LC' C LIBRARY PRIliCETOlV. iV. J. DOXATIDN OF S A M I K I. A a N W W , Letter J^^ /si^^- -^■'^y^^^^^ V. m THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY DEFENDED AGAINST THE ERRORS OF SOCINIANISM AN ANSWER THE REV. JOHN GRUNDY'S LECTURES, BY EDWARD HARE. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY T. MASON AND G. LANE, FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE OFFICE, 200 MULBERRV-STREET. J. Collord, Printer. 1837. CONTENTS Preface Page 5-8 CHAPTER I. Ofthe Impossibility of attaining to the Knowledge of Divine Things by Reason without Revela- tion 9-22 CHAPTER H. Of the Impropriety of making human Reason the Test of the Doctrines of Divine Revelation 23-36 CHAPTER III. Of the Existence of the Devil . . . 37-58 CHAPTER IV. Of the Unity of God 59-61 CHAPTER V. Of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Jesus Christ 62-93 CHAPTER VI. Of the Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit . .... 94-112 CHAPTER VII. Of the Scriptural Doctrine of the Trinity . 113-122 CHAPTER Vm. Of the Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity . 123-154 CHAPTER IX. Of the Scriptural Use of the Doctrine of the Trinity , : . . . . 155-160 4 CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. Of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Death of Jesus Christ 161-196 CHAPTER XI. Of the Eternity of the Future Punishment of the Wicked "... . . 197-237 CHAPTER XH. Of the Divine Inspiration of the Sacred Writings 238-263 CHAPTER XIII. Of the Fallen State of Mankind . .. 264-306 CHAPTER XIV. Of the Miraculous Conception of Jesus Christ 307-341 CHAPTER XV. Of the Ordinary Influence of the Holy Spirit 342-379 The Conclusion 380-390 PREFACE In a prefatory address, it is not uncommon for the author to assign reasons for his undertaking, to ad- vertise the substance of his work, to obviate vulgar prejudices, and to apologize for his defect in the execution of his design, or conciliate the candour of the public. Bat when, as in the present instance, a book has been published in periodical parts, and the principal parts have been sometime in the hands of the purchasers before the preface is actually written, such an address would be merely formal. It is already known that the Lectures recently delivered and published by the Rev. John Grundy, comprise, with some original matter, the arguments and objections commonly urged by the Socinians against what he justly, but inconsistently, calls " the principal doctrines of Christianity :" and that this work was originally intended to be a preservative against the errors which he has zealously and indus- triously laboured to disseminate. The manner in which this defence is conducted is now before the religious public, who have rendered all apologies un. necessary by exercising that candour to which the author wished to appeal, and which he now feels it his duty gratefully to acknowledge. This acknowledgment is not, however, intended to be made to those who have adopted Mr. G.'s creed, without imitating his candour : some of whom will probably confess that it would not be very appro- 6 PREFACE. priate. "Liberality of sentiment" is sometimes only another name for bigotry : and " calm inquiry" is often confined to one side of a question. The author does not need to be informed that many of them re- gard his opposition to their prejudices as a sufficient proof of his " illiberality ;" that others of them con- demn him without a hearing, because he has at- tempted to vindicate what they " never will believe ;"' that some of them lay aside the preservative, after five minutes' examination, because " he sets out on principles very different from theirs ;" or that they knew beforehand, from his denomination, that " he is one of those fanatics." As these are not the men who are " willing to become fools, that they may be made wise," he confesses that to them he has no apology to offer. He can only pray that '• God, who commanded light to shine out of darkness, may shine in their hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." There is one subject on which he thinks it provi- dential that he has this opportunity for explaining him- self. According to credible report, at a provincial meeting of Unitarian ministers, recently held at Mon- ton Green, in the vicinity of Manchester, Mr. G. was pleased to announce that " his main arguments are left untouched." The arguments which he has ad- duced in his Lectures, may be separated into two classes. Many of them bear upon the statements here intended to be vindicated. To these, it is hoped, the reader will find, in the work before him, a direct answer. But others of them are levelled against such statements of the doctrines in question as the author did not feel himself under any obligation PREFACE. 7 to defend. These a^e probably what Mr. G. calls his " main arguments." Every man, who is not a volun- teer in faith, entertains his own opinion on the scriptural truths which he holds in comm(!ni with his brethren : and while he modestly declines to dictate to others, he may reasonably be allowed to vindicate the general doctrines according to his own modification of them, without being made respon- sible for the precision of those statements from which his opponent imagines himself to derive considerable advantage. To answer directly this class of Mr^ G.'s arguments, would be to vindicate those human systems which he has selected as the most vulner- able, instead of that Divine system of " truth which abideth for ever." The only legitimate method in the present case, therefore, was to state the doctrines under discussion in what the author thought the most scriptural manner, and to support his own statement. If by such a statement his opponent's objections be fairly obviated or evaded, they are answered effectually though not formally ; for the light of truth alone is sufficient to dispel the shades of error. In this way Mr. G.'s main arguments are really touched ; and some people think that the touch is like that of Ithuriel's spear. E. a Manchester, April 29, 1814. CHRISTIANITY DEFENDED. CHAPTER I. Of the Impossibility of attaining to the Knowledge of Divine Things by Reason without Revelation. It is one of the disadvantages to be encountered in the present discussion, that while the evangeUcal party take only the Scriptures for their guide, the Socinians claim it as a privilege to appeal from the sacred writers to the dic- tates of unassisted reason. The latter will submit their opinions to the test of Scripture, only when the Scrip- tures will stand the ordeal of their opinions. Or, to speak with greater propriety, they choose to try rather the Scrip- tures by their creed, than their creed by the Scriptures. When the language of the evangelists and apostles appears to favour their hypothesis, they are prepared to make the utmost use of its authority ; but when the contrary is the case, and the plainest declarations of the sacred writers can by no " cogging of the dice," be transformed into me- taphor, allegory, or figurative representation ; when the primitive teachers of Christian truth obstinately refuse to become Socinians, or even to be neutral, our opponents are prepared to pronounce against them a sentence of excommunication, and to erase their testimony from the record, as an interpolation, a corruption of the sacred text, or an inconclusive argument. On this important subject Mr. G. has fully delivered himself. His language is as follows : " Grant only (what none I imagine will deny) that the bestowment of reason upon man was, in itself, a partial revelation of the nature, attributes, and will of God, and then say whether it be possible that a subsequent, more complete revelation should ^ontradict the first." (Se7-mon on Christianity an Intellectual and Individual Religion. ) 10 THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE THINGS The advocates of the infallibility of human reason in things Divine, would do well to acquaint themselves more exactly with the power and the province of the faculty which they so unreasonably exalt. The doctrine of innate ideas has been long and justly exploded. But if the mind (or reason) of man possesses no innate ideas, from whence does it collect the first principles of knowledge ? From sensation, experience, and instruction. Infants ob- tain their first and imperfect ideas from what they perceive by their external senses. These first ideas are rectified by experience. Having in this way received a variety of ideas, and having learned to distinguish the different sounds which they hear, they are next taught to imitate those sounds, and to make each of them the sign of a distinct idea. They are thus prepared for farther instruction ; and by instruction they obtain all their additional know, ledge. They are instructed in the knowledge of first principles. They are taugiit even the use of reason ; and by instruction are led on to those farther degrees of knowledge which are acquired by rational deduction. Why do we appoint instructers to our children, if they have the rudiments of all needful knowledge within them- selves? The universal practice of mankind, founded on universal experience, yea, even the practice and expe- rience of Mr. G., who, in his way, is taking so much pains to instruct and to guide our reason, amounts to a de- monstration of what is here asserted. The personal expe- rience of every man speaks the same language. Let any one make the experiment, whether he can, by the utmost exertion of his reason, create one new idea in addition to those which he has received by sensation and instruction. Every man may be conscious that he at first relied on the testimony of others, and was tlien taught to reason on those principles which he had thus imbibed. The eye of reason, like the eye of the body, is by its Maker formed capable of perceiving and distinguishing the objects which are suited to its nature, when tliey are laid betbre it in a proper light. But until tliose objects are so proposed to it, it can no more perceive or distinguish them than the bodily eye can see what is not jxresented to it, or which is the same thing, what is presented in midnight darkness. As the mind cannot reason without ideas, it has no more NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 11 power to create them*than to create an atom. Man is a dependent being. God only is his own instructer, (if there be no impropriety in applying that expression to the eter- nal mind,) and he only has the ideas and archetypes of all things in himself. The vanity of all the inquiries of mankind after wisdom, Divine wisdom, and spiritual understanding, until God is pleased to reveal it, is finely exemplified in Job xxviii. Exactly similar to the doctrine of that beautiful chapter is the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures. They declare that, as to the things of God, mankind are in a state of entire ignorance until they are taught by Divine revelation ; and always impute the knowledge which mankind receive to instruction from above. Take the following passages as a sufficient specimen : — " Every man is brutish in his knowledge," Jer. x, 14. " He that teacheth man know, ledge. The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law," Psalm xciv, 10-12. " But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding," Job xxxii, 8. " Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath pre- pared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit," 1 Cor. ii, 9, 10. " The day- spring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death," Luke i, 78, 79. " I had not known sin, but by the law ; for I had not known lust, except the law had said. Thou shalt not covet," Rom. vii, 7. " How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed ? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? And how shall they hear without a preacher? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I was found of them that sought me not. I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me," Rom. x, 14. 17, 20. However unwilling modern philosophers, who have re- ceived all their true wisdom from the Bible, may be to confess the insufficiency of human reason in thino-s Divine, the sages of antiquity were honest enough to acknowledge the uncertainty of its researches. Pythagoras changed the name of wise men into lovers 12 THE KNOWLEDGE OP DIVINE THINGS of wisdom, as believing it not to be attained by human means. Socrates often repeated, " that he knew but one thing with certainty, and that was his ignorance of all things." Plato frequently reminds his pupils, that in re- ligious subjects they were not to expect proof, but only probability from them. Aristotle condemns his predeces- sors as the most foolish and vainglorious persons in the world, from a conviction of their ignorance, and the vanity of imagining that he had carried philosophy to the utmost perfection it was capable of; though no one said or be- lieved less of Divine things than he did. TuUy complains that we are blind in the discernment of wisdom ; that some unaccountable error, and miserable ignorance of the truth, has got possession of us. The Stoics pretended to know all things; yet Plutarch says, "that there neither had been, nor was a wise man on the face of the earth." Lactantius observes, " They could not ex- ceed the powers of nature, nor speak truth on these (sacred) subjects, having never learned it of him who alone could instruct them ; nor ever came so near it as when they confessed their ignorance of it." Epictetus found so much uncertainty in Divine things, that like many other heathen philosophers, he advised every one to follow the custom of his country. {Dr. Ellis on the Knowledge of Divine Things.) Socrates told Alcibiades, " It is necessary you should wait for some person to teach you how you ought to be- have yourself toward both the gods and men. He (says he) will do it who takes a true care of you. But, methinks, as we read in Homer, that as Minerva dis- sipated the mist that covered Diomedes, and hindered him from distinguishing God and man ; so it is necessary that he should in the first place scatter the darkness that covers your soul, and afterward give you those remedies that are necessary to put you in a condition'of discerning good and evil ; for at present you know not how to make a dif- ference." (Stanley's Lives.) '« Plato wished for a pro- phet to reveal the will of God to us, without which we cannot know it." And Plutarch says the same, "that the knowledge of the gods can be had only from them." Thus did they plainly attribute whatever Ihey knew of the gods, or of Divine things, to no principle but the gods. NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 13 The prospect of fining Divine truth by the exertions >of unassisted reason will now appear gloomy. But the confidence of rational Christians is not so easily abashed as is that of rational heathens. That we may enter into a more minute examination of the pretensions of this'^oasted power, let us inquire : 1. Can we, by the exertions of unassisted reason, find out the being and perfections of God ? When Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse, asked the philosopher Simonides, that important question, What is God? the prudent philosopher required a day to consider it, and doubled his request whenever he was called upon to give in his answer. When Hiero was weary of procrastina- tion, and inquired the reason of this delay : — " Because," said the philosopher, " the longer I consider the subject, the more I am at a loss for a reply." Such were the modesty and diffidence of Simonides ! One who was much more justly reputed for wisdom, ex- claimed, " O the depth of the riches botli of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out !" Rom. xi, 33. " Canst thou by searching find out God 1 canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection ! It is as high as heaven : what canst thou do ? deeper than hell, what canst thou know ? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. But vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass' colt," Job xi, 7, 9, 12. The labour, however, has always been useless : " The world by wisdom knew not God," 1 Cor. i, 21. — Among those who have not seen the dawn of Divine re- velation, " there is none that understandeth, that seeketh after God," Rom. iii, 11. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him ? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God," iCor. ii, 11. Suppose a person whose powers of argumentation are improved to the utmost pitch of human capacity, but who has received no idea of tlie existence or attributes of God by any revelation, whether from tradition, Scripture, or in- spiration ; how is he to convince himself that God is, and from whence is he to learn what God is ? That of which, as yet, he kifOws nothing, cannot be a subject of his thought, 2 14 THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE THINGS his reasonings, or his conversation, " He that answeretfe a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to him." He can neither affirm nor deny, till he know what is to be affirmed or denied. It never will, it never can, enter into his mind to inquire whether there be a God, till he have heard of such a being, or have formed some conception of him. " The mind," says Mr. Locke, " in all its thoughts and reasonings, hath no other immediate object but its own ideas ; so that all our knowledge is conversant about them." (Lib. iv, c. i, sec. 9.) " Wherever we want ideas our reasoning stops : we are at the end of our reckoning." (Lib. iv, c. xvii, sec. 9.) The question then is. From whence must our supposed philosopher derive, in the first instance, his idea of the infinite Being, concerning the reality of whose existence he is, in the second instance, to decide ? Will a close inspection of every part of the visible creation inspire him with the vast idea of an incor- poreal, invisible, unbeginning, everlasting, immutable, and infinitely perfect Spirit ? Will the idea of matter suggest an idea of immateriality ? Not unless to one who is in the habit of reasoning by the rule of contraries. And when the idea of immateriality is struck out of matter, what is it but a negative idea : that is, an idea of nothing 1 The positive idea of spirit i& still wanting. Will the idea of one's self suggest the idea of spirit ? This question scarcely needs to be proposed to a Socinian who holds the doctrine of materialism. Neither the idea of body, nor the consciousness which he has of thinking, reasoning, comparing, judging, and deciding — in a word, neither his intellect nor his will conveys to him the idea of spirit. Those who know that " there is a spirit in man" might pardon this ignorance of the Socinians, if the latter had no opportunity of loading the Bible, when the great metaphysician, Locke, could attain i>o idea of spirit but from revelation. " For he who will give himself leave to consider freely, (says he,) will scarce find his reason able to determine him fixedly for or against the soul's immate^ riality : it being impossible for us, by the contemplation of our own ideas, without revelation, to discover whether omnipotence has not given ' to some systems of matter* fitly disposed, a power to perceive and think." (Lib. x, c. iii, sec. 6.) NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 15 But if we suppose it -possible for a person who is a per- fect stranger to every part of Divine revelation, and to all traditional notices of truths originally discovered by reve- lation, to infer from his own experience that he is himself a spirit, united with a certain portion of matter, a»d per- ceiving and acting by bodily organs ; how can this infer, ence suggest the idea of a spirit wholly unconnected with matter, and having no bodily organs whereby to perceive or act ? Cicero affirms that " a pure mind, thinking, in- telligent, and free from body, was altogether inconceiv- able." (Nat. Deor.) Created spirits, separate from body, are supposed not to be known ; and, indeed, if they do exist, do not come under our notice. The whole visible world, with the myriads of ideas with which it furnishes us, however those various ideas may be compounded, can never suggest one idea of what is in its nature invisible. Ten thousand beings, beginning and ending, existing by succession and succeeding each other, could never lead to the idea of a being who is " from ever- lasting to everlasting," and " with whom there is no vari- ableness, neither shadow of turning." To see imperfection and mutability in every thing around, could never lead us, by any train of thinking, to the idea of a being who is abso- lutely perfect, and to whom no change is possible. In a word, "Every thing about us being finite, we have none but finite ideas, and it would be an act of omnipotence to stretch them to infinite." 