruse them with attention to this topic. The three 
 first chapters of the epistle to the Philippians will equally confirm the same important 
 truth, and should be carefully read to illustrate and impress it. 
 
 #2 Cor, x. 45-0. + Col. iii, 23, 24, ¢ Col, ii. 8, 9, 10, 
 
_ DISCOURSE I¥. Sl 
 
 of Gop, who was united with the Eternal Father as Creator 
 and Lord of the universe, the sole Author and Giver of ever- 
 lasting life. On this supposition, all the apostle’s feelings are 
 natural, just, and rational: on any other, they are visionary and 
 extravagant ; nay, even impious and idolatrous. 
 
 On a subject so awful and mysterious as the nature and dignity 
 of the Son of God, the effects of his intercession, and the neces- 
 sity and value of the redemption he hath wrought, we must never 
 attempt, from the mere deductions of our own reason, to modify 
 the facts, limit the declarations, or reject the light of scripture. 
 But if any facts or doctrines appear to be clearly established by 
 the divine word, and that reason discovers, in the facts and 
 doctrines thus revealed, a connexion and harmony, which every 
 other system wants, it cannot be presumptuous to point out that 
 harmony and connexion. 
 
 On the Socinian scheme then it appears, that the last and 
 most perfect part of divine revelation which in every other view 
 refines and exalts our ideas of the divinity ; teaches us to worship 
 him in spirit and in truth; trains men to the most pure and 
 perfect virtue, and at once inculcates and exemplifies the most 
 heartfelt and ennobling piety ; would, notwithstanding, discover 
 an opposite tendency in this leading point, the object of our religious 
 affections ; would, as to these, altogether lower and debase the 
 religious principle, and in total repugnance to every former reve- 
 lation, teach men to look up, as to the bestower of every impor- 
 tant blessing, even redemption from eternal misery, not to the 
 great and Supreme Eternal Father alone, but also to another 
 being who is not God, (as is affirmed,) yet concerning whom we are 
 taught, *‘ that he is the only-begotten Son of God;” “by whom 
 alone we can know God,” “ or come to God,” the mediator and 
 intercessor with God for man; by whom we obtain remission of 
 our sins; ‘‘ that He is the way and the truth, the life” and light 
 ** of the world ;” who is entitled to our most fervent gratitude, our. 
 perfect confidence, our unreserved submission ; by faith in whom 
 *“we are turned from darkness unto light, and from the power of 
 Satan unto God ;” who is to appear with the holy angels, on the 
 throne of divine glory, at the last great day of final judgment, to 
 call from the grave the whole human race, to try the secrets 
 of all hearts, and by his sentence fix the eternal doom of every 
 human being. 
 
 (weer ree 
 
82 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Thus the Redeemer is put forward in the New Testament, im 
 such a light as necessarily to attract, as it were, our most ex- 
 alted religious affections, as being in union with the eternal Fa- 
 ther; while the Old Testament mostvigilantly and jealously directs 
 and confines these affections exclusively to the true and only God. 
 And in the New also, this exclusive right of God to all our 
 affections is clearly admitted, while, at the same time, the Re- 
 deemer is described in the manner already stated; and thus prac- 
 tically and effectively glorified, as possessing also a right to all 
 these affections: and we are called, nay, compelled, * to honour 
 the Son, even as we honour the Father.” Is not this to contra- 
 dict all previous revelation, and bring the authority of God’s 
 word to supplant the God who gave it, unless the Redeemer thus 
 glorified, be one and the same with God himself, the Creator, 
 the Saviour, the Lord, the Judge of man? Otherwise the last 
 revelation subverts and confounds all that precedes, introducing, 
 not an advancement and improvement, but a retrogression and 
 debasement of the religious principle; perplexing reason, and 
 misdirecting piety. 
 
 While, on the contrary, the view, which we have endeavoured 
 to trace, of the incarnation and divinity of Christ, ‘‘at once 
 truly God and truly Man,” is most harmoniously connected 
 with the statement, which the apostolic writings exhibit of the 
 grand scheme of redemption; of the feelings excited by the view 
 of this scheme, of the affections with which believers should re- 
 gard the Redeemer, and of the honour which is due to him. If 
 the Redeemer is clearly proved to partake of the divine nature, 
 does it not instantly follow, that faith and obedience, gratitude 
 and adoration, in the very highest degree, are his unquestionable 
 right? If the penitent soul is certain that the same Jesus, who 
 died for his sins, has also risen for his justification ; if he is fully 
 assured that he is not only Man but God, God manifest in the 
 flesh ; this conviction, this faith, removes that intolerable burden 
 which presses down the humbled sinner’s soul,—the load of irre- 
 vocable and unpardoned guilt; it calms that terror which would 
 embitter to the heart every thought of the Divinity—the terror 
 of unsatisfied justice, which ought not to remit punishment. 
 
 Thus it is, that this most cheering revelation softens the over- 
 powering splendour of the divine glory, which no himan eyé could 
 behold and liye, by throwing round it the mild radiance of redeem- 
 
DISCOURSE IY, 83 
 
 ing love. Despondence is banished, hope revived, repentance 
 encouraged, exertion animated, devotion kindled, and the heart 
 drawn to God by the warmest gratitude, and the most attractive 
 mercy. In fact, compared with the truths this revelation, thus 
 understood, discloses, all other knowledge is vain and worthless ; 
 compared with the hope it inspires, all other hopes are cold and 
 comfortless. Looking to Jesus, we behold in the divine Law- 
 giver, our unalterably steady friend; in the divine Judge, our 
 all-merciful Redeemer. As man we are sure of his sympathy, as 
 God we are sure of his power : from both united, we look for our 
 eternal deliverance. In afflictions we know he was afflicted, and 
 if we suffer with him in patience, we shall also rejoice with 
 him in glory. The immense gulf, which appeared to divide the 
 creature from his God, is closed, and we are assured of access 
 to the throne of grace, where our Redeemer sits, to hold out 
 the golden sceptre of mercy, that we may touch and live. We 
 are assured our prayers will be heard, for he who is ever present 
 and ever watchful, and ‘‘ knoweth what we ought to pray for,” 
 will assist our prayers: and whatsoever ‘‘ we ask of him, not 
 doubting, we shall receive.” ‘* And wheresoever two or three 
 are gathered together in his name, there is he in the midst of 
 them.”* 
 
 If we lament our multiplied infirmities, the temptations which 
 surround,- the ignorance which blinds, and the weakness which 
 betrays us, “ we know we have a merciful and faithful high priest, 
 in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins 
 of his people, who is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of 
 God, who is not such a one as cannot be touched with the feel- 
 ing of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we 
 ‘ are, yet without sin: and is therefore able to succour those who are 
 tempted.”{ <‘ Let us therefore (infers the apostle) come boldly 
 unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find 
 grace to help in time of need.” 
 
 Such is the view that the Gospel gives of the efficacy of the 
 Redeemer’s interposition, of the confidence it ought to inspire, 
 and the feeling it ought to excite. But could we be sure this 
 view must necessarily be realized, if the Redeemer were less than 
 
 * Matt. xviii. 20. + Heb. iv. 14, 15, 16, 
 
84 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 God? Could we for ever retain this confidence unshaken, if 
 we did not believe this Redeemer was unchangeable ? Could 
 we give full scope to such feelings towards any other being than 
 our Creator, our Preserver, our God? 
 
 If the Redeemer were not omnipresent and omniscient, could 
 we be certain that he always hears our prayers, and knows the 
 gource and remedy of all our miseries? If he were not all- 
 merciful, could we be certain he must always be willing to pardon 
 and relieve us? If he were not all-powerful, could we be sure 
 that he must always be able to support and strengthen, to en- 
 lighten and direct us? Of any being less than God, we might 
 suspect that his purposes might waver, his power fail, his exis- 
 tence itself perhaps terminate ; for of every created being, the 
 existence must be dependent and terminable. 
 
 Thus strip the Redeemer of his divinity—the whole gospel 
 scheme would be doubt and darkness, inconsistency and confu- 
 sion. Admit him to be God and Man—it exhibits an object of 
 faith and gratitude, admirably adapted to all the affections and 
 powers, all the wants and weaknesses of human nature; admi- 
 rably adapted to our reformation and sanctification, our advance- 
 ment in love to man and love to God, the improvement of all the 
 means of grace, the accomplishment of all our hopes of glory. 
 In temptation this faith supports, in sorrow it consoles, in death 
 it fortifies and cheers the Christian’s soul—when with the holy 
 martyr he is enabled to lift the eye of faith to heaven, to behold 
 the glory of God, and his Redeemer placed at the right hand 
 of God, he can exclaim, ‘Oh death, where is thy sting? Oh 
 grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin, and 
 the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who giveth 
 us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ: therefore my 
 beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding 
 in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour 
 i3 not in vain in the Lord.”* 
 
 Surely, then, every Christian pastor should enforce this all- 
 important truth of the divinity of Christ with the same zeal as 
 the great apostle of the Gentiles, and with him thus call on 
 those whose souls are committed to his care. ‘‘ Remember 
 
 *] Cor. xy. 54-58, 
 
 * 
 
_ DISCOURSE IV. 85 
 
 them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you 
 the word of God, whose faith follow, considering the end of their 
 conversation, JEsuSs CHRIST, THE SAME YESTERDAY AND TO- 
 DAY, AND FOR EVER: and be not carried about with divers and 
 strange doctrines.”* 
 
 With the beloved apostle, the Christian teacher may declare, 
 “¢ we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an 
 understanding that we may know him that is true; and we are 
 in him that is true, EVEN IN HIs Son Jesus CHRIST; THIS IS 
 THE TRUE GoD, AND ETERNAL LIFE.” 
 
 He should never cease to remind Christians of that awful hour 
 when he (Jesus Christ,) ‘* who is the faithful and true witness, 
 and the first-begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings 
 of the earth, who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in 
 his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God his 
 Father ; when he shall come with clouds, and every eye shall 
 see him, and they which pierced him, and all the kindreds of 
 the earth shall wail because of him.”{ 
 
 How awful is his dignity, how unspeakable is his majesty ! 
 With what steady faith, what humble obedience should he be 
 regarded, who declares of himself, ‘‘ I am aLPHA AND OMEGA, 
 THE BEGINNING AND THE END, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, HE 
 THAT LIVETH AND WAS DEAD; AND BEHOLD, I AM ALIVE FOR 
 EVERMORE, and have the keys of hell and of death. I come 
 quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every man accord- 
 ing as his works shall be. ‘To him be glory and dominion for 
 ever and ever. Amen.’ | 
 
 * Heb. xiii. 7, 8, 9. +1 John v. 20. } Rey, i. 5, 6, 7. 
 || Compare and combine Rey. chap. i. 17, 18, with chap. xxii. 12, 13, andi, 6. 
 
nie mong gs 08 8 
 ho, ha Eh Aas, ath | 
 
 peak eb ih waked 
 
87 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 NOTES TO DISCOURSE I. 
 
 NOTE I; —PAGE 8, 
 Authenticity of the text, from Matt. xxv. 18, 19, 20. 
 
 Tue Unitarian editors of the improved version of the New Testament admit this 
 authenticity: ‘ Some,” say they, “have called in question the genuineness of 
 this text, but without sufficient authority.” Who the some alluded to here are, I 
 cannot guess; much less can I see the slightest authority to raise any such question; 
 at least, no trace of such an authority is found in Newcore, Wetstein, or Griesbach. 
 The particle ov» or vw» 7, e. the word therefore, after « Go ye,” in v. 19, is rejected 
 by Griesbach from the authority of his MS. but not a single MS. or version is 
 referred to, as varying in any other word of this important passage. I conclude, that 
 no one has called into question the genuineness of this text; or if any one has been 
 rash enough to do so, it was without any authority. 
 
 I would here, once for all, remark, that in these discourses, I have forborne using 
 any text which Griesbach has pronounced not to be genuine. I have done this, not 
 at all from my agreeing with his decisions on these texts, but because I wished to 
 simplify the controversy, and from my clear conviction, that the doctrine of the 
 Trinity can be established fully by scriptural proofs, independently of these texts. 
 
 If, however, the student wishes to see the controverted texts very learnedly 
 defended, I would refer him to Dr. Hales’s Second Volume on « Faith in the Holy 
 Trinity, the Doctrine of the Gospel.”—Letters 8, 9, 10,11, and 12. And that 
 Griesbach’s supposed corrections of the sacred text are not of any serious account, as 
 affecting the controversy between the Socinians and Trinitarians, vide the Rev. 
 Edward Nares’s « Remarks on the Unitarian Improved Version ;” Introduction, from 
 p- 15 to the end,—-Ist Ed. London, 1810. 
 
 NOTE IL.—PAGE 8, 
 Rite of Triple Immersion at Baptism. 
 
 On this subject the Bishop of Lincoln, in his learned and able work on the Thirty- 
 nine Articles—on Article I. observes: « The argument, from the form of baptism, 
 will derive great strength from the practice of the early ages, and from the obser- 
 vations which we meet with in several of the ancient fathers relative to it. We learn, 
 from Ambrose,! that persons, at the time of their baptism, declared their belief in 
 the three persons of the Holy Trinity, and that they were dipped in the water three 
 times. In his Treatise upon the Sacraments, he says, ‘Thou wast asked at thy baptism, 
 ‘ Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty?’ and thou didst reply, « I believe,’ 
 and then thou wast dipped: a second time thou wast asked, * Dost thou believe in 
 Jesus Christ the Lord?’ thou didst answer again, «I believe,’ and thou wast dipyed : 
 
 1 De Sacram, Lib, II. Cap. 7, 
 
88 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 a third time the question was repeated, ‘ Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost?’ and 
 the answer was, ‘I believe:’ then thou wast dipped a third time.” It is to be noticed, 
 that the belief here expressed separately in the three persons of the Trinity, is pre- 
 cisely the same in all. Tertullian, Basil, and Jerome,! all mention this practice of 
 triple immersion, as being derived from apostolical tradition ; and Jerome expressly 
 says, “ We are thrice dipped in the water, that the mystery of the Trinity may appear 
 to be but one; we are not baptized in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, but in one name, which is God’s; and therefore, though we be thrice put 
 under the water, to represent the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed but one bap- 
 tism.” ‘ Who,” says Didymus,® « will not hence conclude the equality of the sacred 
 Trinity, seeing there is but one faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as bap- 
 tism is ministered in the name of all three?” Cyprian,® after reciting the form of 
 baptism prescribed by our Saviour, says, ‘* He intimates a Trinity, by the sacrament 
 of which the nations should be baptized.” And again, ‘ Christ himself orders the 
 nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity.” 
 To establish more fully the importance of this form of baptism, in proving the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, I would refer to Bishop Bull, in his Judicium Ecclesia 
 ‘atholice, 38ium primorum Seculorum de Necessitate credendi quod Dominus Noster 
 Jesus Christus sit verus Deus. In the fourth chapter of this most learned and con- 
 vincing work, which treats of the creeds of the primitive church, he observes, that 
 his antagonist Episcopius admitted, that the most ancient creed used in the first form 
 of baptisra, from the very times of the apostles, was this—“ I believe in God the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;” according to the form prescribed by Jesus 
 himself. Episcopius, it is true, wished to weaken the force of the inference from 
 this form, but the bishop in answer remarks, that in this creed, brief as it was, “ the 
 true divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit is so distinctly asserted, that in so short 
 a form of words, it was scarcely possible it could be more clearly expressed; for 
 first, it is plain, that in this form, ‘I believe in God the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit,’ the word Gop is referred in common to the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit, which is still more evident in the Greek form aisrevw tis rov ban, roy 
 murion, roy viov xa ro ayiov wvivec.” And thus, most certainly, the ancients under- 
 stood this brief confession. Thus Tertullian, expounding the common faith of 
 Christians, with respect to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, affirms, ‘ The Father is 
 God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and each is God.’* Cyprian also, 
 in his epistle to Jubajanus, thus argues against the baptism of heretics: ‘ If one can be 
 baptized by heretics, he can obtain the remission of sins; if the remission of sins, he 
 is sanctified, and become a temple of God. I ask, of what God? if of the Creator, 
 it cannot be, for he has not believed on him: if of Christ, how can he be the temple 
 of Christ, who denies that Christ is God? if of the Holy Spirit, since the three are - 
 one, how can the Holy Spirit be propitious to him, who is the enemy either of the 
 Father or the Son?’ The attentive reader will here also observe,” adds the bishop, 
 “‘that Cyprian most expressly teaches, that belief of the real Godhead of our Lord 
 Christ was altogether necessary to salvation, for he expressly declares, that ‘he 
 cannot become the temple of God;’ which is the same thing as to say, he cannot be 
 saved, who denies that Christ is God. And to me,” continues this judicious prelate, 
 « it appears, that in these few words, «I believe in God the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost,’ this great truth, even that the Son and Holy Spirit are one God with the 
 Father, is more clearly expressed than in some more full creeds, which were afterwards 
 introduced, in which other additions to the words, ‘I believe in God the Father,’ and 
 also after the mention of the Son, without repeating the word of God in the clauses con- 
 cerning the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it might seem, and did seem to some, that the title | 
 God belonged to the Father alone, plainly contrary to the intention and opinion of those 
 who formed these more enlarged creeds. Secondly, in this form, the Son, as well as the 
 Holy Spirit, is united with the Father as partners of his dominion, and sharers of that 
 faith, honour, worship, and obedience, which the person to be baptized vows and promises, 
 
 1 Hieronym. cont. Luc. Cap. 4, Lib. 11. in Ephes. 2 De Spir. Sanct. Lib. II. inter Op, Hieronym, 
 3 Cyprian, ad Jubajanum,] » 4 Advers, Prax. Cap, 13. 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE I. . 89 
 
 and which he who believes can belong to a mere man, or to any creature, must be 
 conceived totally ignorant of what it is which constitutes the horrible guilt of idolatry. 
 The learned bishop preceeds to confirm his opinion by various arguments: he quotes 
 the remarkable testimony of Lucian, who, in derision, introduces a Christian doctor 
 or eatechist, instructing the catechumen. Amongst other things, in the mystery of 
 the Holy Trinity, the catechumen asks, ¢ By whom then shall I swear?’ Trypho 
 answers, ‘ By God, the supreme Ruler, great universal, celestial, the Son of the 
 Father, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, one of three, three of one; these 
 you are to receive as Jove, him you are to acknowledge as God.’ ‘‘ By this,” says the 
 bishop, « we may conclude, that the converts from heathenism to the church of Christ, 
 at that day, were strictly bound, in place of Jove and the other false divinities whom 
 they had worshipped, to devote and consecrate themselves wholly to the faith, wor- 
 ship and obedience of the triune God: ¢ God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,’ 
 as their only God.” ‘Thus far Bishop Bull on this important text. 
 