2. If, unaided by revelation, we can trace neither God nor separate spirit, is it possible for us to trace the devil ? If the devil be a " deceiver," no wonder that mankind should be deceived with respect to his existence and opera- tions. If Satan be " the prince of darkness," he will not make himself manifest. It is no more wonder that Mr. G. cannot see a devil than that he cannot see darkness ; for •'' that which maketh manifest is light." 3. But suppose the existence of God, the author of all good, and of a devil, the author of evil, to be already known : how, without Divine revelation, can reason as- sure us that vvhen a man has rebelled against God, and yielded himself to the influence of the devil, God will par- don his rebellion and rescue him from the tyranny of that usurper i, It cannot be argued as the necessary result of the 16 THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE THtNGS Divine perfections ; for such a supposition would prove too much. If God must of necessity pardon the criminal^ for precisely the same reason he cannot possibly have been ever displeased. If he must of necessity remit the punish- ment of the crime ; for the same reason no punishment was ever due. In a word : if he must of necessity rescue the prisoner, and restore him to himself, for the same rea- son he never could permit him to depart, or the devil to gain any advantage against him. The pardon and salvation of a sinner must depend en- tirely on the " good pleasure of the will of God," wha " will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and will have compassion on whom he will have compassion.'' — They cannot be necessary ; they must be arbitrary. If they are not necessary, they cannot be positively proved from his perfections ; and if they are arbritrary, they can- not be known to us, unless he l>e pleased to reveal them. " For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor ? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again 1" Romans xi, 34, 35. We cannot, from the experience which we have of his goodness in supplying our wants, and in providing anti- dotes to many of the evils of human life, conclusively argue that he is willing to forgive our sins, and to heal our mental diseases. To reason thus is to found a universal proposition upon a particular one. It is to argue from the less to the greater. This is not properly argument, but presumption. " These," we might rather say, " are parts of his ways, but how little a portion is heard of him ? but the thunder of his power who can understand ?" .Tob xxvi, 14. Beside this : a man might, with greater precision, argue that he who lives in the wilful connuission of sin, in so do- ing abuses all the benefits whicii he receives, and aggra- vates his sin in proportion to the goodnee argument which wants a proof to support it, is it not plain that St. Paul makes use of that allusion, not to demonstrate, but to illus- trate a future resurrection? If it be an argument, the fol- lowing is well adapted to destroy it. " Tiiere is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease : tliough the root thereof was old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 21 the ground ; yet throiJgh the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant. But man dieth, and wasteth away ; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he ?" Now if it is impossible for human reason to'^decide on a future state of existence, or to point out the term of that existence, it cannot determine the duration of the future punishment of the wicked. To say nothing of the partiality of a man in his own cause, or of the unwilling- ness of a criminal to sign his own death warrant, it is not possible for him, however he may be disposed, to assign the nature and duration of the punishment which he has deserved. To do this, he must " know the Almighty to perfection." He must be able to discern, as well as will- ing to acknowledge, what is due from the intelligent and accountable creatures of God, to the Divine majesty, purity, justice, and goodness. Unless he can compre- hend thus much, he has no data on which to ground his decision of this important question, and must therefore refer it to that Gospel in which " the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness." Should that knowledge of Divine things which, after all, the wiser heathens confessedly possessed, render it doubtful whether reason be so inadequate to the attain- ment of it as has been represented, it will be necessary to add that they enjoyed the partial and imperfect light of a remote revelation. The patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had frequent Divine communications ; and Joseph, who indubitably learned much from his progeni- tors, was no stranger to them. While the latter reigned in Egypt, much valuable light would be diffused among the inhabitants of that country. Tiie Egyptians would make considerable improvement in Divine knowledge during the captivity of Israel, and not a little by the mi- raculous deliverance. The Greeks studied wisdom in Egypt, and afterward imparted it to the Romans. As the Israelites were appointed the •' witnesses" of Jehovah, some small measure of Divine knowledge emanated from them, and was shed on the nations more immediately surrounding them. Thus it was that the sages of anti- quity obtained, not from reason, but from revelation, their best maxims and their most valuable knowledge. 22 THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE THINGS And thus " every good and perfect gift" may be traced up to " the Father of Hghts." It will very probably be objected that the Scriptures refer us to the works of God, and that from those works we may learn the knowledge of God, and be led by the creatures to the Creator. When God has declared himself to men, he justly ap- peals to his works as vouchers for the character w hich he has given of himself, and of the wisdom, power, and good- ness, in which he would teach them to trust. But unless the idea of a God lead mankind to consider the creatures as the works of his hands, his works would never lead them to him. It is not by reason, but " by faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God," Heb. xi, 3. To make appeals to tlie works of God, as independent proofs of his existence, among those to whom a verbal revelation was addressed, were un- necessary. That the Old Testament is full of appeals to the works of God, is too obvious to be called in ques- tion. But on close examination, the true reason for those appeals will be found to be this: the nations who sur- rounded the Israelites were, without exception, worship, pers of idols ; and the God of Israel wished to be distin- guished from all the objects of their worship as "Jehovah, who made the heavens, and the earth, and all things therein." On this account, the Jews were taught to sing, " The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work." It may be worth while, however, to spend a moment in the consideration of one part of the New Testament, in which it is generally supposed that St. Paul appeals to the works of God as proofs of tiie being of God. The pas- sage alluded to, which we will examine as we proceed, is the following: — "That which may be known of God is manifest in (or among) them (the Gentiles ;) for God hath showed it unto them." Here we see that God hath given to them sotne knowledge of hiuiself. He had not left them to the instructions of unassisted reason. " For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world (i. e., from the beginning) are clearly seen, being understood (not demonstrated) by the things that are made, even (not his existence, but) his eternal power and godhead, so that NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 23 they are without excu«e. Because that (instead of find- ing out God when they knew him not) when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Pi-ofessing themselves to be wise, they became fools ; and changed the glory of the incor- ruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." And thus the things that are made, and from which the eternal power and godhead of Him who had showed him- self to them might have been reflected, were by these professors of wisdom made the objects of their worship. Instead of leading them to him, they had led them wholly away from him. CHAPTER n. On the Impropriety of making Human Reason the Test of the Doctrines of Divine Revelation. Having removed the rotten foundation of Socinianism, we may now, at our leisure, pile up and burn the " wood, hay, and stubble," which have been built upon it. The unreasonable pretensions which are erected on Mr. G.'s first position, are as follows : — " To what end was reason given ? Precisely, that it might be the rule of hfe ; the helm by which we must steer our course across the tempestuous billows of mor- tality ; the touchstone of every doctrine ; the supreme umpire in every difficulty and doubt. ' Try the spirits,' says the Apostle John, try their doctrines, ' whether they be of God.' By what are they to be tried, unless reason in every instance is to be the judge ?" {Sermon on Chris, tianity an IntellectuaJ and Individual Religion, p. 10.) When Mr. G. says that reason is the helm by which we are to steer, the supreme umpire in every difficulty and doubt, and the judge in every trial, he has hit the truth more " precisely" than he perhaps intended. But this grave judge wants a touchstone ; this supreme umpire wants a rule by which infallibly to decide. A helm is certainly a necessary thing for steering a ship, Whetheij, " across the tempestuous billows," or before 24 REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE them. But surely something more than a helm is neces- sary to those who would cross the patliless deserts of the deep. It' Mr. G. were turned adrift, a hundred leagues from land, when neither sun nor stars appear, without a chart, without a compass, and without a pilot, he would find that a helm alone is but a useless thing ; and would well enough exemplify the folly and madness of those phi- losophical theologians who make Divine revelation bow before human reason. Or, if he would condescend to em- bark with those who understand the art of spiritual navi- gation a little better than himself, he might probably learn that while Socinian landmen throw their charts overboard, and nail their compass down to the point on which they have resolved to steer because their helmsman is a lubber, the orthodox mariners learn the course which they are to steer, only from their chart ; use their compass to direct them on the course which is thus prescribed,' and oblige their helmsmaii, though " a seaman every inch of him," to steer, not according to his own whims, but according to the directions of their pilot. It is not " precisely" the same thing to assert that rca- son is the "rule" by which reason, the "judge," must " try the spirits ;" or that it is the " touchstone of every doctrine" by which this " supreme umpire" is, " in every difficulty and doubt," to decide. Mr. G. has made a gross mistake in calling St. John as an evidence of the propriety of making reason " the touchstone of every doctrine.'" " Beloved," says the apostle, " believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God ; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Thus he makes reason the "judge" in this question, but by no means the " touchstone" by which it is to be tried. He gives us a scriptural test, and teaches us to bring every doctrine to the touchstone of revealed truth. "Hereby know ye the S|)irit of God. Every spiiit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God ; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in tlie llesii, is not of God," 1 John iv, 1-3. That " neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles rejected reason" as the judge, we readily grant. And this, as the slightest examination of Mr. 6.'s quotations will show, ' is all that he has proved. Who but himself would have DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 25 thwight that Jesus Chrtst taught us to appeal from the Scriptures to the " touchstone" of reason, when, on a subject of pure revelation, he said to the Jews, " Searcjj the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; and they (not reason) are they which testify of nie?*' John V, 39. Equally distant from the point to be proved is the text which he has cited from St. Paul, and which, taken in connection with the context, runs thus : " Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to ■wise men, judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the commu- nion of the body of Christ," 1 Cor. x, 14-16. Here the apostle appeals, not to reason, but to the institution and design of the Lord's supper, which is a doctrine of pure revelation. Unless, therefore, Mr. G. can prove that grounding an argument on the infallible testimony of divine revelation is the same thing as to submit the doctrine of revelation to the " touchstone" of reason, he will gain nothing. Once more, however, let us hear him on this point. He seems to think the question decided by that saying of St. Paul, " Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Without supposing it necessary to make any alteration in the translation, may it not be asked, How does it appear from hence, that the apostle teaches the Corinthians to try the doctrines of Scripture by the "touchstone" of human reason? or that he would have the full persuasion which he recommends, to be the result ofargumentation,rather than of a more perfect knowledge of what is required by the word of God? While Mr. G. answers this question, we proceed to remark that St. Paul is speaking of the observance of Jewish festivals ; a point this, on which revelation only could decide. And the apostle chose rather to inculcate brotherly affection than to encounter the harmless prejudices of either of the parties in this dispute. Some persons, in conformity with the context, make a slight alteration in the translation, and read the whole passage thus : " Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up ; for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another ^.another esteemeth every day alike. Let every 3 26 BKA90N NOT THE TEST OF THE one (ev TO iSiu VOL '!T?.7]po(f>oi>eiadu^ abound in his (fwn sense;" for it is a matter of pure indifference. "He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord ; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not Tegard it," Rom. xiv, 4-6. The fallacy of this common Socinian argument lies in the confusion of the terms. Mr. G. has heaped together the words "judge" and "rule," "umpire" and " touch' stone," and fancies that because he has proved reason ta be the proper "judge," he has equally proved that, in op- position to the divine testimony, reason is also the " touchstone" of truth. Such is the infallibility of Soci- nian reason ! It is now our turn to appeal to the authority of the sacred writers. The following citations will be more than enough to prove that in matters of religion mere human wisdom is folly ; that it is an obstacle to the wisdom which cometh from above ; that the wisdom taught by reason ought to give place to that which is taught by revelation ; and that to mingle human wisdom with the wisdom of God, is like blending darkness with hght, or poison with our food. " Christ sent me to preach the gospel ; not with wis- dom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the under- standing of the prudent. Where is the wise ? where is the scribe ? where is the disputer of this world ? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world ? For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe. For the Jews retjuire a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom ; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbUng block, and unto the Greeks foolishness ; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men ; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh ; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise," DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 27 « tfeit no flesh should glory in his presence. Bat of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wis- dom, Arc, that according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech, or df wis- dom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit, we speak wisdom among them that are perfect, yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught. But we speak the wisdom of God, in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory ; which none of the princes of this world knew : for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit. The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God ; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth ; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. For who hath known the mind of the Lord ; that he may instruct him 1 But we have the mind of Christ," 1 Cor. i, ii. " Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak," James i, 16, 17, 19. "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness u'ith God; for it is written, He taketh the wise in their 28 REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men," 1 Cor. iii, 18-21. "Let God he true, but every man a liar : as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest over- come when thou art judged," Rom. iii, 4. "To the law, and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them," Isa. viii, 20. " Foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes," 2 Tim. ii, 23. " Charge them before the Lord, that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker," 2 Tim. ii, 14-17. "Charge some that they teach no other doctrine," 1 Tim. i, 3. " If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doc- trine which is according to godliness, he is proud, know- ing nothing, but doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof come perverse disputings of men of cor- rupt minds and destitute of the truth : from such withdraw thyself," 1 Tim. vi, 3-5. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain bab- blings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith," 1 Tim. vi, 20. " Because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foohsh heart was darkened ; professing themselves to be wise they became fools," Rom. i, 21, 22. "For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them atXaodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh ; that their hearts may be comforted, being knit together in love» and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures ,of wisdom and knowledge. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 29 joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk ye in him ; rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye hajie been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 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," Col. ii, 1-8. " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple ; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart ; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes ; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether," Psa. xix, 7-9. " Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets ; all my bones shake ; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of the Lord, and because of the words of his holiness. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you ; they make you vain ; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord. They say still unto them that despise me. The Lord hath said ye shall have peace ; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you. For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran ; I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. I have heard what the prophets said that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. How long shall this be in the hearts of the prophets that prophesy lies ? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their, own heart. The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream ; and he that hath my word, let him speak my w'ord faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat ? saith the Lord : Is not my word like as a fire ? saith the Lord ; and like a ham- mer that breaketh the rocks in pieces," Jer. xxiii, 9, &c. " For I tgstify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these 3* 30 REASON NOT THE TEST OP THE things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book ; and if any man shall take awav from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book," Rev. xxii, 18, 19. The language of these passages is so far from being equivocal, that the reader, without the assistance of a com- mentator, will easily understand them, and make the proper application. How much cause there is for these warnings, has been exemplified from the times of the apostles to the present. " The Christian Church was scarcely formed when in dif- ferent places there started up certain pretended leformers, who, not satisfied with the simplicity of that religion which was taught by the apostles, set up a new religion drawn from their own licentious imaginations. Several of these are mentioned by the apostles, such as Hymenseus and Alexander. The influence of these new teachers was but inconsiderable at first. During the lives of the apostles their attempts toward the perversion of Christianity were attended with little success. They, however, acquired credit and strength by degrees; and even from the first dawn of the gospel laid imperceptibly the foundation of those sects which produced afterward such trouble in the Christian Church. " Among the various sects that troubled the Christian Church, the leading one was that of the Gnostics. These self-sufficient philosophers boasted of their being able to restore mankind to the knowledge (gnosis) of the supreme Being, which had been lost in the world. Under tlie gene- ral appellation of Gnostics are comprehended all those who, in the first ages of Christianity, corrupted the doc- trine of the gospel by a profane mixtyre of (he tenets of the oriental philosophy Avith its divine truths." (Mosheim, book i, part ii, chap, v.) From these "knowing ones" arose, in the first and second century, a rich harvest of heretics and heresies, of which, not to mention them in detail, the reader may find an ample account in the first volume of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. A few .specimens would show that the apostles acted wisely when they cautioned their disciples against every thing DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 31 destructive to the simplicity of the gospel, and that they were not mistaken in the results of this unnatural coali- tion of philosophy and revelation which they predicted. " There is no observation capable of fuller proof, thdtn that religion, through all ages of the Christian Church, was more or less pure according to the alloy of philosophy or human reason mixed up with it. There were scarcely a heresy in the primitive church that was not imbibed from Plato's academy, Zeno's portico, or some vain reasonings of the pagan wise men. In latter ages the schoolmen rejected Plato, and exalted Aristotle into the chair of Christ, says Tilenus, (Til. Syniagm., part ii, disp. 16, thes. 31,) esteeming him the god of wisdom, who could not err. And the controversy long subsisted to which of them an appeal lay for the determination of truth. Such is the vain arrogance of human reason, as to have puffed up some in every age to promise they would show us the truth by the mere light of it, and maintain it as the only rule of faith. ' Philosophy and vain deceit' have always proved high- ly injurious to the purity of religion, and the great objects of faith which are supernaturally revealed." [Dr. Ellis.) Since philosophy has fallen into the hands of sincere and devout Christians, who valued above all learning " the faith delivered to the saints," and " contended" for that faith as the truest wisdom, it has been much reformed. But so long as it is human wisdom, it will never be fit to take the lead of revelation. Modern philosophers, as well as those of antiquity, whenever they attempt to model their creed by the rule of their reason, show themselves capable of the greatest absurdities. With our Unitarian divines, (as they are pleased exclusively to denominate themselves,) it is a first principle that "reason directs to whatever is true in speculation." To set reason free from the fetters of education, they have renounced the doctrine of human depravity, and of eternal punishment. Thus inspired with unlimited confidence in their own under- standing, and divested of all apprehension of eternal con- sequences, they are " induced to reason cautiously and frequently, and learn to reason well." So says one of themselves.* And what can be more reasonably expected * Mr. 'Jlimes Yates, in a sermon on the grounds of Unitarian dissent, preached at Glasgow, pp. 16, 17, 22,23. 32 REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE from them than that they should all reason alike ? But their one, perfect, infallible, and unchangeable guide, which " directs to whatever is true in speculation," is far from leading them all in the same path. A few lines from the author just mentioned will amply illustrate their agree- ments and their differences, " In order to convey a just idea of the constitution of Unitarian societies, it is necessary to premise, tliat, while we are united by a iew great principles, there are nume- rous topics of inferior consequence respecting which we differ in opinion among ourselves. All Unitarians agree in denying that Jesus Christ was the eternal God ; and that he is the object of religious worship. Some of them, however, believe that he was employed, as an instrument in the hands of the Deity, to create the material world, though not possessed of underived wisdom aird indepen- dent power : others believe only in his pre-existence. Some go still farther, maintaining that he was simply a human being, but conceived in the womb of the virgin according to the introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke's gospels : others see reason to believe that those chapters are interpolations, and therefore deny the doc- trine of the miraculous conception. In like manner all Unitarians agree that the deatii of Christ was an incal- culable blessing to mankind : some, however, do not pre- sume to determine the exact manner in which it conduces to the good of men, while others think that the mode of its beneficial operation may be distinctly pointed out ; but all reject the Trinitarian doctrines of satisfaction and vicarious atonement, believing, not that Jesus saves his followers from the everlasting misery to which they are supposed to have been doomed in consequence of the sin of their first parents, but that he saves them, by the force of his doctrines, precepts, and examplo, from vice, igno- rance, and superstition, and from the misery which is their natural result. The ordinance of baptism is a subject on which we entertain various ojiinions ; some of us practise the baptism of infants, others of adults, and some think that the use of water may be omitted entirely. Concern- ing the question of an intormc-diate state, and the phifoso- ■phical doctrines of materialism and necessity, we either remain in doubt or espouse oppoaite sides. On these and DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 33 other points, which have been debated by orthodox Chris- tians with rancorous animosity, we agree to differ." (Mr. Yates' Sermon, pp. 13-15.) ^. Mr. Yates ought to have the thanks of the Christian woi'ld for speaking the truth. This curious passage shows that reason, as well as nature, has her frolics. The " few great principles" in which the Unitarians agree, Mr. Y. has carefully laid down ; viz., 1. " The free and unbiassed use of the understanding on religious subjects." 2. " They ought to offer prayer and adoration to God, the Father, only." 3. " They regard holiness of heart, and excellence of conduct, as the only means of obtaining salvation." These three great Unitarian principles will not prevent the effect of our observations on the passage which we have cited. There is one part of this exposition of Unitarianism on which we may properly enough remark before we enter into the heart of it. Mr. Y. has shown that his friends are not yet agreed on " the philosophical doctrines of mate- rialism and necessity." But ought they not to know from Avhence they take their departure, when they set out on their voyage of discovery ? When Thales, while contem- plating the stars, fell into a ditch, how, said a woman, should you know what passes in the heavens when you see not what is just at your feet? Again: ought they not to determine whether or not there is a spirit in them, before they assure themselves that they can without assist, ance from above find out God, who is a Spirit ? An apostle thought that none but the spirit of a man can know what is in man. But they think that, without a spirit, they can know the things of God. If all the phenomena of perception, reason, memory, will, and various aftections, joined with the unequivocal and uniform testimony of divine revelation, cannot assure a Unitarian that he has a spirit distinct from his body, how can his reason prove to itself that there is a God who is a Spirit ? Where then is the reason, which is " a partial revelation of God, his nature, attributes, and will ?" If a man's reason be not satisfied on this point, how can he on Socinian principles believe the testimony of a revelation which contradicts his reason ? Or, if a contradiction be not admitted, how can 34 REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE his reason be a fit rule by which to judge whether that doctrine of revelation be true ? This one concession is subversive of the whole fabric of Socinianism, which is like a kingdom divided against itself. Once more : ought they not to be assured that their (what name should it have ?) spirit is free, has liberty, and is not bound down by the chains of irresistible necessity, before they assure themselves that they are entering on a free inquiry ! Leaving them to consider how far it is proper to begin their reasonings where they now end them, let us examine the points in which they agree, and those in which they differ. 1. Their agreement is all in negatives. They are only agreed about what is not. They agree in denying that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, or the object .of religious worship ; and in rejecting the doctrines of satisfaction and vicarious atonement, as well as the doctrine of original sin and everlasting punishment. That is, they agree in renouncing these doctrines of the Bible. 2. But in things positive, though led by the same infal- lible guide, " which directs to whatever is true in specu- lation," they agree not at all. They are not agreed whe- ther Jesus Christ was the " instrumental" Creator of the world, or a mere man. They are not agreed in what manner the world is benefited by the death of Christ. They are not agreed whether baptism, (i. e., washing,) should be administered with or without water ! Rmim tenea- tis 1 They are not agreed whether they have an immortal soul ; or whether they have any soul at all ; whetlior they are walking in glorious liberty, or are bound in the adaman- tine chains of inexorable necessity ! Such are the consist, cncies of all-searching, all-discerning, all-knowing reason ! When men, instead of ascending to heaven on a ladder let down from above, agree to build a towel of which the foun- dation shall be on earth, and the summit shall reach the skies, no wonder that God confounds their language ! To bring to light this disagreement among tliemselves, was the design with which Mr. Yates was cited. The citation is intended to show, .first, that as the heathen philosophers, without the aid of revelation, could discover and detect error, but could not find out truth, or agree among themselves on that great question. What is truth? DOCTHII^ES OF REVELATION. 35 and therefore could never enlighten the world by their in- structions ; so, when philosophical divines bring the doc- trines of revelation to the test of human reason, anji make their own conceptions the rule by which they are to judge, they can easily agree to discard many points of doctrine which in their own opinion ought not to be taught, because they are false, but have among themselves no positive re- vealed truth on which they are agreed, and therefore are as unfit to instruct mankind as their elder brethren : and, secondly, that as by the philosophy which some of the first Christian teachers adopted, Christianity was neutral- ized; so by the negative and skeptical philosophy of mo- dern teachers, Christianity is destroyed. It is true, indeed, while the Socinians differ among themselves in matters which they deem of " inferior importance," they agree in "a few great principles;" and it is equally true, that Herod and Pontius Pilate " agreed to differ" in smaller matters, but to unite in the important affair of " cruci- fying the Lord of glory." If, then, for creatures of such acknowledged ignorance to profess themselves able to discover the truths of God, is arrogance ; to determine them by their own reason, is profaneness. To do either the one or the other is more than man is fitted for, or called to ; and none has attempted it who has not failed. The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is agreed on both sides, is a revelation from God. It is suited, especially in those parts which most imme- diately concern us, to the capacity of the meanest. •' To the poor," who are generally illiterate, " the gospel is preached ;" yet these " God has chosen, rich in faith." Even " a child may know the Holy Scriptures, and be made wise unto salvation." It is not a veil thrown over the truth by forced allegories and strained metaphors ; but a revelation of the truth, delivered in proper terms, where proper terms are most intelligible ; and in which figures are used only where figures are absolutely necessary, or will give it greater perspicuity and force. " We use," says the Apostle Paul, " great plainness of speech : and not as Moses, which put a veil over his face." " But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully ; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to 86 REASON NOT THE TEST, ETC. every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, (veiled,) it is hid to them that are lost : in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gos- pel of Christ, who is the image of , God, should shine unto them," 2 Cor. iii, 12, 13; iv, 2-4. It is true, the gospel has its mysteries. It has its mys* teries revealed : truths which were once kept secret, " but now are made manifest." These are properly mysteries no longer, and are called so only with respect to what they once were. It has its mysteries yet unrevealed. There are things which we " know not now ; but shall know hereafter." And it has its mysteries imperfectly revealed : revealed so far as we are able to comprehend a revelation of them. These are mysteries stilt " We see them through a glass darkly :" " we know them but in part," 1 Cor. xiii, 12. The gospel does not in in every case enable us to answer those questions, — why? how? where- fore? but it teaches us to submit our understandings to the wisdom of God, and our hearts to his will. How can a revelation of the being, perfections, and ways of the in- finite God, be made to a finite creature, without involving mysteries ? That which is infinite cannot be comprehend- ed by that which is finite. To suppose that it could, is to suppose that cither the former is no longer infinite, or the latter is no longer finite. In whatever measure, therefore, God is made known to us, that which is known to us must imply something which is unknown, that is a mystery. It is the part of Christian humility to acknowledge that " se- cret things belong unto the Lord our God ;" and it is the part of Christian docility to receive with meekness " those things which are revealed," as belonging " to us and to our children for ever," Deut. xxix, 29. In an examination, like the present, of those things which once were mysteries, and of those which are now " in part" revealed, while wo abstain from all vain and curious inquiries into the why, the how, and the wherefore, which are not revealed ; our business is, not to suppose that in the imaginary deductions of human reason wehavc an infallible standard of judgment already fixed, — which is perfectly incompatible with the idea of those things hav- ing been, or being now, mysteries ; but to sit, w ithout pre- TrtE EXIStllNCE OF THE DEVIL. 