 I beg of the learned reader to compare the translation I have here given, with the 
 original, in the Works of Bishop Bull; in Latin Folio, Grabe’s Ed. London, 
 1721—pages 308-9. 
 
 The curious student will, on this subject, be highly gratified, by perusing (see 
 below) the creeds of Treneeus, a father of the Greek church, and Tertullian, a father 
 of the Latin church, both of whom lived in the second century; also the creed of 
 the ancient Oriental church, clearly in use before the Council of Nice, or the contest 
 that arose between the Latin and Greek church, with respect to the procession of the 
 Holy Spirit from the Son. In all of them he will see the doctrine of the Holy 
 Trinity expressed, with a variety of phrase indeed, but perfect harmony of sense.— 
 Vide Bulli Opera, p. 309, 310, 311, 324. 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, TAKEN FROM IRENZZUS, ADV. HER. 
 LIBS I. GAR, 
 
 The church, which was planted all over the world unto the ends of the earth, 
 received, both from the apostles and their disciples, that faith which teaches us to 
 believe in one God, the Father Almighty, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and 
 all things that are therein; and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was incar- 
 nate for our salvation; and in the Holy Ghost, who foretold by the prophets, what 
 God had ordained, and the coming of his dearly beloved Sen, Jesus Christ our Lord ; 
 his being born of the Virgin Mary, his passion and resurrection from the dead, and, 
 his ascension into heaven in the flesh; and his coming again from heaven in the 
 glory of the Father, to take cognizance of all things that are past, and to raise the 
 whole race of mankind from the dead; that to Christ Jesus, who is our Lord and our 
 God, our Saviour and our King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee 
 may bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that 
 every tongue may confess to him, and that he may administer true judgment unto 
 all; that the workers of wickedness, both the angels that sinned and became apos- 
 tates, and impious, unjust, unrighteous, and blasphemous men, may be sent away by 
 him into everlasting fire; but that all just and righteous-men, and such as observe 
 and keep his laws, and persevere in loving him, some from the beginning, and some 
 from the time of their repentance, may receive from his hands life and perfection, 
 and be surrounded with such honour and excellency as will not fade away. 
 
 Symbolum ex Irenco Desumptum, Operum, pag. 48, contra Hereses Caput, 10um, 
 Editio Benedictina, Paris 1710. 
 
 1 ~ 9 , Oo) ~ ~ 
 Huzy yap Exnxancia, nasvereg nab? odns THs oiovmevns tus Weearay THs yng Diecarecoueyn, 
 Ls bape Les pes Ste! 5) | ¢ ivf 
 RU oe 32 cav AmostAwy, nal tov txeiway madnray mragurabovse 7 eis Eve Ozoy Tariga 
 \ ~ \ \ 
 DUVTORLUTORM, TOY WEMUNKOTA TOY OVEAVOY KU THY YAY, KUL TAS Saraccas, nal riven re 
 f. of age as Z aahirhy 4 
 by avrois, wisiv® wal es Eva Xeisov Ineovy, rov viov rov Ozov, Tov caguwDivra verég THs 
 ow ce ‘ > ~ oy \ \ o — Py \ \ > , 
 ner ions TUTNCIMS* KOHL E45 nee BYl0V, TO Oiee Ag. eeparey sph hd TLS O1KOVOKLIAS, 
 /, \ 3 BT > ~ 
 KUL Tas LALVTEIS, HAE TNY Ex Usedivev YEVVATIV, KAS TO Ttos, KUL TAY EYECTIV EX VEKQuY, 
 G 
 
90 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 nal hy tvocgnoy sis rods obgavevs avarnrpuy rod hynanusvod Xoisod Ingov rov Kupiov huoy, 
 nat THY x TOY oueayvay ty TA d0%n Tou Tlaress moaoouriay hurov, trl To avaxt~araio- 
 curdus the ThITt, Ral AIASITHL TATAY ThEKH THONS dWoumornros, ive Xeisg Inrov 
 wa Kugio hua, nal Os, xual corner, xa) Bacirtl, xare rny evdoxiay rod argos rod 
 aogurov, wav youu naury7 Emiougaviay, mal smiytio, nal xaraxboviny, nal wrurw 
 yracon Louoroyhrnra: aura, nak xgior Yxaiy by vols wuoL Hohonral, Ta wey TvEv~ 
 purind Ths wovagias, wal ayyirous TUeUssenneras, roel bv Anwosoria yeyovoras, xual rods 
 aosetis, nal ddinous, xual avomons, nal PAaOPAmous var avSearwy tis 7d aianoy re weerpne 
 Tors OF OiMKIOIS, HAL BTi01S, Hal Tag EYTOAMS AUTO TETHONLOT!, nul ey en ayarn LUTOD die~ 
 preevnnool, Tois aa apxnss Tois dt tx mETavelas, Cany xagirnpeves, aPSagoiay DwenTnT el, 
 x00 D0 ny Giaviay WEgiTonTn. 
 
 THE RULE OF FAITH. 
 From Tertullian de Prescript. Adv. Her. Cap. 13. 
 
 The rule of faith is that which teaches us to believe that there is no other God but 
 one, and no other besides him who made the world, and produced all things by his 
 Word, which he begot before all things; that this Word of his, which is called his 
 Son, appeared in the style and title of God in various manners to the patriarchs, and 
 is always mentioned as such in the writings of prophets: and at last, by’the spirit 
 and power of God the Father, was conceived by the Virgin Mary, was incar- 
 nate in her womb, and was born of her a man, in order to be Jesus Christ; 
 that after that time he preached a new law, attended with a new promise of the 
 kingdom of heaven; wrought miracles, was nailed to a cross, and rose again the 
 third day; that he was taken up to heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father ; 
 that he sent the power of the Holy Ghost to supply his absence, and to influence 
 those that believe in him; that he shall come again with pomp and splendour, to receive 
 the saints into the enjoyment of eternal life, and the heavenly promises, and to con- 
 demn the wicked to the everlasting fire; having for that purpose raised both parties 
 from the dead, and restored to them their flesh or bodies. 
 
 He adds, this rule, instituted as shall be proved, by Christ, is amongst us unques- 
 tioned, except when heretics introduce questions about it, which questions consti-. 
 tute heresies ; and in his book against Praxeas, cap. 2, he declares :—“ We believe, 
 indeed, in one God, but yet, that under this dispensation, (or, as we term it, 
 ceconomy,) there exists the Son and Word of one God himself, who proceeds from 
 him, by whom all things were made, and without whom was not any thing made 
 which was made; that he was incarnate by the Father in the Virgin, and born of 
 her, and became Man and God, Son of Man, and Son of God, and was named Jesus 
 Christ.” And he adds, “this rule of faith descended to us from the beginning of 
 the Gospel, even before all more ancient heresies, much more before Praxeas, who 
 is of yesterday.” 
 Regula Fidei ex Tertulliani Libro, de Prescriptione Hereticorum, Cap. Xill. 
 
 Operum pag. 206, Editione Rigaltit Paris, 1769. 
 
 Regula est autem fidei; (ut jam hinc quid defendamus profiteamur,) illa sci- 
 licet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse; nec alium preter mundi condito- 
 rem; qui universa de nihilo produxerit, per verbum suum primo omnium de- 
 missum: id verbum filium ejus appellatum, in nomine Dei varie visum a pa- 
 triarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu Patris Dei et 
 virtute, in Virginem Mariam, carnem factum in utero ejus, et ex ea natum, egisse 
 Jesum Christum; exinde pradicasse novam legem, et novam promissionem regni 
 colorum: virtutes fecisse: fixum cruci? tertiad die resurrexisse : in coelos ereptum 
 sedisse ad dextram Patris; misisse vicariam vim Spiritus sancti, qui eredentes agat : 
 venturum cum claritate, ad sumendos sanctos in vite eterna et promissorum coeles- 
 tium fructum, et ad profanos adjudicandos igni perpetuo, facta utriusque partis 
 resuscitatione, cum carnis restitutione. 
 
 Hee regula 4 Christo, ut probabitur, instituta, nullas habet apud nos questiones, 
 nisi quas hereses inferunt, et que hereticos faciunt, 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE I. 91 
 
 In Libro adversus Praxeam, Capite 2ndo. Operum pag. 501—Svre Loquitur. 
 
 Nos vero et semper, et nunc magis, ut instructiores per Paracletum deductorem sci- 
 licet omnis veritatis, unicum quidem Deum credimus, sub hae tamen dispensatione, 
 quam ceconomiam dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso proces- 
 serit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil. Hunc missum a 
 Patre in Virginem, et ex ea natum Hominem et Deum, fillium hominis, et filium 
 Dei, et cognominatt im Jesum Christum, hune passum hune mortuum et Sepultum 
 Secundtim Scripturas, et resuscitatum a Patre, in ccelos resumptum, sedere ad dex- 
 tram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos: qui exinde miserit, secundim pro 
 missionem suam, a Patre Spiritum sanctum Paracletum, sanctificatorem fidei eorum 
 qui credunt in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. 
 
 Hane regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse, etiam ante priores quosque here- 
 ticos, nedum ante Praxeam hesternum, probabit tam ipsa posteritas omnium hereti- 
 corutn, quam ipsa novellitas Praxez hesterni. 
 
 A still more important creed is that of the Church of Jerusalem. Cyril, Bishop 
 of that Church, about the year 350, has in his six Catecheses, explained the parts 
 or clauses of the creed of the Church of Jerusalem severally, which, all united, form 
 the following confession of faith :— Vide Bishop Bull, p. 324. 
 
 ce J patina in one God the Father, governor of all things, maker of heaven and 
 earth, of all things visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only 
 begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, by whom all things 
 were made, who became incarnate, and became mav, and was crucified and buried, 
 and arose from the dead the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the 
 right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead, of whose 
 kingdom there will be no end; and in one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who spoke by 
 the ‘prophets. 
 
 «« And in the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one Catholic 
 Church, and in the resurrection of the body, and in hfe everlasting.” 
 
 Testimonium Episcopi Bulli de Regula Fidei ex Cyrillo, Operum p. 325, Editionis 
 Joannis Ernesti Grabe, Londini, 1721. 
 
 Cujusmodi autem fuerit vetus Symbolum Ecclesize Hierosolymitanz, quidque de 
 persona Jesu Christi Domini nostri credendum tradiderit, a nemine certits quam a 
 Cyrillo, qui circiter ann. Christi 350 ejus Keclesiz Episcopus creatus fuit, cognoscl, 
 poterit. Is autem dum adhuc Catechetes fuit, in Catechesibus suis 6 et seqq. Com- 
 petentibus Symbolum Ecclesiz Hierosolymitane per partes explicavit, qua omnes 
 conjunctee hance confessionem constituunt : $ 
 
 7 
 Thseva is tye @zay ‘got Way ]03 CAT OG Oy wou ay odgavay Pa Vis, bgaray Tt TeIlwy nat 
 
 LOQAT OY" zal els eva nies Incovy he Toy visy roo Ozo00 pavoryevin, TOV ein Tov RUT LOS 
 yen 70 TUITWY THY claves, Ozdy aantivay, oi ob Te weey ce evevero* Teen essere, 
 KGL AVAShVE tx vExouy TH reirh acters nah averborra eis, Tavs aveuvaous, xa) nadicay |e 
 ix dekiay Tou urges * nuh gnc hweevoy xeiveeds Zayi aS eth vExeaus, ov 7g Bacirsias ovx esas 
 vines’ wal tis +0 ayioy WVEV Lee eat) TUOLKRANATOY, To AmARTAY dice ray reoonray" gig. ey 
 Ppédhouc METaVEIAS, eis flay xaOOmIKAY EHHANTIAY. wal tis TAKS avasuow' xak eis Suny 
 
 58 
 GhOYVIAV. 
 
 It is evident, says Bishop Bull, that this is not the Nicene Creed, and that it also 
 wants the additions of the Constantinopolitan Creed, concerning the Holy Spirit, 
 which last no one need be surprised at, who recollects that the Catecheses, whether 
 of Cyril, or some other Bishop of the same see, were written long before the year 
 380, when the Synod of Constantinople was held; and there is strong evidence ‘that 
 they contain the Creed of the Church of Jerusalem. For the proofs, of this I refer 
 to the learned prelate. 
 
 For the further satisfaction of the reader, I shall here quote the creed which Dr: 
 Buchanan found received by the Syrian Christians in Judea, and his reasons for 
 
92 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 considering it as a testimony of the belief held by the primitive Christian 
 church, 
 
 Extracts from Dr. Buchanan's «“ Christian Researches, concerning the Syrian 
 Christians in India,” from page 106 to 126, Fifth edition, London, 1812. 
 
 The Syrian Christians inhabit the interior of Travancore and Malabar, in the 
 south of India, and have been settled there from the early ages of Christianity. 
 The Portuguese, on discoyering them, found they had never heard of the Pope ; 
 that they maintained the order and discipline of a regular church, under episcopal 
 jurisdiction ; and that, for thirteen hundred years, they had enjoyed a succession of 
 bishops, appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch ; and insisted, ** We are of the true 
 faith, whatever you from the west may be; for we come from the place where the 
 followers of Christ were first called Christians.” . 
 
 On this, the Portuguese began to persecute them, in order to force their submis- 
 sion to popery. They met with a resolute resistance ; seized their bishop Mar Joseph, 
 sent him prisoner to Lisbon, and then convened asynod at one of the Syrian churches, 
 at which the Romish archbishop presided. At this compulsory synod, one hundred 
 and fifty of the Syrian clergy appeared; they were accused of the following practices 
 and opinions: 
 
 That they had married wives ; that they owned but the two sacraments, baptism 
 and the Lord’s supper; that they neither invoked the saints, nor worshipped images, 
 nor believed in purgatory ; and that they had no other orders of dignity in the church, 
 than bishop, priest, and deacon. ‘These tenets they were called on to abjure, or to 
 suffer a suspension from all church benefices. Jt was also ordered that all the Syrian 
 books on ecclesiastical subjects, that could be found, should be burned, “in order 
 (said the inquisitors) that no pretended apostolical monuments may remain.” 
 
 The churches on the coast were thus compelled to acknowledge the supremacy of 
 the pope, but they refused to pray in Latin, and insisted on retaining their own lan- 
 guage and liturgy: but the churches in the interior would not yield ; their congrega- 
 tions hid their books and fled to the mountains. ‘Two centuries had elapsed from that 
 period to the time when they were visited by Doctor Buchanan : (this, with thirteen 
 hundred years, brings us back to the third century, and, therefore, before the Council 
 of Nice.) At one of these churches, the Doctor attended divine service on a Sunday. 
 Their liturgy is that which was formerly used in the churches of the Patriarch of 
 Antioch. The doctrines of the Syrian Christians (says the Doctor,) are few in number, 
 but pure, and agree, in ecclesiastical points, with that of the church of England. 
 The following are the chief doctrines: — _ 
 
 First. They hold the doctrine of a vicarious atonement for the sins of men, by the 
 blood and merits of Christ ; and of the justification of the soul before God, by “ faith 
 alone,” in that atonement. , 
 
 Secondly, They maintain the regeneration, or new birth of the soul to righteous- 
 ness, by the influence of the Spirit of God ; which change is called in their books, from 
 the Greek, the Meta-Noid, or change of mind. 
 