87 jiodice or prepossession, at the feet of Christ and of his apostles, and to learn from them what are " the principal doctrines of Christianity." ^ CHAPTER III. Of the Existence of the Devil. Though the mere abstract, philosophical question of the existence of the devil, is rather curious than useful, yet to know that we have an invisible and inveterate foe, who makes the seduction of mankind his business, and their destruction his aim, is of great importance. It is not our purpose to prove that there is an omnipre- sent, omniscient, omnipotent, prescient, and infinitely malicious fiend. {Led. voL i, pp. 18, 73, 74, 84, 91, 92, 102.) Mr. G., for aught we know, may have heard igno- rant persons speak as if there were ; and it must be con- fessed that he has made the best use of their misrepresenta- tions. His attack on this <' castle in the air" has afforded him a triumph to which he is heartily welcome. If he can prove nothing else, he can prove that there is not an in- finite devil. But all his arguments on this topic are mere waste of words. He has manufactured a man out of the straw of vulgar inaccuracy, and has innocently set it on fire. Leaving him to warm himself by the flame which he has kindled, we proceed to point out what we have learned on this subject from the sacred Scriptures. By those divine oracles we are taught that there are beings celestial as well as terrestrial. He who created " heaven" and " earth," created all things " in" them, " visible and invisible," even " thrones, dominions, prin- cipalities, and powers," Col. i, 16. These invisible in- habitants of heaven are intelligent beings ; for they " do always behold the face of the Father which is in heaven," Matt, xviii, 10: and moral agents; for they not only know, but do his will, and are set forth as an example to us, who are taught to pray that his " will may be done on eartii, as it is done in heaven." They are spiritual substances : not clothed with flesh like us ; for " he maketh his angels spirits," Heb. i, 7. 4 38 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DKVIL. These celestial spirits are called angels or messengersr. because they have been known to mankind chiefly in the character of messengers from God. From St, Peter and St. Jude we learn that some of these inhabitants of heaven " abode not in the truth," but fell from their rectitude and bliss. To disturb our enjoy- ment of the testimony of St. Jude, Mr. G. has given us a specimen of Socinian reasoning. " I cannot enter into a critical explanation of every passage. I will refer you to Simpson's Essay on the words Satan and Devil, where the subject is thoroughly investigated. Suffice it now to say that it refers to human beings, and the punishment temporal. It relates to the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness, to their rebellion and their sub- sequent punishment." (Vol. i, p. 73.) Let us hear by what means Mr. Simpson has perverted the sense of the words of the apostle. In the tirst place, he has taken the utmost freedom in giving a new version of the passage. We shall not, however, object to this ; except in the case of one word, viz., auhoic, which our translators have properly rendered " everlasting." It is from aei, always, and is the word which St. Paul uses in Rom. i, 20, where again it is, and must be, rendered " eternal :" (" eternal power and godhead.") It is used by Ignatius, in his epistle to the Magnesians, (sec. 8,) to point out the eternity of Jesus Christ, whom he denomi- nates, with respect to God, avrov Xoyoc au^ioc, his eternal Word. But Mr. S., to get rid of a word which indicates eternal, instead of temporal punishment, has translated it in connection with the word ihofioic, without assigning any reason, and contrary to all authority, " the chains of Hades." In tliis case, then, we have a false translation. With this exception, the utmost freedom of translation being allowed, the passage stands thus : — " And the (an- gels, or) messengers, who watclied not over their princi- pality, but deserted their proper station, he hath reserved until the judgment of the great day, in everlasting chains, under darkness." Such, with the exception which we have noted, is Mr. S.'s translation, on which Me re- mark : — 1. That the passage is still perfectly applicable to our purpose. THE EXrSTJSNCE OF THE DEVIL. 39 2. That the application of it to Mr. G.'s purpose is be- yond all measure forced. (1.) How are the spies said to be messengers ? Tlie word ayyeXog means a me^genger who bears tidings. But the spies were not sent with any message, news, or tidings. They were sent to spy out the land. (2.) Was it the sin of the spies that they did not watch over their principality, but deserted their proper station ? Was it not that they brought an evil report of the land? (3.) Is being reserved in chains to the judgment of the great day, and in everlasting chains, merely a " tem- poral punishment?" (4.) How can the sin of the spies refer to the journey of the Israelites through the wilder- ness, to their rebellion and their subsequent punishment? Thus, after the utmost latitude is allowed to Mr. G. in his translation, he is obliged to make a most arbitrary ap- plication of the passage, and misses the mark at last. The passage from St. Peter's epistle remains untouched, for it would not admit of a similar application, and is therefore fully in our possession. It stands thus : " God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivei-ed them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment," 2 Pet. ii, 4. It is probable that the sin of these angelic beings was pride. Hence St. Paul directs that a bishop should not be " a novice, (-or young convert,) lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil," 1 Tim. iii, 6. How that pride was manifested, is not explained. But there may possibly be an allusion to their sin in that passage : " How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations ! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God : I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north : I will ascend above the heights of tlie clouds : I will be like the Most High," laa. xiv, 12-14. At the time of our Lord's appearance, these fallen spi- rits were permitted, in many instances, to take possession of the bodies of mankind. Mr. G. readily grants " that it was a common opinion among all the heathen nations, that the"*spirits of departed men and heroes were permitted, after their death, to enter the bodies of human beings." 40 THE BXISTENCE O*" THE DEVIL* (Vol. i, p. 73.) A similar notion, he admits, obtainecJ among the Jews, who, he says, " gave the name of demons to those spirits which were permitted to enter the human frame to do evil." (Vol. i, p. 74.) This notion is, how- ever, deemed by him perfectly erroneous, (vol. i, p. 101,) and the demonology of the Jews is treated by l)im as in no way connected with the Scripture account of the devil, or with the design of the mission of Jesus Christ. (Vol. i> p. 98.) It will therefore be necessary to examine it. The demoniacs, of whom we have so many accounts in the New Testanient, were persons really possessed by de- mons. Such is the account which the evangelists give of them. They do not speak of them as supposed to be pos- sessed, but as being really so. " There met him two pos- sessed with demons, Matt, viii, 28. Such is their uniform language. These demons v/ere wicked spirits, " And they that were vexed with unclean spirits (came :) and they were healed," Luke vi, 18. "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places, seeking rest ; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than him- self; and they enter inland dwell there : and the last state of that man is worse than the first," Luke xi, 24-26* Hence, their uniform language is, " He was casting out a demon," Luke xi, 14. The circumstances of these cases admit of no other supposition than of real possessions. While the men said to be possessed were cut ofl' from all intercourse with persons who might give them any in- formation respecting Jesus Christ, and tlierefore knew nothing of him, what wore they who said, '• What have we to do with tliee, Jesus, thou Son of God ? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" who in answer to the question, "What is tiiy name? said. Legion: be- cause many demons were entered into him ?" Luke viii, 30. — Who besought him to " sutler them to go away into the herd of swine ?" Wljo went into the herd of swine, and drove them, in spite of their keepers, into the sea ? Matt, viii, 28-32. What is that but a spirit, that seeks rest but can find none? that resolves to return to his first abode?' and that taketh with him seven other spirits, more wickei than himself? THE EXIST^ENCE OF THE DEVIL. 41 Mr. G. grants that such were the opinions of the Jews, and supposes that " it was no part of the office of Jesus to controvert them ;" (vol. i, p. 98 ;) but rather tlT&t "he adopted the phraseology" of those " to whom his instruc- tions were addressed." (Vol. i, p. 73.) He makes, indeed, some apology for this, by supposing the doctrines of de- monology to be merely philosophical : and " our Saviour (says he) was not sent to teach philosophy." (Vol. i, p. 98.) But will this be a sufficient vindication of him who came " to bear witness of the truth ?" Did Jesus Christ not only overlook the superstitions of the age in which he lived, but confirm them ? Mr. Yates says it is the opinion of the Unitarians that Jesus Christ, " by the force of his doctrines and example, saves men from ignorance and superstition." (See p. 32.) Was it then for this purpose Jesus Christ falsely declared that the demons he cast out ■were " unclean spirits ?" Luke xi, 24. Nay, is not this to charge the Son of God with imposture ? Did he not represent his actually " casting out demons by the finger of God," as a proof that " the kingdom of God was comef Luke xi, 20. Was he not, then, on Mr. G.'s hy. pothesis, a false and uncommissioned teacher ? If so, it is time to give up our appeals to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to receive, as the only true apostles of God, the So- cinians, who now teach that " whatsoever was written of old time was (not) written for our learning," but in con- formity to the superstitions of the times ! Happily for us, however, Mr. G. has lucid intervals; and at one of those seasons, more favourable to truth, he says, in proof that he ought not to be afraid of attacking popular prejudices, " that Jesus and his apostles pursued one direct course, in opposition to long-estabhshed opinions, and regardless and fearless of consequences, leaving them to God." (Vol. i, p. 108.) Such is Mr. G.'s consistency 1 On the supposition that Jesus Christ Avas a " teacher sent from God," and that what Mr. G. calls " his instruc- tions" were not, like those of the Jewish scribes, the " doctrines of men," but the truth of God, with what pro- priety could he say, " We have nothing to do with all those passage^in the New Testament, where persons are spoken of as being possessed : they have no reference to our sub- ject ;" .(vol, i, p. 74 ;) except that those passages are an 4* 42 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL- insuperable bar to the progress of Socinianism ? To show that they have the most direct " reference" to our subject, we will observe that, 1. Of these demons the Jews deemed Beelzebub the chief. Mr. G. has granted this proposition; (vol. i, p. 74;) and St. Luke relates that "some of them said, He casteth out demons through Beelzebub, the chief of the demons," Luke xi, 15. 2. This Beelzebub, the chief of the demons, our Lord called Satan. For when the Jews thus accused him of casting out demons by Beelzebub, he said unto them, " If Satan be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand ? because ye say that I cast out demons by Beelze- bub," Luke xi, 18. 3. The name Satan is that which our Lord generally used in speaking of him ; but he whom our Lord calls Satan, is by the evangelist, speaking his own language, called the devil. In the account which St. Matthew has given of our Lord's temptation, he relates that Jesus said, "Get thee hence, Satan," Matt, iv, 10. But the evange- list says, " The devil taketh him up into the holy city ;" " the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high moun- tain ;" and " then the devil leaveth him," Matt, iv, 5, 8, 11. 4. This Satan, the devil, Beelzebub, is called the chief of demons ; and in perfect accord with this notion our Lord attributed to him a kingdom. " If Satan be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?" Luke xi, 18. Hence wc read so often of " the devil and his angels." 5. These demons, the subjects of Beelzebub, the de- vil's angels, are also called Satan. Our Lord supposes that for Beelzebub to cast out demons, would be for " Satan to cast out Satan," Matt. xii;26. Thus one de- mon or many is Satan. In like manner, as the operations of an army are attributed to their general because it moves under his direction, so the operations of tiic demons, under the direction of their chief, are attributed to him. " Put on," says the Apostle Paul. ;' the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world," Eph. vi. THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. 43 11, 12. Thus the devil, in the singular number, is equiva- lent to principalities, powers, and rulers, in the plural. 6. These " principalities, powers, and rulers" are said to be " not flesh and blood," not men, but spiritu8Cr\vick- edness in high (heavenly) places," Eph. vi, 12. 7. And lastly. This chief of demons, the devil and Satan, is called the tempter. And when "the tempter came to him," &c.. Matt, iv, 3. " That Satan tempt you not," 1 Cor. vii, 5. Thus, instead of finding that the passages in which demons are mentioned " have no reference to our subject," we find them a most useful key to open the doctrine on which Mr. G. has so rashly and injudiciously made an attack. We will now consider some of those passages which still farther illustrate and confirm the truths which we have developed. The first case which we shall consider is the seduction of Eve. The Mosaic account of that transaction Mr G. has attempted to puzzle by a dilemma. He supposes that we must interpret it either literally, and so make nonsense of it, or allegorically, and make nearly nothing of it. And is this really the case ? Must every thing which is said or written be interpreted as " perfectly literal" or entirely allegorical ? Is there no medium ? Let us try. There is no impropriety whatever in supposing that the whole transaction is related just as it appeared. " The serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made." The serpent then was a real serpent, a beast of the field, and a creature which God had made. "And he said unto the woman," &c. So it was. He actually spoke. And this circumstance leads us to inquire, whether in this transaction the serpent were a principal, or merely the tool of another. The reasoning and speech were not his own, and we are warranted to say that they were of the devil. " Little children, let no man deceive you. He that committeth sin is of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil," 1 John iii, 7, 8. Here we learn that sin is of the devil from the beginning, and that He that came to " bruise the serpent's head," came to destroy the works of the devil. Nor is this interpretation in any measure 44 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. forced, but perfectly consonant with tlie general tenor of Scripture. " The old serpent" is said to be " the devil and Satan," Rev. xx, 2. Our Lord said to the Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from tlie beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own ; for he is a liar, and the father of it," John viii, 44. Who then can doubt that he was the father of that lie by which our parent was deceived ; and by the effect of it a mur- derer from the beginning ? We do not, however, say, as Mr. G. supposes, " that there grew a tree whose fruit was capable of imparting a knowledge of good and evil," (vol. i, p. 80 ;) but of which the prohibition taught man to know what wag good, viz., to abstain from that fruit ; and what was evil, viz., to eat of it. We say " that God walked in the garden to seek for Adam," not because we forget that God is a spirit; but because we believe that if we had witnessed the trans- action, we could not have described it in more appropriate terms. We do not say " that Adam called to inform the Deity of his hiding place ;" but that Mr. G. should read the passage on which he comments. We say that the ser- pent " was cursed above all cattle," because we believe that Mr. G. cannot contradict that saying, any more than he can deny that it " was compelled to crawl upon the ground and eat the dust" with its ibod. As Mr. G.'s prejudice has raised these, to him, insu- perable difficulties in tiie common interpretation of this passage, his ingenuit)^, with a little assistance, has found out another which he imagines to be more easy. He has learned from Philo the Jew that " it is an allegory ex- pressive of what really happened, under feigned images ; and the serpent, says he, is an emblem of vicious plea- sure," (vol. i, p. 81.) But here we must pay a just tribute to Mr. G.'s prudence ! He does not say that it is so, but makes use of this Jewish fable to get rid of the difficulty, and then leaves poor Philo to answer for it. But until Mr. G. honestly disclaim what he dare not ven. ture to maintain, it will not l)e unfair to say that he ought to bo sure that he has not multiplied, instead of lessening our difficulties. 1. Tliis half-adopted comment is a mere THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. 45 gratuitous assumption, without the smallest particle of proof. But then, to a Socinian, proof is not always neces- sary for the support of his own hypothesis. To get rid of the testimony of Scripture is the task, and the ineans are not to be scrupulously examined. 2. If the whole be an allegory, and Mr. G. loudly insists upon consistency, then we have not only an allegorical serpent, but an alle- gorical tree, bearing allegorical fruit, and an allegorical garden ; an allegorical woman, formed allegorically out of an allegorical man ; in a word an allegorical creation. But Mr. G. has brought us into a labyrinth, from which it will puzzle both him and the " learned Jew" to extricate us. 3. The serpent is indirectly said to be one of the beasts of the field, which the Lord God had made ; whereas vicious pleasure, however beastly, is neither a beast nor a creature of God. 4. " Vicious pleasure" had no existence in the woman until she had been guilty of sin, by tasting of a forbidden pleasure. Could she know any thing of the pleasure of sin before she had sinned ? 5. Moses describes the reasonings of the tempter as pre- ceding the thought of the pleasure of eating the forbidden fruit. The woman first heard the tempter, and afterward saw " that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise." The tempter was therefore distinct from the thought of any pleasure in the sin. 6. How is " vicious pleasure" cursed ? Is there any curse attached to it now more than before the fall? And how is "vicious plea- sure" cursed above all cattle ? 