 Thirdly, In regard to the Trinity, the creed of the Syrian Christians accords with 
 that of Athanasius, but without the damnatory clauses. In a written and official 
 communication to the English resident at Travancore, the Metropolitan states it to be 
 as follows :— 
 
 <¢ We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three persons in one God; nei- 
 ther compounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance; one in three, and three in 
 one; the Futher generator, the Son generated, and the Holy Ghost proceeding : none 
 is before or after the other ; in majesty, honour, might, and power, co-equal. Unity 
 in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. He then proceeds to disclaim the different errors 
 of Arius, Sabellus, Macedonius, Manes, Marcianus, Julianus, Nestorius, and the 
 Chalcedonians, and concludes, «* That in the appointed time, through the disposi- 
 tion of the Father and the Holy Ghost, the Son appeared on earth, for the salvation 
 of mankind ; that he was born of the Virgin Mary, through the means of the Holy 
 Ghost, and was incarnate, God and man.” 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE 1. 93 
 
 Mr. Welchman, in his highly useful Treatise on the Thirty-nine Articles, has 
 briefly quoted the testimonies of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Athe- 
 nagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, to this great truth ; 
 testimonies which, along with various others, are so accurately examined, explained, 
 defended, and applied by the learned Bishop Bull in his work. 
 
 These ancient testimonies may, with the creeds already quoted, sufficiently esta- 
 blish the total opposition to the clear decision of the primitive Church, which marks 
 the scheme of the Unitarians; who yet perpetually boast of their perfect agreement 
 with the opinions of the earliest Christians; an agreement which they support only 
 by assuming that their own doctrines are so clearly rational and scriptural, they must 
 have been held by the first Christians; though it is a most certain fact, that the 
 express and acknowledged testimony of the primitive and Catholic Church supports 
 the Trinitarian scheme. 
 
 But as I mean not to enter on this controversy, so far as it depends on human 
 authority, I shall only refer the student to the works of Bishop Bull, and of Arch- 
 deacon Welchman before quoted, and to the Letters of Bishop Horseley to Dr. 
 Priestly ; and I return to the immediate text of the first discourse. 
 
 Dr. Carpenter endeavours to weaken the argument from this passage, by observ- 
 ing, that in the preceding verse it is said, ‘All power is given to me in heaven and 
 in earth,” therefore it cannot be justly considered as implying the equality of the Son 
 with the Father. But to this the answer is plain, When appearing as a man, 
 though in reality he was God incarnate, it was very necessary and very important to 
 declare to the apostles: To me, the Man Christ Jesus, all power is given in heaven 
 and in earth, the proofs of which I have shown in my former miracles, and will by 
 future miracles, by my perpetual presence with, and protection of my Church; this 
 power is given to me, as man, because I am united with God; and as God, I am, 
 with the Father and the Holy Spirit, to be acknowledged in baptism, as equally the 
 object of faith, obedience and adoration. 
 
 But, says Dr. Carpenter,® “baptising into the name of the person, is no proof of 
 his divinity ; otherwise Moses was God, (see 1 Cor. x. 2,) and all were baptised 
 unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.” 
 
 Now here also the answer is plain; it is not being baptised merely, but being bap- 
 tised in the name of Christ, as IN UNION with the Father and the Holy Ghost. It 
 is incredible that our Lord, a teacher of truth, and abhorring idolatry, would have 
 thus required faith in himself, as united with the Father and the Holy Ghost, if he 
 had not been really so united; and if so united, he must be God. Nothing like this 
 is said of Moses; nor was it ever said of Moses, “All power is given unto me in 
 heaven and in earth.” Such authority seems too extensive to be received or exer- 
 cised by any being less than God; but for this also Dr. Carpenter has a new mean- 
 ing, which removes all difficulty. It appears to him,’ “very probable our Saviour 
 here employs the word heaven to denote the Jewish nation, and, of course, earth 
 to denote the Gentile world: the assertion refers to the union, in the Gospel dispen- 
 sation, of both Jews and Gentiles.” This is surely clear and convincing ; if it is not, 
 he has still to observe, ‘that we probably have not facts enough to determine the 
 precise meaning of the expression ; but it appears clear, from the connexion, that it 
 refers to the universality of his spiritual authority, and not to the degree or nature of 
 the power by which it was exercised.” Now, on the contrary, it seems clear to me, 
 that the words, ‘all power in heaven and earth,” cannot be restricted, so as to mean 
 only one species of authority, or to be supposed not to extend to every power, even 
 of the highest degree, and the most exalted nature. The attentive reader must judge 
 which of these interpretations is most clear, just and natural. 
 
 These criticisms have such influence with Dr. Carpenter, that he concludes: I 
 acknowledge myself unable to see how this passage can prove any thing respecting the 
 Trinity ; if that mysterious doctrine were proved, of course it would sufficiently well 
 accord with it, and that, I think, is all”? But does the doctor consider how much 
 this all amounts to ? Could this passage sufficiently accord with the doctiine of the 
 
 6 Carpenter on Unitarianism, p, 130, 131. 7 Carpenter on Unitarianism, p 198, 
 
4 
 
 94 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Trinity, except it clearly expressed it? andif that doctrine was clearly expressed by 
 our Lord, and required by him to be acknowledged at baptism by every Christian 
 convert, to the end of the world, is not the doctrine fully proved to be the very 
 corner-stone of the Christian faith 2. From whom, or on what occasion, or in what form 
 
 of words, can we imagine a clearer or a stronger proof of the Trinity ? This 1. 
 
 acknowledge myself unable to see. In truth the Unitarians may thus very easily get rid 
 of every passage alleged in favour of the Trinity, if they may say of each in succession— 
 this of course accords sufficiently well with that doctrine, but still it is no proof of it, 
 for that doctrine is mysterious, and cannot therefore be proved from this passage. 
 By applying this assertion to every text as it occurs, all proof is effectually 
 removed. 
 
 Bishop Burnet very clearly and strongly expresses the force of the argument for 
 the Trinity, derived from the form of baptism in the name of the Father, Son and 
 Holy Ghost :—“ By name (he observes) is meant either an authority derived from 
 them, in the virtue of which all nations were to be baptised, or that the persons so 
 baptised are dedicated to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; either of these serises, 
 as it proves them to be all persons, so it sets them in equality in a thing which can 
 only belong to the divine nature. Baptism is the receiving men from a state of sin and 
 wrath, into a state of favour, and into the rights of the sons of God, and the hope of 
 eternal happiness, and calling them by the name of God: these are things which can 
 only be offered and assured to men, in the name of the great and eternal God; and 
 therefore, since, without any distinction or note of inequality, they are all three set 
 together, as persons in whose name this is to be done, they must be all three the true 
 God, otherwise it looks like just prejudice against our Saviour and his whole Gospel ; 
 that by his express direction, the first entrance into it, which gives the visible and 
 federal right to those great blessings that are offered by it, on their initiation into it, 
 should be in the name of two created beings; if the one can be properly called so 
 much as a being, by their hypothesis, and that in an equality with the supreme and 
 uncreated being. ‘The plainness of this charge, and the great occasion on which it 
 was given, makes this an argument of such foree and evidence, as may justly deter- 
 mine the whole matter.” 
 
 NOTE Ill, PAGE lI. 
 
 Made himself equal with God. John, v. 18. 
 
 This, Doctor Carpenter, with Primate Newcome, translates “making himself like 
 God,” and observes, ‘this is the most literal construction of the words; yet the con- 
 text would lead one to prefer, ‘at the same time putting himself on a footing with 
 God,’ viz. by saying, “and I also work.” It is here worthy of remark, how impossible 
 it is to shut out the idea of our Lord assuming, by the manner he now spoke, a 
 relation of God, whether of equality, likeness, or being on a footing with God, which 
 it were surely most difficult to reconcile with the piety and humility of Christ, if he 
 
 were no more than a mere man, a human being, having no existence before his human: 
 
 birth, and no influence on bis followers since his death. 
 
 NOTE IV. PAGE 12, 
 Before Abraham was, Iam. John, viii. 58. 
 
 Newcome, whom the Unitarian translators profess to follow, interprets this 
 passage as denoting a continued existence, and quotes the words of Bishop Pearson: 
 The use of the expression, I AM, sufficiently maintaineth, and the nature of the 
 place absolutely requireth, that it should not denote a present being, but a priority 
 of existence, together with a continuation of it to the present time: Before ever 
 Abraham, the person of whom you speak, was born, I had a real being and existence, 
 (by which I was capable of the sight of him) in which I have continued until now.” 
 (Pearson on the Creed, p. 110.) Or, (adds the Primate, as his own remark,) there 
 may be areference to the name which God assumed, Exod. iii. 14. sym eyes 6 wry 
 Eyo sum qui sum, “ I am he that is."—* Our Lord having been the visible Jehovah, 
 under the dispensations preceding the Evangelical,” How directly does this eminent 
 
 - 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE 1. 95 
 
 prelate contradict the Unitarians, who so strenuously contend that Christ was a mere 
 man, who had no existence before his human birth. 
 
 But what is most worth observation, is the sense Doctor Carpenter gives to this 
 remarkable declaration of Christ; a sense which it appears Socinus, its first promul- 
 gator, believed was suggested to him by a divine inspiration. ‘ Before Abraham, 
 the father of many nations, shall become so, I am he :” that is before he who was 
 called the father of many nations actually becomes so; I am the Christ, or, I must be 
 acknowledged as the Christ. This is the answer supposed to be given to the question 
 of the Jews, ‘Hast thou seen Abraham ?” And this interpretation, thus marvel- 
 lously complex and obscure, and totally remote from the original, Dr. Carpenter declares 
 preferable to any ; because, says he, it is founded on a perfectly literal translation, 
 and suits the sense and connexion. The perception of this suitableness and literal 
 exactness is, I think, more wonderful than the original discovery of the meaning. 
 The curious reader will be gratified by tracing the process of these discoveries, as 
 described by Doctor Carpenter, p. 240 to 243—and Dr. Magee’s excellent observa- 
 tions, vol. 1. Illustrations, No. 1. from p. 84 to 91, and vol. 3, postscript to the 
 
 Appendix, p. 597, also 616. 
 NOTE V. PAGE 14, 
 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 ‘The argument here derived from this passage of St. Paul has long appeared to 
 me clear, and important ; yet the very same passage is adduced by Dr, Carpenter, as 
 an irrefragable proof that one person only is God, and that person the Father; the 
 Father ofall, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I still, however, am consoled by 
 finding other most respectable authorities appear to have thought with me. Primate 
 Newcome remarks, “that this passage designates Christ, as the visible instrumental 
 cause of the creation of all things ;” which, I conceive, establishes his divinity. Mr. 
 Jones in his excellent work on the Trinity, thus argues, Chap. i. No. 33. Cor. Vill. 
 G : «To us there is but one God the Father.” If we compare this with the expression 
 of St. Thomas, « My Lord and my God,” we have the following argument; to us 
 there is but one God the Father—but to us Jesus Christ is God; therefore the 
 Gospel has either preached two Gods, one distinct from the other, or that one God 
 the Father is here; the name of a nature, under which Christ himself, as God, 
 is also comprehended, and the same may be proved of it in several other places. 
 
 How cautious we should be of interpreting the expression, ‘¢ one God,” and others 
 of a similar kind, as strictly exclusive, when applied to the different persons of the God- 
 head, may be seen in the very next argument of Mr. Jones, in his 34th Number, 
 page 30. 
 
 Matt. xxiii. v. 9, Call no man your Father upon earth, for oNE Is YOUR FATHER, 
 which is in heaven. 
 
 Ibid. v. 10. Neither be ye called MASTERS, for ONE IS YOUR MastTER, EVEN CHRIST, 
 (vide John, iii, 13,) which isin heaven. 
 
 If from the words, ONE 1S Your FATHER, an argument is drawn for the exclusive 
 divinity of the Father, the same argument would prove, that one person only is our 
 master, and that this person is Christ, which excludes the persons of the Father and 
 Spirit from the honour of that title, and therefore reduces the argument to an absur- 
 dity. We are to conclude then, that as the phrase, ‘ one master,” cannot be meant 
 to exclude the Father, so neither do other similar expressions applied to the Father, 
 as «one is good,” or “ one is your Father,” exclude the person of Christ ; and if the 
 reason of the thing teaches us that it cannot, the Scripture assures us, in fact, that it 
 does not; the title of Father being also ascribed to the second person of the Trinity, 
 for Christ, the Alpha and Omega,! says of himself, «« He that overcometh shall inbe- 
 rit all things, and I WILL BE HIS Gop, and he shall be My Son.”” Isaiah calls him 
 the everlasting Father; and again it is written, They ‘are the children of God, 
 being the children of the resurrection :”’ but says Christ, « I am the resurrection ;”* 
 
 1 Rey, XXi. 7. 2 Isaiah, ix. 6. 3 Luke, xx, 96,- 4 John, ii, 
 
96 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 therefore he is God, and hath us for his children. . If this be the case, the word 
 Father cannot always be a name that distinguishes God from another person of God, 
 but is often to be understood asa term of relation between God and man; a word 
 not intended for God the Father only, the first person of the Trinity, but as it is 
 referred unto the creature made and conserved by God, in which sense it belongs to 
 the whole Trinity. 
 
 This reasoning of Mr. Jones applies directly to subvert the conclusion Dr. Carpenter 
 thinks so irrefutably established. 
 
 But Whitby so fairly meets, and so fully confutes the argument which Dr. Car- 
 penter derives from this passage, that I shall transcribe his comment, to satisfy the 
 reader in this instance, and to lead him to resort to the same authority in other cases 
 of similar apparent difficulty. Vide Whitby, 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 «To us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in (or 
 for) him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 
 
 ** Hence (says Whitby) the Arians and Socinians argue against the deity of Christ, 
 as he who saith there is one emperor, to wit, Cesar, saith in effect, there is no other 
 emperor but Cesar. So he that saith there is one God the Father, saith in effect 
 there is no other God besides the Father. Again, he who having separately spoken 
 of one God, proceeds distinctly to speak of one Lord; to wit, Jesus Christ doth, by 
 that distinct title, sufficiently show, Christ is not that God.” 
 
 To this Whitby replies— 
 
 « To the second argument the reply is obvious, by retorting the argument, as do the 
 ancient commentators against this Arian objection, thus—That as the apostle, by 
 saying there is one Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be reasonably supposed to exclude 
 the Father from being the Lord of Christians, as he is often styled in the New Testa- 
 ment ; so neither by saying, there is one God the Father, ought he to be supposed to 
 exclude Jesus Christ from being also the God of Christians, So argue Origen and 
 Novatian ; especially if we consider first, that he is here styled that one Lord, by whom 
 are all things, i. e. ‘by whom all things are created,’ Ephes, iii. 9 « All things 
 which are in heaven or in earth,’ Coloss. i. 16. For ¢ he that made all things is 
 God.’ Heb. iii. 5. And ‘by the works of the creation is the Godhead known,’ 
 Rom. i. 20. And this is elsewhere made the very description of God the Father, 
 that it is he by whom are all things, Rom. xi. 35, and Heb. ii. 10. And next, that 
 all things were created, not only by this Lord, but es «vrov for him also, Col. i. 16. 
 Now this is the very thing which the apostle here ascribes to God the Father, 
 
 «Secondly, To the other argument I answer, that we and all the ancients assert, as 
 truly as our opponents can do, the unity of the Godhead, and that Christ Jesus is not 
 another God, but only another person from the Father, and that the application of 
 the word God here to the Father, doth not necessarily exclude the Son from being 
 God also, but only from being the fountain of the Deity, as the Father is. Thus 
 when these words, Tam Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, Rev. i. 17, ii. 8, and 
 xxii. 13, are by St. John applied to Christ, it cannot be concluded hence, that the 
 Father is not also Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, as he is often called in 
 the Old Testament ; and though our Saviour be the proper title of our Lord Jesus, 
 as his very name informs us, yet is the Father in Scripture styled our Saviour, 1 
 Tim. i. 1, and ii. 3,and the Saviour of all men, iv. 10. The primitive fathers con- 
 sidering God the Father as the fountain of the Deity, and Jesus Christ as God of 
 God, frequently assert two things, which may illustrate this passage : 
 
 «First, That Christians acknowledged one God only, even the Father, and yet that 
 Jesus Christ was truly God, of the substance of the Father. 
 
 «Secondly, That God the Father was the creator of all things, and yet that all things 
 were created by the Word.” 
 
 NOTE VI. PAGE 16. 
 He is Lord of all.” Acts, x. 86. 
 This the Socinian interpreters explain, «Lord of the Gentiles as well as of the 
 
 Jews,” referring to Rom, x. 12; and adding, « that St. Peter seems to have urged 
 the argument (that God, as Lord of all, must alike intend the salvation of all) in this 
 
 ee 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE II. 97 
 
 concise and covert manner, that he might give no offence to the Christian Jews, his 
 companions.” Here, in the parenthesis, it is attempted to transfer the character of 
 Lord of all, from Christ to God, meaning certainly God the Father. Now the entire 
 of the context in the Romans proves clearly, that it is Christ who is there described 
 as the Lord over all; that he also is declared to be the bestower of mercy, and the 
 hearer of prayer—This « Lord over all is rich to all that call upon him, for who- 
 soever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 1 Vide Whitby’s argu- 
 ment, founded on this last passage, which seems very clear and important. 
 
 NOTE VII. PAGE 17. 
 “ Fellowship of the Holy Ghost.” 
 
 On this the Unitarian Editors observe, that this passage does not prove the person- 
 ality of the Holy Ghost, but the contrary: « To pray (say they) for the participation 
 of gifts and powers, is intelligible; but to pray for the participation of a person, 
 is absurd.” 
 
 But is it absurd to pray for the participation of the favourable presence, the sancti- 
 fying influence, the powerful assistance and co-operation of the Holy Spirit, consi- 
 dered as aperson? And is not this the meaning of this benediction, plain to all who 
 do not (with many of the Socinians) deny the possibility of such presence, such 
 influence, and such co-operation ? 
 
 NOTES TO DISCOURSE II. 
 
 NOTE VIII PAGE 23. 
 
 « This important testimony of St. John stands on clear and unquestioned authority.” 
 
 In proof of this, the single authority of Griesbach is sufficient ; and it is such a tes- 
 timony as not only proves this point, but shows how unjustly this eminent critic has 
 been classed amongst the Unitarians, merely from sanctioning new readings of three 
 texts relating to the Incarnation, Atonement and Trinity ; by which they appeared to 
 give less direct testimony to these truths—(viz. 1 Tim. iii. 16; Acts, xx. 28; 1 John, 
 v. 7, 8.) Dr. Hales, in his comprehensive and learned work on the Trinity, two 
 vols. 1818, notices this testimony of Griesbach, in vol. I. p. 246:—* Griesbach, 
 when censured for his alteration of these three texts, pleaded in apology, that this 
 was required by the same critical canons, upon which his whole text was constructed ; 
 the correctness of which was admitted by his opponents themselves in other cases, 
 and he rested his orthodoxy chiefly on this very introduction.” The apology is found 
 in the first edition of his Greek Testament, 1777, Prefatio ad Epistolas, pp. 8, 9, 
 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 the malevolent, I do publicly profess, and call God to witness, that 
 I by no means doubt the truth of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ; and indeed 
 the arguments and places of Scripture are so many and so clear, to vindicate the true 
 deity of Christ, that I can scarcely conceive how this doctrine can be called in 
 question by any, granting the divine authority of the Holy Scripture, and admitting 
 the just rules of interpretation, Among the first passages, that of St. John, i. 1, 2, 3, 
 
 1 Rom, x, 12, 13; with Whitby’s Note on v. 13. 
 
98 SCRIATURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 is so clear, and superior to all exception, that the daring attempts of interpreters 
 and critics haye never been able to overturn, nor to wrest it from the defenders of 
 
 the truth.” 
 
 NOTE IX. PAGE 25, 26. 
 
 « Various contradictory, and, at the same time, most ungrammatical meanings, © 
 invented fur this purpose.” 
 
 The object of these discourses, intended for a brief and familiar exhibition of the 
 plainest scriptural proofs of the Trinity, limits me to an extent which precludes a 
 minute exposition of the various forced and untenable glosses, by which the Uni- 
 tarians, in their different works, (but especially their improved version of the New 
 Testament,) endeavour to evade the clear evidence for the pre-existence and divinity 
 of Christ, found in this and the other numerous passages of Scripture, which distinctly 
 affirm these great truths. Indeed, it would be doing injustice to this important 
 question, were I to attempt substituting a few short and mutilated extracts from the 
 able writers who have already exposed the gross errors of the Unitarians, instead of 
 referring my younger readers to the valuable works in which this exposure is contained. 
 I must therefore refer them to Dean Magee’s Work on Atonement and Sacrifice, 
 vol. L his Illustration No, 1, «on the pre-existence of Christ, and the species of 
 arguments by which this article of the Christian doctrine has been opposed ;” and the 
 entire of his second vol. part II. In truth, it is melancholy to see the length to 
 which modern Unitarians have proceeded, in undervaluing the authority, and 
 speaking lightly, (I choose not to use a harsher expression,) not merely of the 
 apostles, but of our blessed Lord himself. I refer the reader who wishes to see this, 
 to Dr. Magee’s Appendix, p. 407 to 411. 
 
 On the Introduction of John’s Gospel, which forms the text of the Second Dis- 
 course in this tract, consult the same work, p. 430 to 431. Indeed there are few of 
 the distortions of Scripture employed by the Unitarians, which have not been clearly 
 exposed in this work and Mr. Nares’s; but as neither Dean Magee, nor any writer 
 recently engaged in this controversy, has brought forward, in one connected view, 
 the proofs which support the doctrine of the Trinity, my attempt to do so may not be 
 useless: but in exposing the contradictions, errors, and misrepresentations of its 
 opponents, he, as well as Dr. Hales, Mr. Nares, the Bishop of St. David’s and Dr. 
 Laurence, have done most essential service to the cause of truth, and rendered it 
 altogether superfluous for me to enter at large into this part of the controversy, 
 already, as I conceive, fully discussed and clearly decided. 
 
 At the same time, the very extent of this controversy, the wide range it embraces 
 of Biblical Criticism on the authenticity of some texts, the interpretation of others, 
 the bearing and importance of various human testimonies and authorities opposed to 
 each other, and the truth of various facts in ecclesiastical history, lead to discussions 
 too protracted, and at the same time too subtle for general use; and render it the 
 more necessary to exhibit the leading and decisive proofs of the great truth in question, 
 in as clear and familiar form as their nature admits, as far as possible disentangled from 
 the intricacy, and free from the personality of controversy. This I have attempted 
 to do; at the same time I most sincerely acknowledge and applaud the distinguished 
 talents, learning, and zeal, which my predecessors in this cause have displayed. 
 
 Dr. Carpenter’s parody of this Introduction of St. John’s Gospel is minutely con- 
 sidered, and, as it appears to me, proved to be forced and ungrammatical by Dr. 
 Hales, vol. I. p. 247. Primate Newcome agrees with the received translation, in 
 the entire of this Introduction. The improved version of the Unitarians differs 
 equally from both, while it professes to be founded on the basis of the Primate’s 
 translation, and is really nothing more than a transcript of that translation, copying 
 even the errors of the press which had crept into the Primate’s work, (vide this 
 
 proved by Dean Magee, vol, II. part ii. p. 417, and more particularly in pages 473 
 
 _— 
 
 ee a ne 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE II. 99 
 
 to 481, and 720 to 726,) except that in almost every passage in which the Unitarian 
 theory is affected, this version departs from him—and in many passages most 
 important, as bearing on this very subject—without acknowledging any such 
 departure. 
 
 In this passage of St. John, this departure is most remarkable: “In the begin- 
 ning,” Primate Newcome, to explain this expression, refers to Genesis, i. 1,“ In 
 the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” to John, xvii. 5; * Now O 
 Father, glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee, before the world was ;” 
 and to 1 John, i. 1, « That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, 
 which we haye seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have 
 handled of the word of life.’ How clearly do these references prove, that the 
 Primate most firmly and distinctly believed the pre-existence of Christ, ‘ before the 
 world was,” even from eternity. The Unitarians interpret « In the beginning,” from 
 the first, that is, from the commencement of the gospel dispensation, or the ministry 
 of Christ. This, say they, is the usual sense of the word in the writings of this 
 evangelist. But in their references, they take no notice of the Primate’s interpre- 
 tation, or of John, xvii. 5, though expressly referred to by him. Thus they pass by 
 the passages which obviously carry a meaning directly contrary to their purpose, and 
 then infer their own meaning to be the true: a mode of proof more easy than con- 
 vincing. 
 
 One of the most arbitrary and forced alterations is that which occurs in 10th 
 verse: ‘ He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew 
 him not.” The Unitarian version substitutes the world was enlightened by him, and 
 the world knew him not; here they confess their departure from the primate: ‘‘ The 
 common version adopted by Archbishop Newcome is, ‘the world was made by 
 him,’ meaning that the visible material world was created by him; but this, (say 
 they) as was observed before, in the note on verse 3, is inadmissible, as the word 
 zyévero never bears that sense.” This last assertion is completely refuted by Dr, 
 Hales on the Trinity, vol. I. p. 254 to 256: a reference to this refutation will, I 
 trust, satisfy my younger readers, how confidently the editors of the Unitarian 
 version advance assertions utterly unfounded and untenable, and will render it 
 unnecessary for me to dwell hereafter on that topic. 
 
 But the translation here substituted by these editors, for the received version, ‘the 
 world was enlightened by him,” is completely refuted by Dr. Hales, who most forci- 
 bly exposes it. 
 
 To point out more clearly the perplexity of the Unitarian interpretations, I would 
 call the attention of my readers to a different translation of the Introduction of St. 
 John’s Gospel, proposed by the Rev. Theophilus Lindsay: «In the beginning was 
 wisdom, and wisdom was with God, and God was wisdom: the same was in the 
 beginning with God, all things were made by it, and without it was nothing made: 
 in it was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shineth in darkness, and 
 the darkness comprehended it not. 
 
 ‘s There was a man sent from God, whose name was John; the same came for a 
 witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe: he was 
 not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light ; that was the true light which 
 came into the world, and enlighteneth every man. It (Divine Wisdom) was in the 
 world, and the world was made by it, and the world knew it not: it came to its own 
 land, and its own people received it not; but as many as received it, to them it gave 
 power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on its name, who were 
 born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 
 
 « And wisdom became man, and dwelt among us, and we beheld its glory, the 
 glory as of the well-beloved of the Father, full of grace and truth. 
 
 « John bare witness of him, saying, This is he of whom I speak: he that cometh 
 after me is preferred before me, for he was greater than me.” 
 
 This sense (say the editors of the improved version) is approved by Dr. Lardner, 
 Dr. Priestly, Mr. Wakefield, and others. Notwithstanding, however, these authorities 
 in favour of this version, I confess that it seems to me utterly absurd and unintel- 
 
‘100 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 ligible. Surely it is impossible to preserve the idea of divine wisdom, merely as an 
 attribute or power always inherent in the divine nature; and yet, say, “it came to its 
 own land, and its own people received it not:” and to speak of “its giving power to 
 those who believe on its name.” And, above all, what but the doctrine of Christ’s 
 incarnation can render intelligible the assertion, ‘that Divine Wisdom became man, 
 and dwelt among us, and we beheld its glory, the glory as of the well-beloved of the 
 Father, full of grace and truth ?” 
 
 The impossibility of continuing to preserve distinct, an idea so essentially con- 
 fused, has led Mr. Lindsay to confound the expressions in the 12th verse, «* Wisdom 
 became man, and we beheld its glory;” in the 13th, « John bare witness of him.” 
 Thus Divine Wisdom is alternately an attribute, and a person ; an attribute, to exclude 
 all idea of our Saviour being a distinct person in the Godhead; a person, to apply 
 intelligibly to the indwelling, divine, but distinct agency which Scripture ascribes to 
 him. So variable and inconsistent is human vanity, when it would explain away the 
 mysteries of divine truth: so certainly does the attempt to “be wise above what is 
 written,” terminate in contradiction, confusion, and absurdity. Vide also Dean 
 Magee’s Postscript to the Appendix, p. 530. 
 
 I might easily extend these remarks to a greater length, and more fully prove the 
 assertion I have ventured to make—that the meanings invented by the Unitarians, to 
 remove the clear evidence of our Lord’s pre-existence and divinity, derived from the 
 Introduction of St. John’s Gospel, and the corresponding passages of holy writ, are 
 forced, contradictory, and ungrammatical; but I shall content myself with referring 
 to Whitby’s Notes on the different passages adduced; to Dean Magee’s Work, as 
 above quoted; also to his Fourteenth Dissertation on the Disrespect of Scripture 
 shown by Unitarian Writers, vol. I. p. 162, and his Specimen of Unitarian Glosses 
 on Texts, implying the pre-existence of Christ; Postscript to Appendix, p. 546. 
 
 I would also refer my readers to Dr. Hale’s Seventh Letter on the Trinity, vol. I. 
 p. 245, for a particular defence of this Introduction of St. John’s Gospel; and to 
 Nares’s Remarks on the Unitarian Version, from p. 60 to 124. 
 
 I shall, however, here notice the interpretation of one text given by Dr. Carpenter, 
 which I do not recollect these writers to have particularly dwelt on, and which, from 
 its very singularity, deserves attention. It is John, xvii. 5, part of our Lord’s prayer 
 to his heavenly Father: « And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with 
 the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” ‘If this text, (says Dr. 
 Carpenter, )} does not prove the pre-existence, no adequate proof can be adduced.” 
 
 This is perfectly true; for it seems impossible to imagine words more clearly 
 expressing our JLord’s pre-existence, than his having had a glory with the Father 
 before the “ world was.” But no words can express it so plainly, as to persuade Dr. 
 Carpenter they really mean it: ‘ for,” says he, “the question is not whether the 
 words will allow the usual interpretation, for that is admitted; but whether they 
 require it, otherwise they are no proof whatever of this doctrine, since it is not con- 
 sistent with the general tenor of the gospel history.” Now here we must ask, how 
 are we to ascertain this general tenor of the gospel history as to any doctrine, if the 
 passages, which appear most plainly to express that doctrine, are to be distorted into 
 some other meaning, and cnly those which appear to oppose it, considered as exclu- 
 sively ascertaining that general tenor? Surely this is very like what the logicians 
 eall Petitio Principii, taking the conclusion for granted, in the first step ef the 
 argument. 
 
 But let us not press the Doctor’s logic: this is an inquiry into the meaning of words, 
 We must, it seems, dismiss the plain meaning, if we can find any other. What is 
 that other? “ The first thing that strikes me,” says the Doctor, “is that the variation 
 of expression, with thyself, and with thee: at least gives room to expect some vari- 
 ation in sense.” 
 
 This distinction strikes me as very subtle indeed. Let us, however, hear the critic: 
 his elucidation will certainly bear equally upon both those clauses, as they are equally 
 
 1 Carpenter’s Unitarianism, p. 245. 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE II.» 101 - 
 
 found in the passage. Nosuch thing. He proceeds: ‘ without, therefore, taking 
 into account the precise signification of the words with thyself, we may inquire what 
 meaning with thee may have, which shall be suitable to the connexion, to the phraseology 
 of the Scripture, and to the general tenor of the New Testament.” The therefore, 
 in this sentence, is another happy instance of logical inference. Two clauscs appear ; 
 to illustrate both is equally necessary ; therefore we will not take into account the 
 precise meaning of one. Besides this, look back to what he assumes to be the 
 general tenor of the gospel history, and observe that it excludes all possibility of the 
 second clause implying the pre-existence; and the entire criticism comes to this :— 
 Of the first clause I will take no account, and the second must be interpreted as 
 my doctrine requires ; not as the contrary, however plainly it may allow that contrary 
 doctrine. It might be easily foreseen how a criticism, beginning thus, would end. 
 
 The critic then produces several instances, in which “ things certainly purposed by 
 God,” are said to be as sure to those for whom they are designed, as if they were 
 actually enjoyed; which the context in each instance, shows is the real meaning of 
 the phrase used in that instance. Hence the critic tacitly infers, that wherever things 
 are spoken of as actually enjoyed with God, it means only that they are certainly 
 fixed for his purpose, notwithstanding that the context in the particular instances, (as 
 in that before us,) may say the direct contrary, in the plain meaning of the words. 
 On this argument he concludes, that the glory which our Lord had with the Father 
 before the world was, ‘¢ was not a glory which was actually possessed by him, but 
 was his in the purpose of him whose counsels are unchangeable.” Let us now con- 
 sider what was the nature of the glory which the critic allows to Christ after his 
 resurrection, since he will allow him none before his human birth; and whether this 
 glory is such as corresponds to the idea of having a glory possessed and enjoyed 
 “with God himself;” or, (as a plain mind would think,) a personal glory, in being 
 exalted to supreme dignity, and crowned with everlasting honour in the presence of 
 the Eternal Father. No such thing. The critic argues, “that personal glory and 
 happiness were not our Lord’s object, and it is not probable that they would be the 
 object of his prayer.” He further argues, ‘it is highly probable, that the glory for 
 which he prayed was that arising from the extensive and effectual reception of the 
 blessings which he brought from God: every instance of the spread of Christian 
 principles increased that glory, and every one shared in it who contributed to 
 effect their diffusion.” 
 