7. What enmity is there now put between the woman and vicious pleasure ? Was there not greater enmity between them before than since the commission of sin ? 8. How is vicious pleasure to eat the dust ? No absurdities are too great for those who refuse to take the plain letter of Scripture for their guide : who " strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel !" When an atheist speaks of the phenomena around him, because he cannot do so without allowing a great, universal, free, and active first cause, he imagines a being whom he calls Nature, to whom he attributes the designs and operations of a reaf being, whose existence he is disposed to deny. Thus, they who wish to drive the devil out of the universe 46 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. cannot help observing how many of his works remain ; and feel themselves under the necessity of finding him a substitute, who, during his absence, may manage hisatfairs with as much discretion, and do liis work with as much ability, as he himself. To eflect this, a well imagined being is poetically created, which, lest it should seem to be nothing for want of a name, is dubbed " the evil prin- ciple," or " vicious pleasure." It must not be supposed that this is a devil, an\ more than that nature is a god. It has neither a body nor a soul. It is a mere accident, without any substance in which to inhere. It was not in God ; for " God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." It was not in man before the fall, " for in the image of God made he him." It did not exist in the serpent, for that is supposed to be a nonentity, and in fact was a mere animal, and therefore incapable of moral principles, either good or evil. It was an etFect without a cause. It had a beginning without an autiior. And it had an existence when, as yet, it was nothing. It was an absurdity fit only to nestle in the brains of would-be philosophers, and to cast its spawn in those works which are intended to sup- plant the Bible. It is the property of error to be incon- sistent. When the degeneracy of human nature is to be denied, no evil principle is acknowledged. But when the devil is to be destroyed, his ghost haunts his murderers in the shape of " the evil principle," and is left sufficiently alive and substantial to find a way into the heart of Eve, and to tempt even Jesus Christ. What devil that was ever invented could be worse than this " evil principle ?" The book of Job, which records the manifold tompta. lions of that "upright man," imputes them all to Satan, and was probably written to make known to God's peo- ple the author of mischief, and to guard them against his temptations. Mr. G. grants that '• tliis'great doctrine (the being of Satan) is more explicitly taught in that than in any other book," (vol. i, p. 81,) and therefore needed not to suppose that it was •' borrowed from the Persian the- ology, or conjured up by philosophers, at a nonplus to account for the origin of eviJ," (vol. i, p. 76.) W^e, on the other hand, may be excused if we have imbibed our opinions from that book, for those opinions cannot now be said to be uuscriptural. What then is to be done ? Why, THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. 47 with the utmost effrontery, he calls it " an eastern fable, a poetical effusion, not improbably a drama," (vol. i, p. 81.) Thus, with a Socinian, those parts of Scripture wlwch do not give countenance to his creed, are any thing, or no- thing ; a legendary tale, or an old ballad. Instead of granting that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning ;" he will (some would say blasphemously) suppose that they were written when the author was in a merry mood, for the entertainment of boys and girls on a holiday. " The first chapter," says Mr. G., " will furnish us with a key to the term (Satan) in every other part of the book ;" (vol. i, p. 81 ;) but he might as well have called it a fire in which to burn the whole. The difficulties with which he meets in that chapter are converted into some kind of proof that the whole must be an allegory. Now we must observe two things : 1. That the allusions with which we meet in Scripture are allusions to real facts, and to real beings. The sacred writers do not " conjure up" imagi- nary beings at a " nonplus," either for the exercise of their genius, or the amusement of their readers. Such a con- duct would but ill become those who are commissioned to instruct mankind in things spiritual. If therefore we should grant that the first chapter of Job is an allegory, still we should maintain that all its allusions are founded in facts, and that the poetical mention of Satan, in such a book, would be proof of his existence. Mankind have invented superstitions enow, without receiving any addition to them from those Scriptures which are intended for the destruc- tion of error, and the diffusion of Divine truth. So far is the book of Job from " darkening counsel by words without knowledge," that in that book the practice is reproved : see Job xxx, 8. 2. That there is no ground for the sup- position that the book of Job is an allegory. It is an exposition of what actuallj- took place, couched in such terms as Avill best convey the truth to human minds. In what terms would Mr. G. describe the transactions of the invisible world, if he reject such as are used in the chapter in question? Have those Socinians who suppose their own soulsjo be nothing but organized matter, refined and spiritualized their ideas, so as to be able to speak of spi- ritual things in any other language than " after the man- ner of men ?" 48 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL, To answer Mr. G.'s objections to the literal interpreta- tion of this book, is rather to instruct ignorance than to combat argument. " Satan," says he, " comes miawed, unabashed, into the presence of the Almighty ! The great Jehovah condescends to hold a conversation with him, upon terms of the utmost famiUariiy. With the most per- fect confidence, he gives an account to God what he has been doing. The Almighty points out a being to him as having escaped his notice!" (vol. i, p. 88.) Now is this argument ? Is it any thing more than flourish ? The words printed in italics are the emphatical words, and in them the strength of the supposed argument consists. But they are the comment, not the text. One of them is entirely false, and the rest are mere conjecture. Again : " He begs of God to afflict this man !" What wonder? " God gives him permission to afflict him." And does not God permit all our afflictions? Does not Mr. G. know that blessed is the man that cndureth temptation ; for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life? " Was it neces- sary that he should first go and petition the Almighty ?" He could not afflict Job without permission ; for at'ter all the devil is not almighty. " In every sense of the word was not the devil his (God's) agent ?" No. He acted not for God, at the divine command, but under permission. " Were not the Sabeans, the Chaldeans, the lightning, the hurricane, sufficient agents of the Deity?" Now Mr. G. has answered his own question. Why might not Satan be permitted to do apparent mischief, as well as the Sabeans and the Chaldeans ? "But were not the latter sufficient ?" They did not fight against Job, till Satan had obtained permission, and then they acted their part under his influ- ence and management. "But Job imputes the whole to God." He did so, and justly; for aU Job's (rials had by him been wisely permitted and overruled. If this argument prove the nonentity of Satan, it will equally prove the non- entity of the Sabeans and Chaldeans. But how does Mr. G.'s interpretation consist with the text? "The sons of God were the holy men mIio came to worship in the temple of the Lord. Their wicked adver- saries, their Satan, assembled with them, opposed them to the utmost of their power, and were permitted by God to be successful in their schemes of hostility." This is the THE exist|;nce of the devil. 49 way to make every thing simple and clear. Now what becomes of the conversation between God and Satan ? It is unphilosophical ! What raised the hurricane ? What caused the lightning to descend 1 Who afflicted Job'^ body with biles ? Mr. G. has left you to find out all that as you may. He does not wish to be responsible for the diffictdties of which he is the author. Our " great High Priest was tempted in all things, like the children of men." His temptations are, by the evan- gelist, imputed to a diabolical agency. The whole account of this transaction is to be found in Matt. iv. But Mr. G. again objects to the literal interpretation. With- out repeating that the whole account is couched in terms the most proper for conveying the truth of the facts to mankind, we will hear and answer his objections. "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness on purpose to be tempted by the devil." (Vol. i, p. 87.) Just so. He came to bruise the serpent's head ; and there must be a conflict before there could be a conquest. " I will put enmity (said God himself) between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed," Gen. iii, 15. " He had fasted forty days, when he began to be hungry." (Vol. i, p. 87.) That he was hungry after a fast of forty days is no great wonder. And that he should fast forty days without being hungry till then, is as possible as that he should live forty days without food ; or that Moses and Elijah should hold a fast of the same duration. " All things are possible with God." *' Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God :" by any means which God is pleased to ordain. " He knew the devil as soon as he appeared to him." (Vol. i, p. 87.) What then? "The devil walked with him through the city of Jerusalem, to a pinnacle of the temple." Suppose the devil to have assumed a hu- man appearance, and where is the difficulty 1 " He next accompanied him to a high mountain, where he could see all the kingdoms of the world ; a thing naturally impos- sible!" (Vol. i, p. 87.) Perhaps it was a visionary repre- sentation. Or, the expression may possibly have a limited meaning, as in Luke ii, 1. " And then the devil, know- ing he wsts speaking to tlie Son of God, who was aware who he was, had the presumption to ask, that he would fall 5 50 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. down and worship him instead of God the Father." (Vol. i, p. 88.) Mr. G. is very much concerned that the devil should speak and act with great propriety and decorum, and in a manner worthy of the omniscience which he im- putes to him. Satan has not, however, on this occasion, manifested so mucii presumption as Mr. G.'s jealousy has led him to suspect. He did not ask the Son of God to worship him instead of God the Father : but since the contest between them was for the dominion of the world, he with sufficient subtlety and impudence, pro- posed to cede to him the whole on condition that he would do him religious homage for it. " Upon supposition that all these inconsistencies (an unlucky word !) still gain credit, I add one more, that if Jesus Christ were a deity, this was no temptation at all, for he knew- him from the first, it required no effort to resist him, and nothing was to be gained, but every thing lost by obeying him." (Vol. i, p. 88.) All the "inconsistency," as Mr. G. calls it, arises from a false supposition, that if Jesus Christ was God, he was not man ; that if he was almighty, he had no human infirmity. Suppose him human as well as divine, and the difficulty vanishes. On Mr. G.'s hypothesis, Jesus Christ had then received " miraculous powers ;" (vol. i, p. 88 ;) if so, what effort was necessary to him in withstanding temptation ? The power which afterward cast out demons was sufficient to withstand this temptation. The answer in one case serves equally with the other. In either case, "nothing was to be gained, but every thing (was to be) lost by obeying" the tempter. Let us now attend to Mr. G.'s comment on the history of our Lord's temptation. " Contrast with this interpreta- tion the following, wliich the very expression of being led by the Spirit seems at once to denote. As soon as Jesus had received from God all the miraculous pow-ers con- ferred upon him at his baptism, his mind was occupied with the thought how he might be able to use these powers. Worldly thoughts first arose ; worldly objects presented themselves to his view. This adversary to divine things, this Satan, suggested to him the use of his miraculous powers. How he might gratify his palate by speaking only to the stones ; how he might command universal admiration and obedience, by publicly throwing THE EXISTE|VCE OF THE DEVIL. 51 himself from tlie temple ; how he might gain universal dominion by the corrupt use of his power." (Vol. i, p. 89.) We may observe that, in his own comments, Mr. G. meets with no difficulty. He never applies his key to try whether it be fitted to all the wards of the lock. We will point out its deficiencies, its contradiction to the text, and its glaring improprieties. 1. There are in his hypothesis many great deficiencies. It affords no explanation, either proper or figurative, of most of the circumstances of the history. It includes no account of the " wilderness" into which Jesus was led ; of the purpose for which he was led thither ; of the leader who brought him thither ; of the time which he spent there ; of tlie fast which he held ; of the " coming of the tempter ; of Christ's journey from the wilderness to the holy city ; of his being set on a pinnacle of the temple ; of his journey from thence to an exceeding high moun- tain ; of the view which he had of the kingdoms of the world ; of the worship which some person requested ; or of the promise which that person made to him. 2. The comment contradicts the text. St. Matthew says that Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. Mr. G. grants that he had received the Spirit ; and cites the words "led by the Spirit;" but supposes him to be led only b}^ his own thoughts : thoughts which could not be suggested by the Holy Spirit. The text names four times the devil as the tempter. Now this word was per- fectiy unmanageable. Mr. G. knows that it means a slanderer, and he has not been able to find a place where the word is used, except where it is applied to some real being. As this word, therefore, would not bend to his purpose, he takes hold rather of the word Satan, which our Lord has once used, as more flexible. He could not make worldly thoughts into a slanderer, but he could sup. pose them an adversary. 3. Mr. G.'s " interpretation" has in it some glaring improprieties. According to him, the '' first thoughts" which arose in the mind of Jesus after lie had received the Holy Spirit, and when he was under the special guidance of that Spirit, were "worldly thoughts." (Vol. if p. 88.) Here is the abstract "evil principle!" The 52 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. accident without a substance ! " The cloven foot walking about without the devil," We do not misunderstand Mr. G. " The word devil (he says) seems in general accep- tation to signify nothing more than that propensity to ill observable in the human mind ;* and, like many occult qualities, is found of great use in the solution of various difficulties." (Vol. i, p. 76.) Thus all .Mr. G.'s dif- ficulties are solved by applying this " occult quality," this " propensity to ill," to him " who was holy, harmless, unde- filed, and separate from sinners." The Socinians have now attached the " cloven foot to the Saviour of mankind ! No wonder that Jesus, no real devil being with him, put- ting this ioot foremost, found his way to the pinnacle of the tem[)le, that he might cast himself down ; or to the moimtain from which he might see the glorious kingdoms of the world, and worship — nothing. Who are they now who crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame ? Who are they who count the blood of the cove- nant an unholy thing ? There is a passage in St. Jude to which Mr. G. has? replied in a note ; but which might have deserved some notice in the body of his work. " It may be well," says he, " to mention a tradition which will serve to elucidate Jude 9, respecting Michael the archangel and the devil. Among the Talmudists there is something like the relics of such a matter, namely, of Michael and the angel of death disputing or discoursing about fetching away the soul of Moses. This messenger of death, therefore, is called the devil or adversary." (Vol. i, j). 94.) So the words "dis- puting and discoursing," — the " body of Moses" and the " soul of Moses" — " devil" and " adversary," are here made convertible terms. So much for Socinian precision ? This, to imitate it, is " to elucidate," or " to put darkness for light !" The passage is, however, a very ingenious contrivance ! To get rid of the devil, another being, » Cluery. Woukl Mr. G., and his consistent lircthron of the Socinian unbehef, find "that propensity to ill (so)ob.s-ervablein the human mind," if thev were discussing the question of the depravity of human nature. Here, they lind il"ob-;ervable"' in Jcmis Christ himself. Is this more like a' " free inquiry" after truth, or a con- test for victory, in which even truth it-silf, with its inseparable companion, consistency, is to be immolated ! THE EXIS1BNCE OF THE DEVIL. 53 created by the fertile imagination of the Jews, is permitted by the Socinians to occupy his place. And this " eluci- dation" is supposed to be a satisfactory answer Jio all who urge the testimony of St. Jude, as evidence of the ■existence of the devil. Such are the arguments of these great masters of reason ! Here is a being whose real existence, without a shadow of proof from the Scriptures, is taken for granted ; "the angel of death !" And yet after all, this "angel of death" may be " he that has the power of death, that is, the devil." A good angel would not dis- pute with Michael, and contend about the " body of Moses." To a good angel, Michael would not say, " The Lord rebuke thee." And lastly, a good angel would not be the "adversary" (as Mr. G. calls this) either of Moses or of Michael. In fact, these words of Jude afford a direct and positive proof of the existence of a fallen angel, who is called by him " the devil." When Jesus had sent out the " seventy, they returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us through thy name. And he said unto them, I be- held Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven," Luke x, 17, 18. Satan, we have learned, is the prince of demons, of whom our Lord, by a strong figure, thus predicts the final and entire overthrow. Mr. G., after a little flourish about the absurdity of a literal interpretation, supposes Satan here to mean " the adversaries of the Christian cause." To this we must add that they were, as the words of our Lord demonstrate, especially the spiritual adversaries which were intended. " Notwithstanding," he subjoins, " in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you," Luke v, 20. As we have found, in the facts which have been exa- mined, ample reason to acknowledge the existence of the devil, we shall find in the general language of the New Testament sufficient reason to suppose him the tempter of mankind. We are exhorted to " stand against the wiles of the devil," Eph. vi, 11. We are represented to be in danger, " lest Satan should get an advantage against us;" because of his "devices," 2 Cor. ii, 11. "The prince of the power of the air" is a " spirit which worketh in the chftdren of disobedience," Eph. i, 2. Thus "Cain, who slew his brother, was of the wicked one," 1 John 5* 54 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. iii, 12. Is any man ignorant ot" the gospel which has been preached to him? — "the god of this world hath blinded his mind," 2 Cor. iv, 4. Does any man live in the commission of sin ? — " he is of the devil," 1 John iii. 8. " Ye are of your father, the devil, (said our Lord to his wicked countrymen,) and the lust of your father ye will do," John viii, 44. To conclude this part of the argument : the Scriptures speak of the judgment, the condemnation, and the punish- ment of the devil. 