 And now the critic’s argument is complete. He has proved that “the glory” 
 which our Lord had with the Father “ before the world was,” was not possessed by 
 him before the world was, or actually possessed at all—and that the glory he prays 
 for, as to be enjoyed “ with God himself,’ was not a glory in heaven in the presence 
 of God, but a glory on earth, by the diffusion of Christianity. And he triumphantly 
 concludes, “that this text, so far from proving the doctrine of the pre-existence, 
 affords no countenance to it whatever.” He had set out with asserting, that «if this 
 text does not prove the pre-existence, no adequate proof can be adduced”—this 
 doctrine is therefore for ever deprived of all support. 
 
 So clear, so brief, so logical, and so decisive an argument, I have not met. 
 Grant the critic but his premises, and let one of them be—the admission of the con- 
 clusion to be proved ; and: let it be admitted, that no words, however plainly they 
 allow, can ever require the truth of the tenet objected to—and the business is settled 
 at once. 
 
 In order to exemplify his assertion, ‘that no adequate proof of the pre-existence 
 can be adduced,” or in other words, to show that no terms can be imagined to express 
 this doctrine so plainly, that the steady Unitarian will not find some pretext to deny 
 that they really mean it, Dr. Carpenter quotes a long series of texts from the Gospel 
 of John, which certainly do seem to affirm: that Christ, before his appearance on 
 earth, had been in heaven, and that he had come down from heaven: as plainly as 
 language can express it. They are as follow, as they are translated even by the 
 Unitarian Editors : 
 
 John, iii. 13. “ And no one hath gone up into heayen but he that came down 
 from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven.” 
 
102 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Verse 31. “He that cometh from above is above all ; he that is from the earth is from 
 the earth, and speaketh from the earth. He who cometh from heaven is above all, and 
 testifieth what he had seen and heard.” 
 
 Jobn, vi. 33. “ For the bread of God is that (or he, received yersion,) which 
 cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.” 
 
 John, vi. 35. “I am the bread of life,” 
 
 John, vi, 38. « I came down from heaven, not to do mine own.will, but the will 
 of him who sent me.” 
 
 « Verse 41, 42. «“ The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the 
 bread which came down from heaven: and said, is not this Jesus the Son of Joseph, 
 whose father and mother we know? how then doth he say, I came down from 
 heaven ?” 
 
 John, vi. 50, 51, “ This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man 
 may eat of it, and not die: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” 
 
 Verse 62. “If then ye should perceive the Son of man going up where he was 
 before.” : . 
 
 To these we are to add John, xvi. 28. « I came forth from the Father, and am 
 come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father”—and 
 
 John, xvii. 5. “* And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory 
 which I had with thee before the world was.” 
 
 «« These,” says Dr. Carpenter, “ are all the passages in which our Lord is spoken 
 of, as having come down from heaven: and it only remains to be considered, whether 
 they are inconsistent with the opinion that he was a man, in the usual signification of 
 the term, having no actual existence before his human birth.” 
 
 That such an opinion should for a moment be entertained, after all these texts, 
 particularly the two last, will probably seem to most readers very extraordinary. Dr. 
 Curpenter’s reasoning to support it may, perhaps, seem equally so. 
 
 «On all these passages, the advocates for the pre-existence,” Dr. Carpenter 
 observes,! *‘say, their phraseology means, that he, Jesus, existed before his human 
 birth in a state or place called heaven; and that he came down from heaven when he 
 became united with a human frame, so as in some sense to become a Man. ‘This 
 hypothesis assigns,” says the Doctor, «an apparently literal meaning toall these passages, 
 except the first clause of John, iii. 18, ‘ No man hath gone up into heaven but he who 
 came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven;’ which it must be 
 supposed has some figurative meaning, and therefore loses much of its value. But 
 the radical defect of this interpretation is, that it is founded upon a supposition 
 which is not proved, and, I venture to say, cannot be proved from any part of the 
 Seriptures, that Jesus was in heaven before his human birth.” Vide Dr. Carpenter's 
 Unitarianism, p. 250 to 260. 
 
 Here again we have this all-powerful argument, the Petitio Principii. These 
 passages, if literally interpreted, affirm the pre-existence, but they must not be so 
 interpreted; for (observe the reagon,) “the pre-existence is not proved from any part 
 of the Scriptures.” Undoubtedly it is not, and cannot, if no passages, however clearly 
 and literally they express it, as these quoted are confessed to do, will be admitted as 
 a proof. But why should they not be admitted? because Dr. Carpenter ventures to 
 say it cannot be proved. ‘This assertion must be irrefutable. 
 
 Another insuperable objection is, that this doctrine (as Dr. Carpenter assumes) is 
 not consistent with the plain and obvious «declarations of our Lord, the general 
 tenor of the Gospel, and the express declarations of the apostles: all of which justify 
 the belief, that as to nature, Jesus was, in a strict and proper sense, a human being, 
 in all respects like unto his brethren.” Now, in the passages already quoted, and 
 many others, we have plain and obvious declarations of our Lord, and of the apostles ; 
 and elsewhere inferences of the apostles, which clearly and plainly affirm, that Christ 
 had originally existed before his human bith, had come down from heaven into the 
 
 1 Dr. Carpenter on Unitarianism, page 255, 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE Il. 103 
 
 world, and was to return again from the world into the heaven from whence he came. 
 But all these are to go for nothing, because Dr. Carpenter affirms “ the doctrine 
 cannot be proved,” and further, that « it is contrary to the general tenor of Scripture.” 
 He says in another place, “ that he is the more particular in considering the phrase- 
 ology of these passages, because, he apprehends that it is what furnishes, among 
 those at least who are satisfied with what is called the plain and obvious sense of Scrip- 
 ture, the chief support of the doctrine of pre-existence.”! 
 
 Here then, what is called the plain and obvious sense of Scripture says one thing: 
 just before it was affirmed, the plain and obvious declarations of our Lord and his 
 apostles say the direct contrary. This latter must, I suppose, be the sense which is 
 really plain and obvious, in opposition to what is falsely called so. Now to the pas- 
 sages quoted above, what is the sense Dr. Carpenter ascribes? why it is, that they 
 must be interpreted not literally, «that Christ was, once before his human birth, in 
 a place or state called heaven, which, whatever be its modifications,” says the Doctor, 
 may be called their literal meaning. They must not be thus interpreted, but only 
 figuratively, as implying no more than that his doctrine and mission originated in the 
 immediate interposition of God.”? 
 
 Really there are, in this whole train of assertions, so many palpable contradictions~ 
 and arbitrary assumptions, the Petitio Principii reigns so conspicuously throughout, 
 and the authority of the critic is made to set aside so completely the authority of the 
 word of God, that it seems unnecessary to discuss minutely the numerous and strange 
 inconsistencies -and errors into which this system leads. ‘To go into heaven,” is 
 sometimes “to understand the counsels of God:” sometimes “ one of two suppositions 
 is to be adopted, either that Jesus was carried up from this earth into a place called 
 heaven, (in the same manner asSt. Paul, (2 Cor. xii. 14,) was reaily, or in_imagi- 
 nation, taken up to the third heaven, to paradise ;)* or that Christ was in heaven 
 while in his mountainous abode in the desert, and came down from heaven when he 
 came forth from God, to discharge the great work his Father, who is in heaven, had 
 given him to do.” 
 
 But here the Doctor finds, that what is called the literal meaning is sometimes per- 
 plexiag to his scheme; he therefore adds, “If it be objected that the expressions 
 employed express local motion, I reply, that is decidedly probable, that the spot 
 WHERE JESUS was WITH GoD, WAS ONE OF THOSE VERY HIGH ROCKY ELEVATIONS 
 WITH WHICH THE DESERT ABOUNDS.”® Here then is the great discovery, here is 
 enough to explain the LocaL MoTION: Going up a hiyh rocky elevation, is going up 
 into heaven; is going out of the world. Coming down again from the same rocky 
 elevation, is coming down from heaven, is coming into the world! This is Unitarian 
 criticism: this is the «plain and obvious sense of Scripture,” in opposition to that 
 which is only falsely so called; this is a “figurative interpretation,” which alone can 
 be true. 
 
 Further, what is perhaps the most melancholy circumstance in the entire to a 
 serious mind is, that the critic does not hesitate to ascribe to our divine Lord himself, 
 such a use of language as leads to all this confusion and perplexity. Lest the sup- 
 posed rocky elevation should not sufficiently do away every difficulty, the critic adds : 
 «‘that if Jesus considered himself: as in heaven, at the time he was with God in the 
 desert, even though he referred only to a state, he would naturally employ, when 
 speaking of that state, expressions which were commonly used in cunnexion with the 
 word heaven.” That is, when he meant to refer to a state, he would use expressions 
 which would lead his hearers to understand not a state, but a place; or, in other 
 words, utterly perplex and mislead them. May it be hoped the Doctor will, on con- 
 sideration, retract this rash assertion, 
 
 1 Carpenter on Unitarianism, p. 260. 2 Ibid. p. 255. 3 Ibid. p. 257 
 4 Ibid. p, 25y. 5 Ibid. p, 299, 
 
104 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 NOTE X. PAGE 28. 
 
 The prophecies here quoted to prove the Divinity of Christ, are such as in general 
 are admitted to apply to him exclusively. 
 
 Doctor Carpenter, in the Appendix to his work on Unitarianism, No. II. p. 361, 
 has endeavoured to obscure the evidence to the divinity of the Messiah arising from 
 them. Fora refutation of his objections, I refer the student to the Letters of Dr. 
 Hale on the Trinity, Letter III. p. 101 to 110, also Letters V. and VI. in Vol, I. 
 Vide also Bishop Chandler’s Defence of Christianity, in proof of the exclusive appli- 
 cation of these prophecies to the Messiah. Vide also Dr. Hale’s Dissertations on the 
 Principal Prophecies representing the Divine and Human Character of Christ, 
 second edition, London, 1808; particularly the Tenth Dissertation on the Prophecy 
 of Micah, v. 2 to 4, and the Seventh on Psalm ii., and the Eighth on Psalm cx., 
 and the Ninth on Psalm xlv. Vide also Dr. Magee’s elaborate Dissertation on 
 the Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah, Illustrations, No. xliii. Vol. II. 
 
 NOTE XI. PAGE 30. 
 
 “On the exalted idea the Apostle exhibited of the Messiah.” —Heb. i. 
 
 As to this remarkable passage, consult Whitby’s excellent Comment; also Dr. 
 Hale’s Dissertations on the Prophecies, Dissertation III. on Heb. x. 1, 2. 
 
 NOTE XII. PAGE 34. 
 “It has been admitted that the Apostle invoked Christ.” 
 
 Doctor Carpenter, p. 212, observes in this passage, ‘‘ It appears to me clear, that 
 the apostle addressed his request to Christ. The question is, (as before in the 
 case of Stephen,) whether this affords a sufficient precedent for prayers to him, 
 in opposition to: his own precepts and example, and the precepts of the Old Testa- 
 rent 2?” 
 
 The readér may judge how erroneously it is supposed that any such opposition 
 exists, by referring to p. 385, 36, supra. In truth, here is another instance of the Petitio 
 Principii. But let us consider why this is not a precedent for prayer to Christ: 
 “Plainly it is not, (says Dr. Carpenter,) for the following reasons taken altogether : 
 —First, the ninth verse implies what we know was occasionally the fact, that our 
 Lord was sensibly present with Paul, when Paul spoke to him.’’ On this I observe, 
 it seems plain to me, this fact is here mistaken; and even if it were not, the infe- 
 rence from it is altogether unfounded, vide supra, p. 34. ‘* Secondly, our Lord bad 
 received from the Father the promise of the Spirit, and imparted it to his disciples ; 
 if, therefore, he had thought right, he would certainly have miraculously cured the 
 apostle.” This second reason I certainly do not understand. The fact it alleges is 
 very true and very important, supplying an excellent reason why the apostle should 
 address his prayer to Christ, and why any, and every human being, who wished 
 to obtain the aid of Christ to supply his spiritual wants, should implore it. For if 
 Christ, exalted to heaven, could hear and grant St. Paul's prayer, he might hear and 
 grant that of any other human being; and until some diminution in Christ’s power 
 and will to hear and grant prayer is proved—which I venture to say Dr. Carpenter 
 has not proved, and cannot prove—the same reason exists still, why every Christian, 
 in every age and clime, should also pray to Christ for the supply of every spiritual 
 want. But how Dr. Carpenter, from the fact stated above, draws an argument 
 against prayer to Christ, I really do not sce. His third reason, perhaps, may be more 
 clear. ‘ Thirdly, the reply of our Lord appears obviously to refer to the miraculous 
 power by which the preachings of the apostles were rendered effectual ; and as it was 
 of the utmost importance that the Gospel should be known to have a divine origin, 
 the insufficiency of the mere human means and instruments was requisite, in order to 
 
 Se ed en ne ee 
 
 ar 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE It. 105 
 
 show that it was the power of God, and not the wisdom of man, which caused its 
 extensive and rapid diffusion.” 
 
 Here also I am at a loss to see the application of this reason. The fact it states ig 
 undoubtedly true. It is, in different words, the very cause our Lord assigned to the 
 apostle, for not granting his urgent prayer ; a prayer which, but for this cause, would 
 have appeared as rational and expedient, as it was evidently pious and sincere. And 
 with that cause this truly zealous, and at the same time truly humble servant of his 
 Lord was completely satisfied ; he bore with perfect resignation his own apparent 
 defects and disqualifications for effecting the great objects of his apostolic labours, 
 when assured that under his divine Master’s all-wise providence, his own deficiencies 
 would redound to the glory of the Gospel. This should teach every Christian, that 
 however convinced in his own judgment of the importance of the objects of his 
 prayer, he should, if he found his prayers for these objects not granted, acquiesce in 
 the decisions of divine wisdom and goodness, assured that all things would ultimately 
 “work together for good to those that love God.” And the condescension of our 
 Lord, in explaining the reasons of the divine conduct, and thus exemplifying this 
 important principle, should surely encourage the pious Christian, “in every thing to 
 make known his requests to his God,” assured of the fulfilment of his gracious pro- 
 mise, in his last command to his apostles, prescribing the rite of admission into his 
 church: ‘*Lo, Iam with you always, even to the end of the world:” and again, 
 «* Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of 
 them :” and the encouraging assurance, “‘ Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that 
 will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in 
 in my name, I will do it.” 
 
 These are to me proofs of the duty and happiness of prayer to Christ, which Dr. 
 Carpenter’s three reasons, whether separate or together, cannot shake. And the 
 instance of the apostle’s prayer is an illustrious example of the spirit in which such 
 prayer should be offered, and the humble submission with which the divine goodness 
 and wisdom should be relied on, in every object of our prayers. In truth, all Dr. 
 Carpenter’s reasoning proceeds on the strange supposition, that because miracles 
 have ceased, our Saviour has little further concern in the government of his church, 
 or the salvation of his followers; though “he ever liveth to make intercession for 
 us,” and, by the gracious promises recited above, has assured all his faithful followers 
 of his neyer-ceasing care and protection. 
 
 NOTE XIII. PAGE 36. 
 * Call upon thy Name.” 
 
 I am aware that the Unitarians distort this, and similar expressions, as meaning 
 “those upon whom thy name is called,” or ‘who are called by thy name,” and thus 
 evade their force, as expressing that Christians worshipped Christ. But these dis- 
 tortions are really so contrary to the idiom of the original Greek, that no sound 
 scholar would ever attempt to maintain them, except under the bias of the strongest 
 prejudice for a particular system, And sometimes they are so plainly contrary to the 
 meaning of the context, as to make it absolutely contradictory or unintelligible. Thus 
 in the passage from Rom. x. 12, 13. Here the object of the apostle is to prove, that 
 faith in Jesus, felt in the heart and confessed by the lips, is essential to salvation, and 
 that it will be sufficient for the salvation of all, both Jew and Greek. “ For the same 
 Lord over all, (clearly meaning the Lord Christ,) is rich unto all that call upon him: 
 for whosoever shall call upon the nante of the Lord shall-be saved,” verse 12, rdévras 
 Tous tmixaAovutvovus, avrov. verse 13, was ye os dy tminartonras 70 Ovo Lee xueiou cub, 
 OfThs. - 
 
 Is not the sense here as plain as possible, not merely from the grammatical con- 
 
 struction of the words, but from the evident tenor of the passage, which surely means, 
 
 not that every one shall be saved who is called by the name of Christ, or counted 
 
 among his worshippers, every nominal and professing Christian, for that were an incre~ 
 
 dible absurdity ; but they that believe in their heart, and confess with their mouth, 
 H 
 
106 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 that God hath raised Christ,” and who thus convinced of his divine authority, call 
 upon his name: to such sincere worshippers of every nation, Christ will be found 
 rich. Thus the sense of the expression in the original is fired in this passage, and 
 the sarne-words are used in the other passages quoted, and plainly in the same sense, 
 This gloss of the Unitarians, therefore, must be abandoned, 
 
 NOTES TO DISCOURSE III. 
 