1. Of the judgment of the devil. " Know ye not," says St. Paul, "that we shall judge angels I" By angels, we here understand fallen angels : for the holy angels will be ministers in the judgment of men. "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him," Matt, xxv, 31. " The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that ollend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire," Matt, xiii, 41, 42. Now the apostle's argument would lose all its weight, unless he meant to distinguish between fallen men and fallen angels. 2. Of the condemnation and punishment of the devil. When our Lord alludes to the final punishment of wicked men, he says, " Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlast- ing fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," Matt, xxv, 41. Thus has he marked the antecedent sin of the devil and his angels, and the punishment prepared for them, as distinguished from the wicked men who are doomed to share it with them. Thus we find that there is a wicked devil, the tempter of mankind, who is distinguished from men on the one hand, and from mere abstract principles on the other. We must now proceed to answer Mr. G.'s incidental ob- jections. 1. When it is so plain a fact that there is an infernal devil, and spiritual Satan, it can answer no purpose for Mr. G. to quote a hundred texts of Scripture to prove that men or women are sometimes called devils, (i. e., calumniators,) or satans. (i. e., adversaries.) The exist- ence of ten thousand human devils, and earthly satans, brings no evidence that tliere is no chief of demons, no spiritual devil or hellish Satan. THE EXI3TI>NCE OF THE DEVIL. 55 11. It will not answer Mr. G.'s purpose to show that " nearly every office which is usually ascribed to the de- vil, is in some part of the Scriptures ascribed eittier to God or to angels." (Vol. i, p. 108.) This assertion, as far as it relates to angels, he has not attempted to prove, and therefore that part of it goes for nothing. If he mean to impute the same things to God, in the same sense as to the devil, then, 1. He must exculpate Judas, who betray- ed, and the chief priests, who crucitied, our Lord ; " for be- ing delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknow- ledge of God, they by wicked hands crucified and slew him," Acts ii, 23. 2. He makes God the author of sin. Nothing can be more obvious than this ; for if what is wickedness in Satan be ascribed, in the same sense, to God, it is wickedness still. Nor is this the only argument by which Mr. G., in support of his system, certainly with no other design, makes God the author of all sin, and lays on him the blame of all the mischief in the universe. " If the Almighty," says he, " can retain this infernal being in fetters whenever he pleases, and suffer him to roam at large only when he wills, — this permission of the Almighty is the same as if it were his own act and deed. For to per- mit what you can prevent is the same as to perform." Now cannot God equally prevent all the wickedness of mankind? But does he prevent it? No. In the sense of Mr. G. he permits it : that is, though he forbids it, he does not not absolutely prevent it. Is, then, all the sin of mankind to be charged on the Almighty, as his own act and deed ? 3. He rather proves, than disproves, the ex- istence of the devil ; for if the works which are attributed to God are in the same sense attributed to the devil, the latter must have a real existence as well as the former. If, on the other hand, he impute similar works to the best and to the worst of beings, but not to each in the same sense, his argument proves only that two beings, with different designs, and therefore both intelligent, are employed among mankind. But to prevent the mischief which his observation may in another way eftect, it will be necessay to show, 1. That Satan tempts men, by soliciting them to sin ; but that God, in this sense. " tempteth no man." God tempts them as he tempted Abraham, by putting their faith to a 56 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. severe trial, that " the trial of their faith might be found unto praise and honour and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ." 2. Bodily disorders may have been in- flicted on men by the devil, as in the case of Job, with intent that those men may "curse God and die." But God inflicts them often as a salutary chastisement ; that, like Job, those men may bless God and live. 3. The wick- ed dispositions and conduct of men are imputed to the devil, because he dehghts in wickedness ; but God is said to har- den their hearts ; that is, to give them up to judicial hard- ness, because their wickedness is incorrigible. 4. God is said to send on some " a strong delusion that they should believe a lie, that they all migiit be damned," and thus, not " to promote the deceit of Satan," but to give up to him as incurable those " who beli-eved not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." For what purpose any man, calling himself a Christian minister, could make such a comparison between God and the devil, without any explanation, is left to the Searcher of hearts to determine. It could not possibly serve his hypothesis ; while it tends to undermine the credit of divine revelation. Thus do some men " sport themselves M'ith their own deceivings." III. Mankind have undoubtedly other sources of temp- tation. " Our animal passions and l>odily appetites expose us to innumerable temptations." (Vol. i, p. 71.) But Mr. G.'s appeal to the mercy or to the justice of God is by no means a proof that these are the only means of our proba- tion. In the present case such an appeal is, in fact, only an appeal from sacred Scripture to the passions of mankind. If Mr. G. grant that, in the dispensations of divine Pro- vidence, we meet with many trials, and that, unless it be our own fault, those trials arc salutjiry. he will find it difticult to prove that temptations from Satan may not be in general equally beneficial. The effects which the Scriptures attribute to dial)olical agency he attributes to other causes. What then has he gained ? If the etfects, viz., the number and weight of our trials, be the same, what difiercnce will it make in our views of either the justice or tlic mercy of God that the causes are many or few, that th(>v are great or diminutive? Where is the in- justice of calhng a moral agent to a combat, in which he THE EXIS1EXCE OF THE DEVIL. 57 may be " more than conqueror?" And where is the un- mercifulness of calling him to endure temptations, in the conquest of which he is supereminently " blessed^" and after which he shall " receive the crown of life ?" IV. There is as much danger from the breech as from the mouth of Mr. G.'s cannon : its recoil is as destructive as its shot. He has just been complaining of the injustice and cruelty of the divine dispensations in exposing us to the temptations of the devil ; and yet, if you do not grant omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence to the devil, Satan falls beneath his contempt. Then " all his super- human powers are futile. A malicious human agent would answer every purpose." (Vol. i, p. 21.) This argument may serve for an answer to the preceding. They destroy each other. In the meantime, Mr. G. and his readers are requested once more to consider, whether, with finite creatures, every thing be matter of indiffer- ence which is not absolutely infinite. Should the impossibility of a finite being tempting many persons, in different places, at one time, leave an apparent difficulty on this subject ; it must be noticed, 1. That the devil has many demons under his direction. 2. That we do not precisely know what relation a spirit has to place. 3. That though the power of Satan is not infinite, it may be very great. 4. That we are not sure that evil spirits may not produce effects which often remain when those spirits are no longer immediately present. We know that a moral principle, once imbibed, often produces effects for a long period after the departure of the person from whom it has been imbibed. V. Mr. G. thinks, however, that the doctrine of the existence of the devil cannot be " a fundamental article in the Christian religion." (Vol. i, p. 96.) What is meant by " a fundamental article" has not yet been agreed. It is enough that this doctrine enters so far into the essence of Christianity, that all who deny the existence of the devil must (as they actually do) deny all the peculiar and prominent doctrines of the New Testament. No man is properly acquainted with the condition of human nature until he know that "the whole world lieth in (td Tovripu) the wiclied one." 1 John v, 19. Only the existence, operations, and success of the devil, can properly account 58 THE EXISTENCK OF THE DEVIL. for the Incarnation and death of the Son of God, who came to bruise the serpent's liead. " For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil," 1 John iii, 8. "When the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same, that through death he might destroy lum that had the power of death, that is, the devil," Heb. ii, 14. We cannot pray as we ought, unless we make it one of our petitions, " Deliver us from [tov Tvov-qpov) the wick- ed, or evil one," Matt, vi, 13. The preachers of the gos- pel do not execute their commission unless they turn men " from the power of Satan to God," Acts xxvi, 18. The encouraging promise of the gospel is, that " the God of peace shall bruise Satan under our feet shortly," Rom. xvi, 20. And it is the glory of a Christian to " have overcome {tov novripov") the wicked one," 1 John ii, 14. VI. " What ! does virtue depend upon the belief of a devil?" (Vol. i, p. 101.) Not Socinian virtue; but Chris- tian virtue depends much upon it. Christian virtue in- eludes the duties of " believing" the truths and warnings- of God ; of " watchfulness and prayer, that we enter not into temptation ;" of " resisting the devil, that he may flee from us;" and of "overcoming the wicked one." Be- cause of the wiles of the devil ; because we are opposed,, not merely by " flesh and blood," but also by " principali- ties and powers, and by the rulers of the darkness of this world, by spiritual wickedness in high places." Christian virtue consists much in being " strong in the Lord and in the power of his might," in " withstanding in the evil day," in having our loins girt about with truth, in having on the breastplate of righteousness, in having our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace ; above all, in taking the shield of faith, wherowitli we shall be able to quench ail the fiery darts (r^v 77ui),pot) of the wicked one, in taking the lielniet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit wliich is the word of God ; and in praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance, Eph. vi, 10-18. VII. Nor does this doctrine, which teaches many Christian duties unknown to those who deny it, take oflT from man his responsibility. We, as well as Mr. G,, OF THjE UNITY OF GOD. 59 " warn thee, Christian, not to ascribe thy crimes to the influence of an infinitely maUgnant, irresistible, omnipo- tent being, because we tell thee no such being grists in the universe." (Vol. i, p. 102.) And we say more than Mr. G. will care to say ; viz., that mankind may over- come " that old serpent, called the devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world," but only " by the blood of the Lamb." " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began ; that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us ; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteous- ness before him, all the days of our life." CHAPTER IV. Of the Unity of God. The first chapter of this work will serve to show how little dependence is to be placed on the deductions of hu- man reason, unaided by divine revelation. Mr. G.'s arguments on the divine unity amply confirm those which have been there adduced. Through every paragraph of his lecture on that subject, while he professes to deduce his doctrine from the light of nature, he either takes for granted the thing to be proved, or borrows his doctrine from the Scriptures ; and sometimes he does both at once. An examination of his ridiculous reasonings will, however, answer no purpose, since we are ready to grant what he contends for — that there is but one God. But we place this great truth on the ground of revelation only. The following passages may suffice to demonstrate it : — " Thou shalt have no other gods before me," Exod. XX, 3. '^The Lord he is God, there is none else beside him." "The Lord, he is God in heaven above, and upon 60 OF THE UNITY OF GOD. the earth beneath ; and there is none else," Deut. iv, 35, 39. •' Is there a God beside me ? yea, there is no god ; I know not any. They that make a graven image are all of them vanity." '' 13efore me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord ; and beside me there is no Saviour. I have saved, and I have showed, when there was no strange god among you," Isa. xhv, 8, 10-12. " The Lord thy God is one Lord," Deut. vi, 4. Such are the declarations of Scripture that there is but one God. The candid reader will observe, however, that these testimonies uniformly go to evince the oneness of God in contradistinction from the plurality of the gods of the heathen. But the metaphysical unity of God, a unity which excludes the possibility of any kind of distinction in the divine nature, is not in any of them, or in any other part of the sacred books, asserted. As we do not look into the book of nature for the proof of the divine unity, we do not expect to learn from thence the doctrine of the trinity. We confess to Mr. G. that we have no " plea from reason for the supposition that one must direct, a second execute, and a third influence." (Lect. vol. i, p. 11.) All that we know of God, we know only from his own revelation ; and from that very source from whence we learn that God is one, we learn also that God is three; one in one sense, three in another, not in- compatible with the first. While therefore we agree with Mr. G. in that grand proposition that there is one God, we differ from his metaphysical doctrine of divine unity. Thinking that he perfectly compreliends that unity, and that, without the aid of revelation from whicli. in point of fact, he has learned it, he can argue conclusively upon it, he accordingly sets himself to the metaphysical task. Wc are aware tliat we do not perfectly jjpi)rehend the meta- physical ideas of spirit and its unity ; and as we cannot be sure that we reason conclusively on a proposition which we do not distinctly and perfectly apprehend, like children under the instruction of a teacher, wc submit ourselves to th^ direction of our infallible guide, and learn the doctrine of the trinity from the same source from whence we have learned the divine imity. It is from thence we gather that the one God is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. OF TH« UNITY OF GOD. 61 It is enough, in this place, to state that our Lord, in giving a commission to his disciples, commanded them, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Matt, xxviii, 19. The baptism of Christian believers is an ordinance obviously designed to initiate them into the church of Christ, and intended, like circumcision, as a dedication of their persons to God. It implies on the part of the per- son baptized that he take the Christian God for his God, and that he devote himself to that God as his servant ; and thus that h^ enter into covenant wiiii him. When the apostles of Christ baptized the Jews, who, dedicated to Jehovah by Jewish baptism and circumcision, had already been initiated into the church of God, and had received from the Old Testament " the promise of the Father," viz., the promise of the gift of his Holy Spirit, they baptized them in the name of Jesus. In vain, there- fore, does Mr. G. cite the cases of Cornelius and of the believers at Ephesus to prove that the apostles did not bap- tize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, but in the name of Jesus ; for Cornelius was probably a Jewish proselyte, (Acts x, 22,) and the Ephe- sians had already been baptized " unto John's baptism," Acts xix, 3. The commission which our Lord gave to his apostles was " to all nations," i. e., to the Gentiles, to whom the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit had been equally unknown. These were to be baptized according to the commission which Jesus Christ had given ; and the apostles undoubtedly observed the charge which had been committed to them. This form of baptism was connected with the first in- structions which the Gentile converts were to receive, and therefore implies the doctrine which they were to learn. That they whom the apostles had called from the worship of idols to the worship of the one God who made heaven and earth, should, by a religious act, a reception of the seal of the covenant of grace, be dedicated to any being less than God, would, the Socinians being judges, have been only^a change from one form of idolatry to another. But this was not the case. They were baptized not in the names, but in the one name of the Father, the Son, and 6 62 THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESU6 CHRIST. the Holy Ghost ; from which we infer that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the one God to whom we are to be devoted, and on whom all our Christian hopes are to be fixed. CHAPTER V. Of the Pre-eocistence and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ was truly and properly a man, and that the doctrine of \i\s proper humanity may be traced through all the New Testament, is undeniable. The So- cinians invariably take advantage of this truth, and argue from it that he is a mere man. This in a" controversy with Trinitarians is flatly begging the question, which is not. Is Jesus Christ a man ? but. Is he a man only ? That he is a man, we grant ; but we contend that he is also more than man : that he is the one eternal God. To separate the question of his proper divinity from the doctrine of his humanity, let it first be understood that, according to the uniform testimony of Scripture, he had an existence previous to his incarnation. Such a pre-existent state Mr. G. positively denies, and daringV asserts that "we nowhere meet with any express decla- ration of it." (Lect. vol. i, p. 455.) With what degree of truth this assertion is made, the following citations will sliow : — 1. " He was made flesh," John i, 14. "As the chil- dren are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself like- wise took part of the same." "For verily he took not on (him) the nature of angels ; but he took on (him) the seed of Ahraliam," Hob. ii, 14, 16. These expressions involve the idea that there was a pre-existent something which was made flesh, and which took part of human nature. 2. Jesus Christ says, that " he came down from hea- ven," that "became from above," John iii, 18, 31 ; "that he was come from God, and went to God," John xiii, 3 ; that lie " came forth from the Father, and came into the world, and would leave the world and go to the Father," John xvi, 28. He is therefore said to be not " of the earth, earthy," but " the Lord from heaven," 1 Cor. xv, 47. THE PRE-EXISVENCE OF JESUS CHRIST. 63 Mr. G., with all his efforts, has not been able to invali- date this evidence. (Vol. i, p. 342.) John the Baptist was a man "sent from God" to men, (as he observgg,) but he was not sent from heaven to earth. What Jesus Christ asserts of himself he denies of all others : " No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from hea- ven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." And John conceded to Jesus his exclusive claim : " He that Cometh from above (said he) is above all : he that is of the earth is earthly, and speakelh of the earth," John iii, 13, 31. The baptism of John is said to be from heaven, because he baptized by divine authority ; but it is no- where said that John came down from heaven. Again : the coming of Jesus Christ from heaven is compared with liis return thither. To this Mr. G. objects, " If our Sa- viour, by descending from heaven, literally meant a per- sonal descent, by ascending into heaven he meant a personal ascent ; and, by being in heaven, he meant a personal presence there, at the same time that he was talking with Nicodemus upon earth." (Vol. i, p. 343.) This argument, by which Mr. G., if he mean to prove any thing, endeavours to prove that our Lord contradicted himself, is the very argument by which one would prove the doctrine in question. The pre-existent and divine nature of Jesus Christ solves the difficulty which he has imagined, and unties the knot which he finds it more con- venient to cut. 3. When Jesus Christ came into the world, he came " voluntarily." " When he cometh into the world, he saith. Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. Lo, I come to do thy will, O God," Heb. X, 5-7. This proves that he existed before he came into the world, and before he took on him the body prepared for him, and that he took on him that body with his own previous consent. 4. Jesus Christ prayed, " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was," John xvii, 5. Here Mr. G. has two strings to his bow. (1.) He cites, by way of contrast, the following passages : — " The Lamb siain from the foun<3ation of the world." "Who hath saved us — according to his own purpose and grace which was given 64 THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST. US in Christ Jesus, before the world began." "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.'' (Vol. i, p. 345.) Now every one of these passages proves, indirectly, the pre-existence of Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ was, in the purpose of God, "slain from the foundation of the world," and yet came voluntarily into the world, to " do the will of God" by " offering his body once for all," Heb. x, 10, and therefore was not slain without his own consent, — he consented from the foundation of the world to be slain. If, before the world began, when we had no personal existence, we were chosen in Christ Jesus, and had grace given us in him, — he then existed in whom, as our representative and head, we were chosen, and in whom grace was given to us. But we will try again : (2.) "Whatever- be the glory of which Jesus speaks as applicable to himself, in the very same chapter he ascribes to his disciples." (Vol. i, p. 346.) Thus Jesus Christ is robbed of the peculiarity of his future, as well as of his past glory. But, first : It is not true that the apostles have now a glory equal to that of Him \vho has " a name that is above every name." Secondly : If they have it now, had they, like him, this glory with the Father " before the world was ?" How then did Jesus Christ give it to them before the world was, unless he then possessed it ? See John xvii, 24. 5. Jfjsus Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I am," John viii, 58. The force of this passage Mr. G. has completely evaded by attempting to show that, on similar occasions, our translators have affixed the pronoun ho, and to persuade us that there is the same reason for it here. But in tho present case the question which Jesus answered was precisely the question of his pre-existence. The Jews said unto him, " Thou art^not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraliam? Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." To render it, I am he, would only encumber the answer, while the difliculty is tiie same, and can only be solved by the supposition of his pre-existence. How could Jesus have seen Abraham, if Im were not contemporary with Abraham ? Why does he speak in the present tense of himself, and in the past of Abraham? And once more : if, when Jesus said, I am, he spoke of his predetermined THE PKE-EXIS|TENCE OF JESUS CHRIST. 65 existence, how could a mere predetermination of his ex- istence render him capable of seeing Abraham? 6. We cannot do justice to this subject withojit sub- joining the testimony of the Evangelist John. " In the be- ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God," John i, 12. Mr. G. has conceded that if we " under- stand by the term beginning" — "the beginning of the creation," this " accords with his interpretation of the Logos (the Word.") (Vol. i, pp. 195, 196.) Thus all is granted for which we contend : with this proviso, how- ever, that we do not say, In the beginning the word began, but " In the beginning was the Word." To prevent all mischief to the Proteus, Socinianism, Mr. G. has taken care to give a second interpretation to the term " begin- ning." He holds that he "may be allowed to understand by it the beginning of the new creation." But St. John does not allow it. He says that " he was in the begin- ning with God ;" — that " he was the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world :" — that " he was made flesh," and therefore existed before he was made flesh ; and that " he was before him" (John,) John i, 2, 9, 14, 15, 30, though born after him. Now all this is per- fectly inconsistent with the application of this expression to the new creation. The distinct question no^v^ to be answered is. Who, and what is he, who, independent of all humanity, existed before his incarnation ? The Scriptures expressly state that, in his pre-existent nature, he was " the Word of God," " the brightness of the glory of God, and the express image of his person." Under these high names and titles, which it is not neces- sary here to explain, he is represented as the Creator of the world. There is, it is acknowledged, a new creation, the regeneration of mankind ; of which, under the Chris- tian dispensation, he is the author. Mr. G. thinks that if we "keep this in view in those passages which refer creation to our Saviour, we shall find that a spiritual cre- ation is invariably meant." (Vol. i, p. 341.) We will make the experiment. 1. St. "John says, " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," John i, 14. Of this Word he says, 6* 66 THE DIVI>ITY or JF.SUS CUEIST. " All things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Again : " He was in the world, and the world [cyevsTo) was made by him, even the world which knew him not," John i, 3, 10. To surmount this difficulty, Mr. G. appeals to the "new ver- sion," in which the Socinians, to exemplify the versatility of their talents, and their expertness in the art of interpo- lation, render this same word, in tlie former passage, "done," and in the latter, " was," adding the word enlightened. We need not a better example of the manner in which they set aside the plainest declarations of Scripture, by foisting in any word which will answer their purpose ! A translation may be made which will admit such a Soci- nian interpolation ; but the original Greek, untranslated, absolutely forbids it. The verb to be, when, it means to exist, may be a translation of yivofiai. But yivofiai, like the English verb to exist, is not the auxiliary verb by which the passive verb is formed. According to the proper mean- ing of St. John's words, "All things were (existed) by him," and " the world was (existed) by him." 2. The apostle to the Hebrews speaks of him as " being the brightness of the glory (of God,) and the express image of his person," Heb, i, 3 ; and attributes to him the crea- tion. "By whom also he made tlie world," Heb. i, 2. — Will Mr. G. say that the Christian world is meant ? Let him read the following verses, " But unto the Son he sailh. Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the founda- tion of the earth ; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment ; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed," Heb. i, 2, 3, 8-12. Here are two plain proofs that the literal crea- tion is meant. (1.) The apostle decjares that the worlds which he created are " the earths'' and " the heavens." (2.) He declares that the worlds wliich he made shall "wax old," " be changed," and " perish." All this is perfectly true of the material worlds ; but the new creation abidetli for ever. 3. Let us hear the apostlie to the Colossians : " His dear Son. — 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 THE DIVITMTY OF JESUS CHRIST. 67 and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created by him, and for him : and he is before all things," Col. i^3-ll. Mr. G. says, " A thought has been suggested by the late Dr. W. Harris, that the word irporoTOKoc, by a change in the accent, is sometimes used by profane writers, not in a passive, but an active sense. Thus some would render it, not the first-born, but the beginner, or the first bringer- forth, the immediate cause of all things in the new crea- tion." (Vol. i, p. 340.) So Mr. G. has answered the argument which he has elsewhere (vol. i, p. 354) drawn from this word, " first-born." But why apply the words only to the new creation ? The apostle says, " All things were created by him." If we understand that passage literall)r, we have some idea of what is meant by " heaven and earth," and " all things that are in them." We can distinguish between things " visible and invisible ;" and can suppose that the rest of the apostle's expressions re- late to the heavenly hierarchies. But if all this be said of what Mr. G. calls " a spiritual creation," or of the re- generation of the Christian world, how are we to apply these terms ? Are we to understand by things in heaven and on earth, the spii'itualities, and the temporalities of the church ? Then he is the author of the good livings. Do the things visible find invisible mean the bodies and the souls of mankind ? Then, at least, mankind are not all matter: nor is this creation all "spiritual." But what arc the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers? Are they metropolitans, bishops, deans, and vicars ? Some such explanation will follow. But why then do the Uni- tarians set themselves as violently against the Episcopa- lian hierarchy, as against the divinity of Him from whom they suppose it to have originated ? The creation of the world by Jesus Christ, as it is an unanswerable proof of his pre-existence, is equally a de- monstration of his supreme godhead. The Socinian.^; themselves grant, that he is the "Author, and the Finisher of a new creation." But if, with the Apostle Peter, while we expect that the day of the Lord will come, in^the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat ; the earth also, and the works that are therein^ 68 THE DIVINITY OF JE3US CHRIST. shall be burned up— «we also, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, 2 Pet. iii, 10-13; il" we look for a new creation of our souls in the image of God, and of our bodies, which shall be fashioned like unto his glorious body ; we must allow that wisdom and power, no less than were employed in the old creation, will be necessary to realize our expectations. Whether, there- fore, he be the Author of the old or of the new creation ; or, as we believe, of both ; — " he that built all things," whether the edifice of the universe,, or that of the Chris- tian Church, — " is God," Heb. iii, 4. Taking Mr. G. for our guide to truth as far as he is willing to go, we shall now embrace the full advantage of his own important concession. In explaining St. John's doctrine on the incarnation of " the Word q( God," he says, " He (S-t. John) introduces the Messenger of the covenant, the Messiah, by saying that the perfections of Deity became flesh ; were imparted to a real man. To this man he proceeds to ascribe the possession of light, and life, and divine perfections." (Vol. i, p. 200.) " Great is truth, and will prevail?" To grant divine perfections to the Son of God, is to confess, in spite of Socinianism, his proper and supreme divinity. Before we argue this point, however, let us inquire. What are the divine perfections which " are ascribed" to him ? 1. Uiiheginning existence, or proper eternity. " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, out of thee shall He come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth (have been) from of old, from everlasting," jMic. v, 2. 2. Omnipresence. " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," Matt, xxviii, 20. " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in tiie midst of them," Matt, xviii, 20. " That Christ may dwell in your hearts," Eph. iii, 17. Mr. G. argues concerning tl»e devil, that if he is everywliere, at all times present with you, he is possessed of " tiie divine attribute of omnipresence." (Vol. i, p. 19.) The infer- ence is equally just, with respect to Jesus Christ. 3. Omniscience. " He know all; and needed not that any should testify of man : for he knew what was in man," John ii, 24, 25. " Lord, thou knowost all things." Min xxi, 17. Mr. G., when the devil is the subject of his THE DIVINtTV OF JESLS CHKIST. 69 argument, asks, " Does he not dive into your most secret thoughts? Has he not access to your hearts ? What is this but the divine attribute of omniscience ?" (^ol. i, p. 19.) 4. Omnipotence. " Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, ac- cording to the working whereby he is able even to sub- due all things unto himself," Phil, iii, 21. " Omnipo- tence (Mr. G. says) is a power of control over all other beings." (Vol. i,' p. 12.) 5. Immutability. " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever," Heb. xiii, 8. 6. All the divine perfections. " All things that the Father hath are mine," John xvi, 15. Such are the divine perfections which the sacred writers attribute to the Son of God. The Socinians suppose him to possess these divine perfections, without possessing the divine nature. It may serve an hypothesis for a theolo- gian to make a mental abstraction of the one from the other, and to imagine them disposable at his discretion ; but in so doing he ought to know that his imagination has created what has no real existence. 1. What idea have we of God, but of his perfections? The complex idea which we have of any being, is the ag. gregate of our ideas of its known qualities. What is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, and all-perfect being, but God ? Remove these attri- butes, and the word being, and the idea which it conveys, if any, is applicable to realities or nonentities, to any thing or nothing ; and depends entirely on the ideas we attach to it. Being without attributes, is nothing ; and wherever the attributes are, there the being is. God is his perfections; and his perfections are God. 2. If God be supposed to delegate his perfections to another being, what is supposed to become of his godhead? Is he any longer God, when he has so disposed of his eter- nity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, immuta- bility, and all his perfections ? Thus the Socinians rob the Father of his divinity! 3. If Q£>d give his perfections to another being ; then that being is God. As the Socinians suppose that the Father gave his perfections to the human nature of Jesus 70 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. Christ, they thus suppose the human nature converted into the divine ! Let them then take to themselves the absurdity which they falsely impute to us. 4. If the divine perfections can be divided between the Father and the Son, then they are divine perfections no longer ; because the line of division describes a bound- ary, and a boundary is inconsistent with infinitude. Then neither the Father, nor the Son is God ; for neither of them has infinite perfections. The Socinians thus rob both the Father and the Son ! 5. If they suppose that divine perfections are not diminished by division, and that the Father gives to the human nature of Jesus Christ his own perfections, and yet retains them ; then they make two Gods instead of one. 6. But tlie divine perfections cannot be possessed with- out the divine nature. To men, who are but finite beings, God can give a beginning, dependent, finite, and stable existence. He can make them knowing, wise, and pow- erful. But (with reverence) he cannot give to them his infinite perfections. Their minds are finite, and therefore incapable of infinitude. If Jesus Christ were a mere man, he could not possess the divine perfections, because as a mere man, he is a mere finite being. To possess the infinite perfections of Deity, he must possess bis infinite nature. Can a being who began to exist be without be- ginning? Can a being who is necessarily limited be omnipresent ? Can any thing less than an infinite mind know all things ? Can any but an " uncontrolled and all- controlling mind" be omnipotent ? Nor can any thing but an all-perfect mind be immutable.' In attributing divine perfections to the Son of God, the Socinians do, therefore, implicitly, if not explicitly, attribute to him proper divi- nity ; for there can be no divinity mipre proper than that which possesses divine perfections. 7. When the Socinians are not immediately engaged in impugning the divinity of Jesus Christ, they can per- ceive the truth of these observations. Thus Mr. G., after enumerating the supposed infinite attributes of tiie devil, says, " These attributes are all divine. And if there ac- tually be a being possessing these attributes, that being ought to be a Deity." (Vol. i, p. 20.) 8. The sacred writers, while thev attribute to the Son THE DIVInAtY of JESUS CHRIST. 