 NOTE XIV; PAGE 39. 
 
 Before I proceed with the notes to this discourse, it is necessary to declare, (which 
 I do with perfect good faith,) that these discourses, and the notes to the first, were 
 printed, before I read Mr. Wardiaw’s Discourses on the principal points of the Soci- 
 nian Controversy ; which, with his answer to Mr. Yates, I purchased within these 
 few days, to assist me in forming these notes. 
 
 I make this declaration, not only in justice to myself, but to the cause-we both are 
 anxious to support. On reading Mr. Wardlaw’s work, I was indeed most highly gra- 
 tified, by finding the singular coincidence between the arguments contained in the 
 third and fourth of my discourses, and those which occur in Mr. Wardlaw’s; par- 
 ticularly in the second discourse, fifth General Consideration, * On the high claims 
 of Jesus on the love and obedience of his followers:” Third Discourse, Sect. I. 
 « The divine attributes ascribed to Christ:” Discourse IV. “ The divine works 
 ascribed to him.” In this last, particularly, the principle advanced so accurately 
 agrees with that maintained in the third of these discourses, and the facts adduced to 
 prove and exemplify it are so coincident, that I cannot but feel my hopes increased 
 by the concurrence of Mr, Wardlaw’s judgment, that the principle he has sanctioned 
 will appear just and natural, the illustrations apposite, and the reasoning conclusive, 
 to every fair and candid mind. To be thus supported in my views on this subject, 
 by such a writer as Mr. Wardlaw, certainly is most satisfactory. I shall now freely 
 avail myself of such additional illustrations from his works, as may be consistent with 
 the limited object of these discourses. 
 
 In Discourse IV. from p. 104 to 111, Mr. Wardlaw gives an excellent comment 
 on John i. 1 to 3, which most clearly exposes the various unnatural glosses put upon 
 this passage by the Unitarians. He also confirms the proof that the Scriptures ascribe 
 the creation to our Lord Christ. He refers to Heb. i. 10, «* Thou, Lord, in the 
 beginning hast laid the foundation, of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine 
 hands,” &c. '« Now, (he observes) compare with this, verse 8, and it is certain this is 
 spoken of him who is there addressed, ¢ Unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, 
 is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.’ Now, 
 if this be the case, (says Mr. Wardlaw,) the point is settled: here we bave creation 
 ascribed to the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, in the most precise terms, even 
 the creation of the heavens and the earth themselves.” Vide Wardlaw’s Discourses, 
 p. 111, 112. 
 
 Another observation of Mr. Wardlaw seems of considerable importance, in answer 
 to the objection, thatthe power exercised by our Lord is represented as given to him, 
 as not original and inherent, but imparted and delegated; which it is alleged is 
 inconsistent with the true Godhead of Christ. To this Mr, Wardlaw replies'— 
 « That there is no incongruity in this idea of delegated authority and dominion, when 
 Jesus is viewed as a divine mediator. Those who maintain this view of his person 
 and character, acknowledge such delegation as an essential article of their scheme ; 
 and, allowing him to be represented in the Scriptures, as voluntarily assuming the 
 
 be 1 Wardlaw’s Discourses, p. 116 to 119, 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE III. 107 
 
 form, and acting in the capacity of a servant, they are not startled at finding this 
 representation consistently supported throughout.” After illustrating this point, he, 
 in the second place, states an excellent distinction between the « effect of delegation 
 as conferring a right to exercise any office, and the capacities and qualifications to 
 discharge the functions of that office.” « If, then, (says Mr. Wardlaw,) Jesus Christ 
 be Lord of all, and Judge of all, what, I ask, are the qualifications essential to the 
 Being who governs, and who is to judge the world? And to this I answer, without 
 fear of contradiction by any reasonable and unprejudiced mind, OMNISCIENCE, OMNI- 
 POTENCE, and INDEPENDENCE; and if this be so, since the Scriptures testify, «that the 
 Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son,’ does it not 
 follow, of immediate and irresistible consequence, that the Son is such a being.’ ” 
 
 And if so, he must be God of God; to suppose, as Mr. Wardlaw after remarks, 
 an omniscient and omnipotent creature, is an irreconcilable eoutradiction. 
 
 This argument of Mr. Wardlaw’s appears fo me unanswerable ; and it gratifies me 
 to find, that it perfectly harmonises with the conclusions I have drawn from different 
 passages in Scripture—vide supra, pp. 9, 10, 14, 21, 24, and 34; ‘and particularly 
 the answer to the objection appearing to arise from John y. 16 to 32, contained in pe. 
 41 to 44; also p. 49, 52, 56,57, and 58. In all these inferences from Scripture, 
 the principle so clearly stated by Mr. Wardlaw is adopted, and the conclusions founded 
 upon it. 
 
 On the facts and reasonings contained in this third discourse, there is little occa- 
 sion for illustration, or room for dispute. The facts are plain and undeniable ; the 
 passages of the New Testament, which relate them, clear in their meaning, and undis~- 
 puted as to their authenticity. The only question is, do these facts prove that our 
 Saviour possessed the powers ascribed to him? and, if he did, is not the possession of 
 such powers a decisive proof of his divinity? These are inferences from the facts ; 
 and whether they are just and conclusive, must be left to the plain sense of every 
 rational and candid mind. The steps of the argument are so few and so plain, any 
 attempt to explain them further would only accumulate words without necessity, 
 
 I shall, however, add a few additional testimonies of Seripture I had overlooked, 
 and obviate some of the most important apparent objections, from circumstances 
 recorded in Scripture, which at first seem to have a contrary bearing, 
 
 There are two remarkable prophecies of Isaiah, which I have not adverted to, 
 referred to by the Evangelists, as accomplished in Christ, which most distinctly identify 
 him with the great Jehovah. The first occurs, Isaiah vi. 1, when the Prophet 
 describes the majesty of the LORD. Jehovah: « I saw,” said he, “the LORD 
 (Jehovah) sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple : 
 above it (stcod the seraphims, and one cried to another, and said, holy, holy, holy, is 
 the LORD Jehovah!) God of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” 
 
 The prophet proceeds to describe this divine Being, as commanding him, « Go 
 and tell this people: hear ye indeed, but understand not ; and see ye indeed, but 
 perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy ; and 
 shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand 
 with their heart, and convert and be healed,” Now the apostle John directly refers to 
 this glory and this denunciation, -and appropriates them to Christ, as his glory and 
 his denunciation: “ But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet 
 they believed not on bim, that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, 
 which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the arm of 
 the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias saith 
 again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not 
 see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should 
 heal them: (the apostle adds) these things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and 
 spake of him:’ thus clearly identifying Christ with Jehovah, and the glory of Christ 
 with the glory of the Holy One of Israel. 
 
 Thus again, Isaiah, xli. 21 to 25, introduces the God of Israel, declaring, 
 
 1 Vide Lewth’s tranlation, _2 John, xii, 5741, 
 
108 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 « There is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides 
 me. Look unto me, and be ye saved all the ends of the earth, for Iam God, and 
 there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth 
 in righteousness, and shall not return: that unto me every knee shall bow, and 
 every tongue shall swear.” 
 
 Certainly, if ever any character exclusively designated the supreme God, the 
 Ruler of the world, here that character is found. Yet this character the great apostle 
 of the Gentiles applies directly to Christ: ‘whether we live, (says he, Rom. xi. 
 6 to 12,) we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Whe- 
 ther we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s: for to this end Christ both died, 
 and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living. But 
 why dost thou judge thy brother, or why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? for we 
 shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; for it is written, As I live, saith 
 the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God: so 
 then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” / 
 
 Thus, according to Isaiah, every knee shall bow to God the Saviour : according to 
 St. Paul, it is Christ the Saviour to whom every knee shall bow. In the Old Tes- 
 tament, God is the judge of all the earth, in the New also it is declared, that all 
 men shall give an account of themselves to God ; but this is to take place, “« when we 
 shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” Can we, after this, question the 
 identity of Christ and God? 
 
 Thus clearly does this prophecy, and its accomplishment by Christ, accord with the 
 declaration of St. Paul in another Scripture, when he describes the humiliation of 
 Christ, «« Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a ser- 
 vant, and was made in the likeness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, he 
 humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Where- 
 fore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every 
 name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
 things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess 
 that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”! Thus evidently applying 
 the declaration of Jehovah, ‘that every knee should bow to him,” as fulfilled by the 
 homage being paid to Christ. 
 
 The application of the name and dignity of Jehovah to Christ, so clear in the two 
 last prophecies from Isaiah, is equally so in another prediction of the same prophet, 
 which Mr. Wardlaw, and indeed, almost every writer on the subject, notices, but 
 which I perceive I have omitted: ‘“ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, 
 prepare ye the way of Jehovah ; make straight in the desert a highway for our God :”” 
 a passage directly applied to John the Baptist, as the forerunner of Christ, by the 
 Evangelist. Thus St. Luke: «And many of the children of Israel shall he (John 
 the Baptist) turn to the Lord their God; and he shall go before him in the spirit and 
 
 _power of Elias, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” . 
 
 Omniscience also is attributed to Christ in a remarkable passage of the Revela- 
 tion, which I had not noticed: “ All the churches shall know that I (Jesus Christ) 
 am he that searcheth the reins and the heart, and I will give unto every one of you 
 according to your works.” Compare this with the prayer of Solomon to the God of 
 Israel, “ Give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest: for 
 thou, even thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men.”* And that of 
 Jeremiah: “The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it ; I, Jehovah, 
 search the heart, I try the reins, to give to every man according to his ways, and 
 according to the fruit of his doings.”® How clearly are the knowledge and the autho- 
 rity of Christ as judge of man, thus identified in Scripture with the knowledge and 
 the authority of Jehovah. 
 
 1 Philippians, ii. €—12. 2 Isaiah, xl 3. 
 _ 3 Luke, i, 16, 17, Compare also John i. 23, and Matt. iii. 1—5. 
 4 Revelation, ii, 23. 51 Kings, viii. 39. : 6 Jeremiah, xvii. 9, 10, 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE III. 109 
 
 NOTE XV. PAGE 46, 
 
 A striking example of our Saviour’s miracles impressing the apostles, and all the 
 spectators in general, with the idea that in his own person resided the power and 
 majesty of God, appears on the miraculous draught of fishes, recorded by St. Luke: 
 « When they filled both the ships, so that they began to sink ;” it is added, «“ When 
 Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me, for Iam a 
 sinful man, O Lord.”! This was a feeling of terror, like that which the presence of the 
 Lord, on Mount Sinai, impressed upon the people of Israel: ‘‘ When they said unto 
 Moses, speak thou with us, and’ we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we 
 die.” 
 
 Thus also the ark of the Lord, the frequent seat of his presence, inspired a similar 
 terror into David ; and the homage then paid by St, Peter was an act, not of civil 
 obeisance, but of religious reverence, impressed by the greatness of Christ’s power, 
 extending to every creature, and marking the presence of a divinity.$ 
 
 NOTE XVI. PAGE 52, 
 On the divinity of Christ as following, “from his knowing the hearts of all men.” 
 
 On this argument Dr. Carpenter observes, «If St. Peter’s saying, ‘ Lord, thou 
 knowest all things,’ proves the omniscience of Jesus, why should it not respecting his 
 disciples in the apostolic age, when John (i. Epistle ii. 20,) says, ¢ Ye have an unction 
 from the Holy One, and know all things ?? 4 
 
 Answer— Because the context, and the very expressions of the apostle, in verse 
 27, explains this all things to mean all necessary Christian truths. The apostle 
 declares, «* Ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth 
 you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, even as it hath taught you, ye shall 
 abide in him.” 
 
 Is this parallel to the knowledge ascribed to our Lord, “ knowing what was in man,” 
 universally 2 Dr. Carpenter adds, “In Rey. ii. 23, our Lord is represented as saying, 
 ‘and dll the churches shall know that I am he who searcheth the reins and the 
 heart ;? and at first sight the expression seems decidedly to favour the common 
 system. But on turning to the first verse of the chapter, ‘the revelation of Jesus 
 Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must come to 
 pass,’ we see at once that his knowledge was limited, and that he derived it, what- 
 ever was its extent and object, from God.” 
 
 Now, of this assertion one part is clearly true, that Jesus Christ, considered as man, 
 derived all his knowledge from God, from the divine nature united with the human. 
 Nay, if we dare presume to speak on a mystery so unfathomable to human faculties, 
 we might say, that as the Father was the fountain of Godhead to the Son, he might 
 also be said to be the fountain of knowledge. But if he has imparted to the Son his 
 own nature and his Godhead, does it not follow that the knowledge of the Son is 
 unlimited? And is not every assertion of Scripture, proving that any of the attri- 
 butes of the Divinity are possessed by Christ in an unlimited degree, (as is here said 
 of knowledge,) a decided proof that Christ partakes of the divine nature? ‘Thus 
 Dr. Carpenter’s argument, as usual, plainly takes for granted the question in 
 debate. 
 
 But Dr. Carpenter adds in a note, “even the prophets occasionally knew the secret 
 thoughts of men at a distance.”® Most true, the prophets occasionally, as the Spirit 
 of God communicated to them, in each particular instance, that knowledge ; whereas, 
 at all other times, they were ignorant as any other men: but Christ knew what was in 
 man, (universally,) displayed this knowledge constantly, and in the Revelation as 
 quoted above, challenges this knowledge as belonging constantly to himself, consis- 
 tently with the declaration in another place, ‘that in him dwelleth the fulness of the 
 
 1 Luke, v, 8. 2 Exod, xx, 19, 3 2 Samuel, vi, 
 4 Carpenter on Unitarianism, p. 188, 
 
 5 Taken from a Mr, James, vide Unitarianism, &c, page 189, 
 
110 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Godhead bodily, «and the Father gave not the Spirit by measure to him.” The 
 instances Dr. Carpenter would insinuate, as parallel to the knowledge ascribed to 
 Christ, are, Abijah’s knowing the thoughts of Jeroboam’s wife; (1 Kings, xiv. 5, 6.) 
 Of this it is said, “« The Lord said unto Ahijah, Behold the wife of Jeroboam cometh 
 to ask a thing of thee for her son, for he is sick: thus and thus shalt thou say unto 
 her ; for it shall be, when she cometh in, that she shall feign herself to be another 
 woman.” Does Dr. Carpenter really think this knowledge, thus conveyed, a parallel 
 to the knowledge ascribed to Christ ? 
 
 Again, Elisha knew the conduct of Gehazi at a distance from him, and the secret 
 counsels of the Assyrian king, (2 Kings, v. 25, 26; vi. 12.) True; and the same 
 God, which gave this knowledge to Elisha, gave him, in the one case, power mira- 
 culously to inflict Gehazi with leprosy; and, in the other, miraculously to- lead 
 the army of the king of Syria to Samaria, into the power of the king of Israel, 
 
 Does Dr. Carpenter really think the knowledge or the power, in either case, lasted 
 a moment beyond the particular instance when it was given ; and will he affirm this of 
 the knowledge and power of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 Again, Daniel knew the thoughts of the king of Babylon upon his bed, (Dan. ii. 
 29.) True; Daniel declares, ** There is a God in heaven which revealeth secrets, 
 and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar, what shall be in the latter days.” 
 Is this parallel to the knowledge ascribed to Christ ? 
 
 Last comes the instance of Peter, who knew the secret transactions of Ananias, 
 (Acts, v. 4.) True: Peter was enabled to detect the crime of Ananias, who 
 attempted to defraud the assembled congregation of the apostolic church ; and who 
 thus, as Peter charges him, « had lied not unto men, but unto God.” And Peter, 
 as then presiding in the Church, was enabled not only to detect, but to punish, this 
 falsehood and fraud miraculously with instant death ; but does Peter claim an inherent 
 power of searching the heart, or of taking away or restoring life, whenever he will 2 
 In a word, are not all these instances contrasted, as strongly as possible, with the 
 permanent, inherent, and unlimited knowledge and power ascribed to Jesus Christ? 
 Why, then, would Dr. Carpenter lend his name, or give the appearance of his appro- 
 bation, to sophistry so weak and delusive as this ? 
 
 NOTE XVII. PAGE 57. 
 “ The power of Christ, as Judge of Mankind, irrefutably establishes his Divinity.” | 
 
 The force of this argument is strongly felt by the Socinians, and their efforts to 
 repel it are feeble and desponding. 
 
 Mr. Belsham confesses, « That this office of judge of mankind is of such transcen- 
 dent dignity and importance, and requires powers so far superior to any thing we can 
 conceive to belong to a mere human being, however meritorious and exalted, that 
 it seems to many utterly incredible,'that such an office should be assigned to one who 
 was himself at one timea peccable and fallible man, and, as such, liable to appear at 
 the tribunal of Eternal Justice. The righteous Judge of the whole earth, the uner- 
 ring arbiter of the destinies of all the innumerable generations of mankind, must surely 
 be a personage of rank, far superior to any who shall then be summoned to his tribu- 
 nal. This reasoning has appeared so forcible to some persons of much learning and 
 reflection, that this consideration alone has prevented them from acceding to the 
 Unitarian hypothesis, though they have acknowledged that particular texts might 
 admit of a satisfactory explication upon Unitarian principles.”? 
 
 Mr. Yates, in his answer to Mr. Wardlaw, declares, « The argument relates to a 
 subject most sublime and awful, and far removed from our knowledge and experi- 
 ence. ‘That he is therefore convinced that the Scriptures alone can afford us infor- 
 mation on this subject; and, with great reluctance to argue the point at all, on the 
 grounds of merehuman reason, I shall venture to say, that the qualifications of omnis- 
 cience, omnipresence and independence, do not appear to me essential to the office 
 
 _ Vide the quotation from him, in the Notes to Dr, Wardlaw’s Discourses, page 426, 
 
 oe 
 
 Pe o> Ce tern 
 
 —._ = 
 
 . 
 ‘ 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE Il. Lh} 
 
 of the delegated Governor and Judge of mankind.” As to this opinion, I am satisfied 
 to let the reader judge between it and that maintained in these pages, without adding 
 here any additional reasons. If he wishes to see the subject fully and ably treated, 
 I would refer him to Mr. Wardlaw’s Answer to Mr. Yates, from page 236 
 to 246. a 
 
 Dr. Carpenter shrinks from the question: he says, “ It is probably impossible for 
 us to know precisely what will be the nature of the awful proceedings of the day of 
 judgment, and the agency which Jesus will employ on that all-important occasion. 
 But one thing is clear from the Scriptures, that the office was assigned to him as man. 
 (John, v. 27.) God hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he 
 is the Son of man. But (says the Doctor) this reason may be regarded as of some~ 
 
 ‘what a doubtful nature.!——But St. Paul (Acts, xvii. 31) expressly proves this asser- 
 tion, for he says, ‘« ThatGod hath fixed a day in which he will judge the world in 
 righteousness, by the man whom he hath appointed.’ This I regard as a complete 
 proof that the Man Christ Jesus is to be our Judge; and, of course, whatever is 
 requisite to enable him to be the agent of God in judging the world, will be communi- 
 cated to-him by the almighty power of God.” 
 
 Assuredly it will: the Man Christ Jesus will be competent to act as judge of all 
 mankind, because with the nature of man, he unites the nature of Gov. This, and 
 this only, can solve the difficulty, and this, I trust, the above Discourse brings scriptural 
 proofs, is the real truth. No, says Dr. Carpenter, if he be man, that is enough to 
 prove he is man only. 
 
 Here again the question is granted, and, affirming the Doctor's opinion is supposed 
 to be all-powerful, against every proof to the contrary. In truth, this petitio princt- 
 pii is the Doctor’s stronghold in reasoning. But as it was no where more necessary, 
 than in this most pressing urgency, it is no where employed with more undisguised 
 frankness and commanding brevity. 
 
 NOTE XviiI. PAGE 61. 
 
 « The union of the human with the divine nature in Christ, his inferiority to the 
 Father as touching his manhood, though he was notwithstanding truly God, for in 
 him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ; this may, and must produce 
 many passages, speaking of Christ in his human nature, which may appear difficult 
 to reconcile with those which speak of him as God; but yet that union of nature 
 does and must reconcile them.” 
 
 In these words I am far from asserting, that this principle will leave no difficulties 
 in the Scripture unsolved. This very union of natures in Christ is undoubtedly a 
 mystery which no human faculties can adequately comprehend. But we can dis- 
 tinctly see that the reality of this union is so expressly revealed in Scripture, that we 
 must believe it, or must reject the authority of Scripture altogether, and thus reject 
 the clear evidence, and the important truths of divine revelation, Or, if we attempt 
 still to acknowledge that authority, rejecting this doctrine, we shall be involved in 
 inextricable confusion and perplexity, and must abandon all rational rules of inter- 
 pretation, and represent the different parts of divine revelation as irreconcileably 
 opposed to each other. While admitting this union of natures in Christ, we see the 
 whole scheme to be consistent and uniform, though, at the same time, to a certain 
 extent mysterious, and such as our faculties cannot adequately comprehend. But in 
 proof that Christianity being a scheme imperfectly comprehended, forms no valid 
 objection to it, I would refer to Butler’s Analogy, Part I1. Chapter LV. in which this 
 question is discussed by that admirable reasoner, so, as I conceive, fully to satisfy 
 every candid and reflecting mind. I shall not attempt here to injure this excellent 
 writer’s arguments, by stating them in a mutilated extract, or attempting to condense 
 what I should thus only obscure. I must refer my reader to the work itself; and, if his 
 mindis strongly affected by the objection, he cannot in candour refuse to examine the 
 
 1 Dr, Carpenter on Unitarianism, p, 202, 
 
; ond 
 
 112— SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 answer. But to enter fully into this, he must also study the same work, Part IT. 
 chap. i. of the Importance of Christianity ; chap. iii. the Credibility that a Revela- 
 tion must appear liable to objections ; and chap. v. on the Appointment of a Media- 
 ior, and the Redemption of the World by him. When my reader has studied with 
 care and candour this work, Ido not fear his being affected by the ill-applied and petu- 
 Jant sarcasms, and the shailow objections of infidels or sceptics; or of those who, 
 under the pretext of trying revelation by the test of their own reason, reject what they 
 please, and distort Scripture until it suits their own opinions, instead of conforming 
 their opinions to the doctrines of holy writ. 
 
 For the application of this principle to most of the texts which are quoted, as 
 opposing the true Godhead of Christ, I beg of my reader to consult Jones on the 
 Trinity, chap. i. from No. XXIV. to the end; and again, in his third chapter, on the 
 Plurality and Trinity of Persons, particularly from No. XIX. to the end. Some of 
 the arguments of this able writer I have selected; for others I would refer to the 
 work itself. These notes are already swelling to an extent inconsistent with the object 
 I proposed to mysel{—that of supplying a selection of the clearest proofs of this 
 great truth, sufficiently strong to satisfy those who have not leisure to study longer 
 and more elaborate treatises. 
 
 NOTES TO DISCOURSE IV. 
 
 NOTE XIX. PAGE 66. 
 
 & Every feeling and affection which can be conceived to form part of the honour paid 
 to God, has also Christ for its object ; and every hind of obedience and submission 
 required as due to God, is also required as due to the Redeemer.” 
 
 Since I wrote the above, I have been highly gratified to see the same idea clearly 
 and impressively expressed by the late Mr. Bowdler, jun. in his ‘ Essay on the love 
 of God,” which occurs in the second volume of his Select Pieces—a work, the reli- 
 gious part of which I strongly recommend to every Christian reader. It occurs in 
 page 215:—<“ The love which we owe to our Kedeemer seems, so far as it is possible 
 for us to have accurate notions on such a subject, to be exactly the same with the 
 love which we owe to God. It is difficult even to separate the idea, though the adorable 
 persons to whom it is directed are (for purposes the most wise and gracious) presented 
 to us separately in holy writ. Whatever is true of either, is true of both: the work 
 of redemption was the work of God in Christ; and ¢ Christ is over-all God blessed for 
 ever.’ The identity which the Scriptures attribute to God and Christ, both in per- 
 fection of nature, and the exercise of goodness towards us, is so complete, that the 
 love which that perfection and goodness awaken, seems in like manner, scarcely capa- 
 ble of division; so that we seem to be justified in saying, that we must love God 
 with all our hearts, and Christ with all our hearts; that we must love God 
 above all things, and Christ above all things, ‘The metaphysical embarrassment 
 indeed is great, but there is no practical difficulty. However, though it seemed 
 needful to touch upon this point, it becomes us all to think and speak upon 
 it, with a modesty suitable to the dignity of the subject, and our exceeding 
 weakness.” 
 
 On the subject treated of in this Discourse, and particularly the ecnaexion between 
 the dignity ascribed in Scripture to the Son and Holy Spirit, with the parts they are 
 declared to bear in the scheme of redemption, and the feelings and duties on the part 
 of man arising from the relation to him which is thus revealed, consult Butler's 
 Analogy, part ii, chap i, On the Importance of Christianity, 
 
‘ vm 
 
 NOTES TO: DISCOURSE IV.- Lia 
 
 *¢ Christianity, (says this profound and truly rational divine,) in addition to its 
 being a clear and authoritative publication, and an external institution of natural 
 religion, and a new promulgation of God’s general providence, as righteous Governor 
 and Judge of the world, contains also a revelation of a particular dispensation of Pro- 
 vidence, carrying on by his Son and Spirit, for the recovery and salvation of mankind, 
 who are represented in Scripture to be in a state of ruin. And, in consequence of 
 this revelation being made, we are commanded to be baptized, not only in the name 
 of the Father, but also of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and other obligations of 
 duty, unknown before, to the Son and Holy Ghost are revealed. Now the im- 
 portance of these duties may be judged of, by observing that they arise not from posi- 
 tive command merely, but also from the offices which appear from Scripture to belong 
 to those divine persons in the Gospel dispensation, or from the relations which we are 
 there informed they stand in to us. By reason is revealed the relation in which God 
 the Father stands in to us; hence arises the obligation of duty which we are under to 
 him. In Scripture are revealed the relations which the Son and Holy Spirit stand 
 in to us; hence arise the obligations of duty which we are under to them. The 
 truth of the case (as one may speak) in each of these three respects being admitted, 
 that God is the governor of the world on the evidence of reason, that Christ is the 
 mediator between God and man, and the Holy Ghost our guide and sanctifier upon 
 the evidence of revelation; it is no more a question, why it should be commanded 
 that we be baptized in the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, than that we be 
 baptized in the name of the Father.” 
 
 This point the bishop goes on to state more fully, and he observes, «that the 
 essence of revealed religion, as distinguished from natural, consists in religious regards 
 to the Son and the Holy Ghost. It may be asked, what are these inward religious 
 regards? I answer, the religious regards of reverence, honour, love, trust, gratitude, 
 fear, and hope. In what external manner this inward worship is to be expressed, is a 
 matter of pure revealed command, as perhaps the external manner in which God the 
 Father is to be worshipped: but the worship, the internal worship itself, to the Son 
 and Holy Ghost, is no farther matter of pure revealed command, than as the relations 
 they stand in to us are matter of pure revelation ; for the relations being known, the 
 obligations to such internal worship are obligations of reason, arising out of these 
 relations themselves. In short, the history of the Gospel as immediately shows us 
 the reason of these obligations, as it shows us the meaning of the words Son and 
 Holy Ghost.” 
 
 And again—“ The dispensations of the Gospel being admitted, gratitude as imme- 
 diately becomes due to Christ, from his being the voluntary minister of this dispen- 
 sation, as it is due to God the Father, from his being the fountain of all good; though 
 the first is made known to us by revelation only, the second by reason.” The bishop 
 adds a remarkable observation here, to which I call the attention of the reader :— 
 *« Positive institutions come under a two-fold consideration : they are either institutions 
 founded on natural religion, as baptism in the name of the Father; though this has 
 also a particular reference to the Gospel dispensation, for it is in the name of God, 
 as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ : or they are external institutions founded 
 on revealed religion, as baptism in the name of the Son and Holy Ghost.” 
 
 The bishop concludes this interesting discussion with the following remark, most 
 important in our present argument :—* To these things I cannot forbear adding, that 
 the account here given of Christianity, most strongly shows and enforces upon us 
 the obligations of searching the Scriptures, in order to see what the scheme of reve- 
 lation really is, instead of determining from reason beforehand, what the scheme of it 
 must be. Indeed, if in revelation there be found any passages, the seeming meaning 
 of which is contrary to natural religion, we may most certainly conclude such seeming 
 meaning not to be the real one; but it is not any degree of presumption against an 
 interpretation of Scripture, that such interpretation contains a doctrine which the 
 light of nature cannot discover, or a precept which the law of nature does not 
 oblige to.” 
 
 I shall here add a few words, to show how powerfully these observations of this 
 profound reasoner establish the conclusiveness of the argument in the fourth Dis- 
 
a 
 
 114 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 course, The bishop argues, “that if Christ is the mediator between God and man, 
 that is, if Christianity be true, if HE BE INDEED ouR Lorp, our Saviour, AND OUR 
 Gop, certain religious regards of reverence, honour, love, trust, gratitude, fear, and 
 hope, are due to him; and no one can say what may follow, not only the obstinate 
 but the careless disregard of him, in these high relations.” And from his argument 
 it would follow, that if he were declared to bear the above divine character, these 
 religious regards would be due, though not expressly claimed for him. 
 
 The argumeut of the fourth Discourse goes to show, that revelation does not stop at 
 declaring the divine nature of Christ, and his relation to us, but that it goes further, 
 and expressly claims for him and directs to him, all the religious regards above stated, 
 in the most clear and forcible terms, Can there be a stronger proof that Christ does 
 really possess that dignity, and stand in that relation to us which alone would justify 
 such regards? Does it not follow, that here is as it were, a second mode of revealing 
 to, and impressing upon us, that Christ is indeed the mediator between God and man 
 —that heis indeed our Lord, our Saviour, and our God? 
 
 NOTE XX. PAGE 74. 
 
 « Religious affections are in the Scriptures declared due to the Redeemer, of which 
 it is impossible to conceive any being should be the legitimate object in such 
 a degree, and to such an extent, except God himself. : 
 
 The texts brought forward in this Discourse, to show the high degree in which all 
 the religious affections are directed towards our Saviour, are as far as I have seen, not 
 questioned as to their authenticity, or their general meaning and import: but it is 
 attempted to overturn the inference derived from them, as to the divinity of Christ and 
 the atonement. First—-By making great deductions from their force, as appearing 
 greater than was really meant, because * of the Easterns being accustomed to employ 
 metaphors and allusions, to give quick and vigorous conceptions of truth or facts, and 
 to dwell, as all persons of lively imaginations do, on the most striking train of causes, 
 as what produced the important effects in contemplation ;” and also by observing, 
 « That the Mosaic ritual and scriptural phraseology were a fertile source of metaphors 
 well suited to soften the prepossessions of the Jews against the Gospel, to heighten 
 the conviction of the believer, and to give impressive views of its importance.”! How 
 far the texts here adduced can be thus considered as metaphorical and figurative, the 
 reader must judge for himself. ‘To me they seem most literal ; and I observe that 
 Unitarian writers seldom attempt to show how far they are to be understood literally, 
 how far figuratively ; at least they seldom apply this distinction to particular pas- 
 sages. This idea is rather brought forward as a general counterpoise to balance their 
 collective weight, and not directly applied to each separately. 
 
 Another mode of undermining this argument is, to speak of the indispensable 
 
 necessity of Christ’s death, as confirming his truth and doctrines, and thus establishing» 
 
 the acceptance of repentance, and the certainty of a future retribution. _ It is certainly 
 difficult to speak too highly of the importance of his death in this view; but how does 
 this go to explain the texts which speak of our Lord’s humiliation from a former state 
 of glory, or of the amazing powers to be exercised by him alter his death? And 
 even the importance of his death in that view, does not seem so much greater than 
 that of others who suffered in support of truth and piety, as to set it so infinitely 
 higher than the testimony and the sufferings of all other martyrs, whether separate or 
 united; and so as to ascribe to him exclusively the title of Saviour of man, because his 
 part in attesting the truth of the Gospel doctrines was of more importance or efficacy 
 than that of any other individual, and that he was clearly the first agent in the Chris- 
 tian scheme. aan 
 Let me ask, if, when the eleven apostles were brought before the high priest and 
 Sanhedrim, and commanded “ not to speak at all, or teach in the name of Jesus,” if 
 
 1 Carpenter on Unitarianism, page 30¢, 2 Acts, iv, 18, 
 
 . oe 
 
 ~ < > . . 
 ag ee Le gee ee ee ee ee ee 
 
 a 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE IV. 115 
 
 they had suffered themselves to be terrified into submission, so as to obey this command 
 would not this have stopt the progress of the Gospel as effectually as if the facts they 
 attested had never taken place? Yet are the eleven apostles, singly or collectively, 
 spoken of in Scripture, or to be thought of by us, as entitled not merely to gratitude 
 and reverence, but faith, obedience and adoration ; in a word, to any share of those 
 feelings which have Christ for their object ? 
 
 I shall not here pursue this suggestion further; the serious and pious reader must 
 judge of the force of the proofs and the inferences, in the fourth Discourse, for him- 
 self. I shall now close these notes, which have already swelled beyond what I expected 
 or wished. If I were to attempt to defend the translation of every text, and the 
 inference I draw from it, against the glosses of the Unitarians, I must form a large 
 volume indeed. 
 
 The reader, conversant in the works written on this important subject, will see that 
 I have declined using many passages of Scripture, and many modes of argument, in 
 order to simplify the controversy, and to leave the grounds on which I argue as little 
 disputable as possible ; and especially where any authority, which persons not Unita- 
 rians would be disposed to respect, has translated the passages different from the 
 received version, or expressed any serious doubts as to the conclusiveness of the 
 inferences derived from them. : ; 
 
 Did I find it necessary to vindicate the translations or applications of Scripture in 
 these Discourses, more largely than I have done, I would do so by presenting the 
 passages in the original language, with the rival translations in collateral columns, 
 taking care to introduce as much of the scriptural context as would show the real 
 bearing and meaning of each important text, as it stands in the original, and adding 
 notes to vindicate my own meaning and application, and show the errors of 
 the contrary. This mode is certainly the most convincing to the reader, and tends 
 to repress in the writer, the effort to produce pointed sentences and replies, when 
 he ought only to wish to speak plain and unadorned truth. On such a subject as 
 the divine word, and divine truth, we can never be too warm, and zealous; but 
 we can never too carefully guard against the intrusion of vanity and anger. The 
 difficulty of preserving a due medium is great indeed. Perhaps no man ever yet 
 engaged in religious controversy, who had not reason to confess and lament the 
 intrusion of such unworthy feelings on himself, I hope I have not offended in 
 this way; if I have, it was certainly unintentionally ; 1 wish sincerely to avoid it, 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTE TO DISCOURSE IV. PAGE 66. 
 * On the adoration paid to Christ.” 
 
 Doctor Carpenter, following Dr. Clarke, quotes from Bishop Bull the following 
 words :—“ In the first and best ages, the churches of Christ directed all their prayers 
 to God only, through the mediation of Jesus Christ.” Bull's answer to a query of 
 the Bishop of Meaux, p. 295. 
 
 Doctor Carpenter also quotes Dr. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, as saying, in 
 his Comment on the Church Catechism, p. 130, 131—« The Lord’s prayer teaches 
 that we should pray to God only, and to him as our Father, through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord.” And in his Index he marks both Bishop Bull and Archbishop Wake, 
 “as bearing TESTIMONY TO THE SOLE WORSHIP OF THE FaTHER.” 
 
 I confess I was startled at seeing two prelates, known to be the most strenuous 
 defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus brought forward to give evidence 
 against the most necessary and important practical consequence of that doctrine. I 
 therefore proceeded to examine their works. I find that Bishop Bull himself, inserts 
 a prayer to Christ in his Defensio Fidei Nicene, p. 7; of which the following is a 
 literal translation :—‘ You, O most Holy Jesus, co-eternal Word of the Eternal 
 Father; 1 the greatest of sinners, and the lowest of your servants, supplicating 
 implore to bless this my labour, undertaken (as I call you Searcher of hearts, to 
 witness,) for your honour, and the interest of the holy church; and that you may 
 deign to assist and help my weakness in this most important work, according to 
 your infinite mercy and goodness towards those who love you.” Where now is the 
 
116 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 force of the bishop’s testimony to the sole worship of the Father? most certainly, it 
 meant the worship of God only, through the mediation of Christ, in opposition to the 
 worship of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, and the multiplied mediators introduced 
 by popery. 
 
 Archbishop Wake also, p. 55, of his Commentary on the Catechism, Ninth 
 Edition, Dublin, 1787; thus speaks of Christ, stating, that he «finds the same 
 evidences. in the Scripture of the Godhead of Christ as of the Godhead of the 
 Father, viz.— That he has the name of God, the attributes of God, and such works 
 as can belong to none that is not God, ascribed to him. Add to this, fourthly, that 
 he is there shown to be honoured as God, John, v. 23; Heb. i. 6. Prayer is made 
 to him, Acts, vii. 59; 1 Cor. i, 2. Faith and hope are directed to him, John, xiv. 1 ; 
 Psalm, ii. 12. Praises and thanksgivings are given to him, glory and honour are 
 rendered unto him, Rev. v. 13, compare iv. 11; and no wonder, since lastly, the 
 nature of God is therein also expressly ascribed to him, Heb. i. 3; Phil. ii. 6; Col. 
 ii. 9, compare Col. i. 15-19.” Surely then, when in p. 154, Wake says, “ that the 
 Lord’s Prayer teaches us that we should pray to God only, and to him as our 
 Father, through faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. iii. 26,” he, under the name of 
 God, includes Christ our Saviour; whom, in p. 54, he declares “to have had the 
 same divine nature with the Father, and so to have been from all eternity God 
 together with him.” 
 
 I cannot, therefore, but caution the reader, who is not conversant with the writings 
 of modern Unitarians, to be on his guard against the avidity with which they press 
 authorities into their service, who are often in reality, most opposite to their opinions ; 
 and for facts which render the same caution doubly necessary, I would refer to Dean 
 Magee’s Postscript to his Appendix, from p. 803 to 811; where it appears that 
 Unitarian writers attempt to number amongst their supporters, many most eminent 
 men, plainly without foundation. It is further shown that they have published Dr. 
 Watts’s Divine and Moral Hymns for Children, and a short Catechism and Prayers 
 by Mrs. Trimmer, taking out of both the passages intended by their authors, to impress 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, and making them appear to inculcate Unitarianism : 
 and this is done deliberately, and without giving the readers notice of the artifice 
 practised upon them. For the proof of these assertions, I refer to Dean Magee as 
 quoted above. 
 
 The names of Bishop Bull and Archbishop Wake must now be added, to the 
 testimonies brought forward, to support the leading tenets of Unitarianisi; which, 
 most certainly, they never held, nay most decidedly opposed. 
 
 = The peculiar and limited object which I had in view, in the preceding Discourses 
 and Notes, have obliged me to omit many topics and arguments, usually and properly 
 considered whenever the doctrine of the Trinity is fully discussed, I think it right, 
 for the satisfaction of the students attending my lectures, to point out some of the 
 most approved authors, whose works it is probable, they may be able most easily 
 and most usefully to consult, on the different topics as to which they may seek for 
 information. 
 
 I would here again refer for information on the entire subject, to Dr. Hales on the 
 Trinity, two volumes, and his work on the Prophecies attesting the divine and 
 human character; to Dean Magee’s Work on the Atonement and Sacrifice; to 
 Bishop Burnet, the Bishop of Lincoln, and Mr. Welchman, on the Thirty-nine 
 Articles; all works of distinguished ability, and extensive learning : to Jones on the 
 Trinity, which I so often have had occasion to quote and to approve ; to Mr. Burgh 
 on the Trinity, in answer to Lindsay, a most excellent collection of scriptural proofs 
 clearly and strongly enforced; to Bishop Pearson on the Creed, in which | not only 
 scriptural proofs, but also the testimonies of antiquity, are selected with judg- 
 ment, and applied with clearness; to Bishop Bull’s “ Defensio Fidei Nicene ¥ 
 his « Judicium Ecclesie Catholicee 8ium primorum Seculorum de Necessitate 
 credenti quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus sit verus Deus contra Episcopium ;” 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE IV. 117 
 
 and his “ Primitiva & Apostolica Traditio de Xti Divinitate contra Zuickerum.” 
 These works prove the acknowledgment of this great truth by the primitive Christian 
 church, so abundantly, that it is extraordinary this fact should ever have been called 
 into question again.» Yet bishop Horseley was again obliged to correct the errors, 
 and check the presumption of Dr. Priestly on the same topic; and his Charge, and 
 controversial Letters on that subject, will be read with great satisfaction and improve- 
 ment by the student who desires to investigate it. ‘They have been republished by 
 his highly respectable son, the Rev. Heneage Horseley, with an Appendix vindi- 
 cating and supporting the assertions and arguments of his distinguished father. 
 
 I have also had occasion in my. Notes, frequently to refer to Mr. Wardlaw’s Dis- 
 courses on the chief points of the Socinian Controversy; the five first of which 
 contain a masterly view of the scriptural proofs 'of the Trinity, while in his Answer 
 to Mr. Yates he refutes many of the most important Unitarian objections, and 
 removes many of the most plausible difficulties alleged against the proofs for the 
 Trinity, deduced from Scripture. 
 
 I would here notice a useful tract, entitled tHe Unrrartan Rervurep, by the 
 Rev. G. A. Baker, M. A. printed at Bath, 1817, in which the chief scriptural 
 proofs for the Divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity, are exhibited, 
 accompanied with Notes selected from the New Famiiy Biss. 
 
 This compilation is very useful as far as it goes; had it noticed the principal texts 
 from which the objections or difficulties are raised against this important doctrine, 
 and the solutions of those objections or difficulties, with which that excellent work to 
 which he refers, would furnish him, the interest and utility of his publication would 
 have been greatly increased, at least to theological students. I cannot, however, 
 forbear expressing my entire concurrence with him, in recommending the New 
 Family Bible, (better known by the name of Mant’s and D’Oley’s Bible,) as a most 
 useful and valuable undertaking, and expressing with Mr. Barker my hope, that as 
 such, it may be encouraged and employed by every sincere friend and well-wisher to 
 the Christian church. 
 | But the most masterly and accurate view of the scriptural proofs of our Lord’s 
 Divinity is, I conceive, to be found in Dr. Waterland’s three successive Tracts in 
 defence of that truth, in the controversy excited by Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine 
 of the Trinity, and continued between Dr. Waterland and Mr, Jackson. 
 
 Having thus stated the chief writers, whose works may be most easily and advan- 
 tageously consulted, in the entire subject of the Trinity, I will proceed to notice 
 some of the leading topics on which particular information may be wished for by the 
 student, with brief references to the authors where it may be found. In the selection 
 - of these topics, I shall advert more particularly to those which the limits I had 
 prescribed to myself in the preceding Discourses and Notes, did not permit me to 
 dwell on. 
 
 1. Amongst which, the following are the chief: The Personality and Divinity of 
 the Holy Ghost ; the Bishop of Lincoln on Article Five, most clearly proves the per- 
 sonality of the Holy Ghost, from p. 176 to the end. 
 
 Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Article Eight. «I believe in the Holy Ghost,” 
 is also exceedingly full and satisfactory on this head, advancing proofs very similar to 
 those selected by the Bishop of Lincoln, and adding to them others also very con- 
 vincing. His statement of the office of the Holy Ghost, with respect to the believer, 
 is peculiarly important and instructive. 
 
 Mr. Wardlaw’s Ninth Discourse on the Divinity and Personality of the Holy 
 Spirit, appears to me clear and convincing. 
 
 2. Argument for the Trinity, from the plural form of the names applied to God in 
 the Old Testament, and from the application of the names of God to Christ, so as to 
 imply his partaking the divine nature. 
 
 On this subject, Pearson on the Creed, Article Two, on the clause, « His oNLY 
 Son,” is most full and convincing. And on the clause, «our Lorp,” the appli- 
 cation of the peculiar names of the Supreme God to Christ, so as to establish his 
 divine nature and dominion, is fully shown. 
 
118 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Vide also Mr. Nares on the improved version, from p. 36 to 57, first edition. 
 
 Of the full import of the word Aoroz as used by St. John, consult the same 
 author, from p. 61 to 79. Of other titles of God ascribed to Christ, consult the 
 same work in the Comment on the First of St. John, from page 88 to 106. Consult 
 also Dr. Thomas Randolph’s « Prelections Theologicw de Testimoniis divine 
 Nature Christi que ex Collatione Veteris & Novi Testamenti peti possunt, Oxford, 
 1784.” 
 
 One object of these Przlections is to prove, that Jesus Christ was the same with 
 that Jehovah who created the world, appeared to the Patriarchs, inspired the 
 Prophets, and conducted the whole system of the divine dispensations to mankind, 
 In this work the comparison of the prophecies concerning our Lord, which are quoted 
 in the New Testament, with their accomplishment, is very clear and full. 
 
 3. Remarks on the uses of the definitive article in the Greek text of the New 
 Testament, containing many new proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from passages 
 which were wrongly translated in the common English version, by Mr. Granville 
 Sharp; to which is added an appendix, containing, first, a Table of Evidences of 
 Christ’s Divinity, by Dr. Whitby: second, A plain Argument from the Gospel 
 history for the Divinity of Christ, by the former learned editor; and two other appen- 
 dices added by the author, (I believe Bishop Burgess,) third edition, London, 1803, 
 
 4. On the authority of the primitive church being favourable to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, in addition to the works I have previously referred to, and to the Creeds of 
 Tertullian, Ireeneus, and the Church of Jerusalem, as preserved by Cyril, the student 
 will find a still more ancient testimony in Justin Martyr’s Exposition of the true Con- 
 fession of Faith, or concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, vide “ Opera 
 Justini Cum Versione Latina Joannis Lange Lutetiez Parisiorum, A.D. 1615, p. 
 372 to 390.”—-This excellent Tract, written in the second century by one of the 
 most learned and illustrious members of the Christian church, a philosopher, an apo- 
 logist, and a martyr, would alone be sufficient to establish the reception of the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity by the primitive church. It thus commences: “ As we have 
 sufficiently confuted both the Jews and the Greeks in our former tracts, it remains 
 that we should expound the sound Confession of Faith, that by pointing out the 
 truth, every one may know how he ought to think of it; for it is not simply the 
 glorifying the Father and the Son which secures our salvation, but the sincere (or 
 sound) confession of the Trinity, which secures the enjoyment of those good things 
 which are laid up for the truly religious and pious.” ‘This illustrious teacher then 
 proceeds to establish this great truth, in a train of reasoning which would at this day, 
 approve itself to the soundest judgment and the most enlightened raind ; asserting the 
 unity of the Godhead, the consistency of this with the Divinity of the Son and the 
 Holy Spirit; the identity of their essence"and the distinction of persons, and adducing 
 the most clear, decisive, and select scriptural authorities, at the head of which stand 
 the Baptismal Form instituted by our Lord, and the Apostolic Benediction in the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians. But I must refer my reader, who desires infor- 
 mation from this high authority, to this tract, which will repay his search. 
 
 Next to the tracts of Justin, Tertullian, and Ireneus, stands the work of Novatian, 
 (a Presbyter of Rome,) on the Trinity, annexed to the works of Tertullian in Rigal- 
 tius’s edition, Lutetie Parisiorum, 1663, p. 706 to 730. ‘The eight first chapters of 
 this tract, to p. 711, are employed in expounding the existence, attributes, and the glory 
 of God. He then proceeds to state, ‘ that the same rule. of truth obliges us to believe, 
 after the Father, also in the Son of God, Christ Jesus the Lord our God, (Dominum 
 Deum nostrum,) the Son of God, of the true and only God, the Creator of all things, 
 This Jesus Christ, I will again affirm, is the Son of this God, promised in the Old 
 Testament, and exhibited in the New.” He then states briefly the prophecies con- 
 cerning Christ, affirms his union with human nature, and then proves that the Serip- 
 ture marks out Christ to be God, as plainly as it atfirms him to be man, (chap. xi. and 
 the following ;) proving this doctrine by the very same texts of Scripture on which 
 its advocates now rely; and concludes that he is not only man, because he was the 
 Son of Man, but also God, because he is proved to be the Son of God. But the 
 
NOTES TO DISCOURSE IV. 119 
 
 student who wishes to examine this very condensed collection of scriptural arguments 
 and testimonies on this important subject, I must refer to the work itself. The Bishop 
 of Lincoln has given a specimen of his reasoning, in his Comment on the Second 
 Article, p. 136: this, however, forms but a very inconsiderable part of the proofs 
 adduced in this Tract of Novatian, in which are united great closeness, as well. as 
 acuteness of argument, derived from the clearest Scripture authorities. These 
 writers, as their age is fixed by Dr. Lardner, viz. Justin A. D. 140, Iraneus 178, 
 Tertullian 200, and Novatian 250, all preceded the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, and 
 distinctly prove how early and universal was the agreement of the Catholic Church, 
 as to the Divinity of Christ, and show that the decision of that Council was not the 
 cause of establishing this great truth, but was founded on its clear previous acknow- 
 ledgment by the primitive and apostolic church, 
 
Bl wet pivs ne 
 we hie TRAP 
 
 ® 4 
 
 " 
 
 1 Og be si Aah 
 
 ts 
 yet ee 
 tie tit 
 
eh} 
 > Ars 
 Roe he 
 Pao Ake 
 ay iu . 
 ah erly 
 , psa 
 
 Lae: 
 
¥y 7 
 @ 
 
 a 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Libra 
 
 MAA 
 
 1 1012 01021 
 
; ce a sab aie 
 
 ose. ot aed 
 5 eee 
 
 ln all 
 
 ee 
 
Pears 
 
 eS a - Semwagares oor 
 beoteans a tetteaphinct nah Soo 
 een poeremen sum ener poeenp ener 
 
 Sees 
 
 Seeateteberaas