71 of God the divine perfections, are consistent, and confirm our argument by attributing to him the divine nature, " For it pleased (the Father) that in him shorftd all fulness dwell," Col. i, 19. " For in him dvvelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily," Col. ii, 9 : (or, as Dr. Doddridge says, substantially : the word being used figu- ratively, and including all the Deity, as the word boddy im- plies the whole corporeal part of man.) To this Mr. G. objects: (1.) " It pleased the Father." (Vol. i, p. 344.) He does not speak out. Does he mean to object that the dwelling of the godhead in the human nature was dependent on tlie will of the Father ? We grant it. But this does not disprove the fact. (3.) He urges that " whatever this ful- ness means, it is evident that it was not peculiar to Christ, but might be possessed by the disciples of Jesus ; ' that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God?' " To this we answer that the fulness of the Deity does dwell in Christ, in a manner peculiar to him. First, the Scriptures every- where make an important distinction, the purport of which is, that the Deity dwells primarily in Christ, but only in a secondary sense in us : i. e., that whereas God dwells immediately in him, he dwells in us mediately, through Christ, and by virtue of our union with Christ. Thus we are made " a habitation of God, through the Spirit," by being " built on Jesus Christ, the chief corner stone," Eph. ii, 20, 22. We are " tilled e(f, into* all the fulness of God," when " Christ dwells in our hearts by faith," Eph. iii, 17, 19. We are but the members of his mysti* cal body, the church, of which he is the head. " Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular," 1 Cor. xiii, 27. But God hath given him (to be) the head over all (things) to the church, which is his body, (who is) the fulness of him that fiUeth all in all," Eph. i, 22, 23. As the spirit of man is supposed to be immediately united with the head, the Deity is immediately united with him. He is, in his human nature, "the head," who is, in his divine nature, at the same time, " the fulness of him that ♦ The Greek reads, EIS -irav to TrXtipuiia rov Beov : into all the ful- ness ol' God. So the Socinians have rendered it in the margin of their " improved version." The allusion may possibly be to a vessel plunged into the ocean, and which is at once filled and im- mersed : it is fiiled into the fulness of the sea. 72 THE DIVINITY OF JKSUS CHRIST. fiUeth all in all." As the spirit of man dwells mediately and in a secondary sense in the members, which are thereby vivified and actuated, by virtue of their union with the head in which it primarily and immediately dwells; so "of his fulness have we all received, and grace for grace," John i, 16. Secondly, The fulness of the godhead dwells in him. " That in all things he might have the pre-eminence, it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." So says Mr. G., as well as St. Paul. " In Jesus Christ," says the former, " bodily, as a man, the fulness of Deity did reside. He possessed the Spirit without measure." (Vol. i, p. 344.) (It is true, he endeavours to contradict this position, by calling the fulness of the Deity "full and complete divine powers." Such is tlie effect of Socinian bondage ! Bxit the confes- sion was extorted by the se'erity of truth.) We, on the other hand, only participate (so to speak) the divine ful- ness, as it pleases Jesus Christ to impart it. " Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ," Eph. iv, 7. " In him dwelt all the fulness of the godhead substantially." We are " filled with him :" " filled," according to our capacity, not with, but tig, " into all the fulness of God."* 9. In connection with this doctrine of the plenitude of the godhead in Christ, we are now to consider their union with each other. " I and the Father," said Jesus Christ, " are one," John x, 30. This union of the Father and the Son, Mr. G. affects to place on a level with " the oneness of Christ and the apostles." (Vol. i, p, 329.) The sacred writers will settle this point. " The head of every man is Christ ; and the head of the woman is the man ; and the head of Christ is God," 1 Cor. xi, 3. By one figure : viz., the relation of the human head to the human body, three subjects are here illustrated : ♦ Mr. G. has a note on 2 Pet. i. 1, " That by these ye mitrht be partakers of the divine nature." With Mr. BeLsham, he thinks that '• this exprci^sion is stronger than any which are u.sed of Chri.st, and which, if it had been applied to him, would have l>een held forth as an irrefragable proof of his proper deiiy." (Vol. i, p. 418.) We ask their pardon. Such an expression would have proved liie con- trary'. St. Peter's words assert only that Christ inns partake the di- vine nature. If Jesus Christ merely partook the divine nature, " the fulness of the godhead" would not then " dwell in him bodily." THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 73 (L) In matrimomal union " the man is the head of the woman." (2.) In the mystical body of Christ, of which every beUever is a member, "Jesus Christ is the head." Tlie head of every man is Christ. (3.) There is an in- etiable union between God and his Christ : " his Son Jesus whom he has anointed with the Holy Ghost above liis fel- lows." In this union, '• tlie head of Christ is God :" the human nature is subordinate, the divine nature is supreme. The union of man with his wife, and that of Christ with his church, are compared with each other. " The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church," Eph. v, 23. Mr. G. may say that the one is an explanation of the other. (Vol. i, p. 328.) Be it so. The explanation does not reduce them to a level. The man and his wife " are one flesh ;" but '• he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit," 1 Cor. vi, 17. In like manner, the union of God with his Christ, and that of Christ with his church, are compared : — " that they also may be one in us : that they may be one even as we are one." This Mr. G. calls an " explanation." But, as in the former case, though the union of the members of Christ with each other and with him is explained by the union of Christ with God, the explanation does not reduce the things compared to a level with each other. No man could ever produce such proofs of his intimate union with Christ, as Christ produced of his intimate union with God. " If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also : and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me ? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father ? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself : but the Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works," John xiv, 5-10. We cannot repre- sent the union of the body and mind of man, by stronger terms than these. Mr. G.'s objections (vol. i, p. 337) are aimed against a dift'erent application of this passage. The reader must be cautious, however, not to mistake the present application of it. It is designed to show, not that the divine and the human nature are one nature, but that 7 74 THE DIVIMTY OK JESUS CHRIST, the divine perfections manifested in Christ proved hi* union, not merely with the abstract divine perfections, bu^ with the divine nature. And this hist is what, in referring: to the proots of his oneness with God, Jesus Christ ha:^ taught us to infer. "If I do not the works of my Father^ beUeve me not" when I say " I and the Father are one ;" " but if I do, though ye beheve not me, beheve the works ; (in which omnipotence is exerted ;) that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him," John X, 37, 38. 10. As the Scriptures attribute to the Son of God the fulness of the Deity, and an intimate union with the god- head ; so Ihey ascribe to his pre-existent nature an equal- ity with God. " Who, being in the form of God, tliought it not robbery to be equal with God," Phil, ii, 6. (1.) Our first business here is with the meaning of the terms. Mr. G. says the word " equal," being used ad- verbially, should have been translated " like." (Vol. i, p, 333.) Waiving the want of precision in this statement- the word " like" is either an adjective or an adverb. Mr. G. shuffles it in as an adverb, and yet uses it adjectively. Why then does he prefer an improper to a proper transla- tion ? For the sake of ambiguity. The word like may imply either equality or similarity. He adopts it under the pretence of its being synonymous with equal, and then takes advantage of its ambiguity. We, therefore, retain the word " equal," lor the sake of the genuine sense of the apostle. Mr. G. next observes that the passage should be rendered, " he did not esteem it a prey or plunder, the circumstance of being like (equal with) God !" (Vol. i, p. 333.) Permit, then, the word ])lunder to be substituted for the word robbery ; the words still mean that the circumstance of equality with God was properly his own. Conscious that nothing is yet gained, Mr. G. now practises the art of interpolation. " Who, being in the form of God, did not esteem the circumstance of his being like (eq)Md with) God, a prey for his own private gratification." This is genuine Socinianism ! After all, however, he grants that Jesus Christ was etpial with God, (or like (Jod, if that word conveys the same meaning;) although, according to him, the Saviour of men did not turn that circumstance to his own private account. THE DIVINIf Y OF JESUS CHRIST. 75 (2.) To make a way for these criticisms, Mr. G. has con- trasted with this apostohc declaration those passages which set tbrth the inferiority and subordination of the SonjU) the Father. As he has in his supplements to No. VI. and No. VII. several passages of similar import, which he has often repeated, and all of which are levelled at this equality, we will here give to them all a general answer. When St. Paul speaks of " Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," he speaks distinctly of his pre-existent nature; for he proceeds to say that he (subsequently) " made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men," Phil, ii, 7. If, after his being made in the likeness of men, we find him in a state very different from that wliicli preceded, we no longer wonder. To the human nature which he tlms took upon him, we do not, like our opponents, ascribe those divine perfections which w'e attribute to his pre-exist- ent nature. His human nature had a beginning, and there- fore was not " from everlasting." It was not independ- ent, but dependent, and therefore " lived by the Father," died, and was raised again by the Father. This nature therefore prayed, and gave thanks to the Father. It was not omnipresent, and therefore could be " exalted to God's right hand." It was not omniscient, and therefore *' increased in wisdom," and " knew not that day and that hour." It was not omnipotent, and therefore it could, of itself, "do nothing;" for all the power it had was " given by the Father." It was not immutable, and there- fore died, revived, and was exalted. But all this does not hinder that these perfections, which Mr. G. absurdly attributes to his human nature, should still be attributed to his pre-existent and divine nature. In his state of humiliation, he who was before in the form of God, and counted it not robbery to be equal with God, was now in the form of a servant, and in the likeness of men. This assumed nature stood in a subordinate and inferior relation. Hence he spoke of God as his God and his Father, and of himself as the Servant and Son, and acknow!edo;ed " the Father is greater than I ;" for the divine nature is superior to the human. Hence lie spoke of himself as sent by the Father, taught by the Father, 76 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. commantlcd by the Father, obeying the Father, not ho- nouring himself, but the Father, having a kingdom ap- pointed by the Father, and being glorified by the Father. This inferior and subordinate nature must finally " give up to the Father the kingdom" which he has received from him, "that God may be all in all." Hut all this does not prove that his pre-existent nature was not in the form of God, and equal with God ; or that it ever will be inferior or subordinate.* As Jesus Christ possesses the divine nature, and the divine perfections, he is frequently denominated God. 1. We have already seen that the pre-existent nature of Christ is what is called the Word. St. John says, " In the beginning was the Word, and the VVord was with God, and the Word was God," John, i, 1. This passage, ^r. G. observes, " was written in opposition to the Gnostic doc- trine of aeons, of the separate existences of wisdom, and life, and light ; and to maintain that they were all one and the same being, all God himself." (Vol. i, p. 200.) In his comment, therefore, he has these words : " And the Word was no other than God himself." (Vol. i, p. 197.) This word, then, which he here says ''was no other than God himself," " was made flesh, and dwelt among us ; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.''' Where then is Mr. G.'s modesty, when be asserts " that even John does not tell us plainly and positively that there were two natures in Jesus Christ, a divine and a human?" (Vol. i, p. 433.) 2. Hence, after his incarnation, he was called " Ema- nuel ; which, being interpreted, is, Goil with us," Matt, i, 23, i. e., " no other than God himself," dwelling among us in human flesli. ' * Mr. G. nlijocts to the divinity of our Lord, that " Jesus Christ must be dependent upon God, and inferior to him, because he de- clares thai he had not llie disposal of the highest places in his own kingdom," Matt, xx, '23. (Vol. i, p. 355.) Some men would have felt a little uneasy in urging an objection which contradicts itself, bv supposing a sovereign not to be supreirie " in hisown king- dom." If Mr. G. feels any thing of this, he may soon be relieved by being inliirmed that the words, " it shall be given to them," are siipplicd by the translators, and that (he meaning of the pa.^sage is, " to sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give, ex- cept to them for whom it is ]>repared of my Father." TUE DIvAlTY OF JESUS CHRIST. 77 S. Tliomas, therefore, might well exclaim to him, " My Lord, and my God," John xx, 28. If the word incar- nate " was no other than God himself" in humam flesh, this exclamation was the result of conviction. But Mr. G. dexterously divides the exclamation into two, the first part addressed to Jesus, " O my Master ! or, O my Lord !" (vol. i, p. 204 ;) the second, (in which, to assist the read- er's imagination, he supposes Thomas to lift up his hands,) addressed to the Father, " O my God !" He then admires his own ingenuity. But if this had been the meaning of the evangelist, he must have said, '• And Thomas answer- ed and said unto him. My Lord ! and he said unto the Father, My God!" But, unhappily for the honour of So- cinianism, St. John distinctly states that the whole excla- mation was addressed to Jesus : " And Thomas answered, and said unto him, My Lord, and my God !" 4. Nor could Thomas be blamable in using a term which God himself has used. " But unto the Son, (he saith,) Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," Hebrews i, 8. The first difficulty which Mr. G. imagines, in this passage, is, that we suppose " Jehovah to be addressing Jehovah." It is just as easy as for God to say, " Let us make man." The second is, that the Son is here compared with his *' fellows," viz., mankind. We grant that he who is here called God is also the " fellow" of men. But Jeliovah calls him also a man who is his ''fellow." — " Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man (that is) my fellow," Zech. xiii, 7. To help us over these difficulties, Mr. G. proposes a new translation. We are always on our guard against Socinian translations ; but quote them for their absurdities. He would translate it " God is thy throne." (Vol. i, p. 210.) In another place Mr. G. has quoted these words, " him that sat on the throne," as descriptive of " God with a peculiarly high title or epithet." (Vol. i, p. 276.) He had then forgotten that " the Lamb is in the midst of the throne," Rev. vii, 17. Here he is absurd enough to suppose that God is \he throne in the midst of which he sits. But he that sits upon the throne is greater than the throne. So rather than #ie Son shall be called God, he shall be even greater than God. After all this, Mr. G. objects, " It is only a quotation, and is uttered of Solomon," (vol. i, p. 210,) in 78 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. answer to which the author of the epistle, who understood the matter better than Mr. G., says that they are the words of God, addressed " to the Son." 5. It is therefore a scriptural truth, that, when " the Word of God," who, according to Mr. G., is " no other than God himself," " was made flesh," " God was mani- fest in the flesh," 1 Tim. iii, 16. The learned are not agreed whether the genuine reading of this passage be Of, or Of, who or God. As Mr. G. appeals to the ** Ec- lectic reviewers, who admit that Ococ, God, is not the genuine reading," (vol. i, p. 217,) it will not be improper on this occasion to submit the subject to their authority. " We confess," say they, " that our judgment is in favour of Of, ivho. But Ave object strongly to the rendering in the improved version, (which Mr. G. follows,) ' He who was manifested in the flesh, was justified by the Spirit,' &c." The editors have followed Archbishop Newconie, in supposing that og may be put elliptically for ovror of. This supposition, we apprehend, is quite unauthorized and erroneous. Till some better support is adduced for this assumed ellipsis, we must reject it as false Greek. In the place before us, of is undoubtedly a relative; and its na- tural and proper antecedent has been pointed out by the learned Professor Cramer, distinguished thus : — lyrif eariv eKK?i7)aia 0EOY fwvrof {arvXog Kat edpaiu/xa r?/f a?.Ti'&£cac, kcu ofioTioyovfievuc fieya, eari to rrig evaeiieiag fivbTTjpiov) of e^avepw^J??, K. r. A. '• Which is the church of the living God, (the pillar and support of the truth, and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness,) irho was manifested," &c. {Ed. Rev., vol. V, part i, p. 248.) Leaving out the parenthesis, we have the proposition, " God, who was ma- nifest in the flesh." " But do you mesin that the invisible God was actually visible to mortal eyes ?" No : we do not mean that he was manifested to bodily eyes, but that the divine nature was manifested to the mental eyes of those who knew Jesus Ciirist aright. He that thus " saw the Son, saw the Father also," even as Moses " saw him that is invisi- ble ;" for " the Father was in him, and he was in the Father." " " O," says Mr. G., " then I flrmly believe the passage. I believe that God was manifest in the fleshr in the man Jesus Christ." (Vol, i» p. 216.) 'I THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHHIST 79 -nou immemor artis, Omnia trauslbrniat sese in miracula rerum. 6. Our Saviour is repeatedly called God. For exam- ple : " The doctrine of God our Saviour," Tit. ii, 10. Again : " The kindness of God our Saviour," who is immediately denominated "Jesus Christ our Saviour," Tit. iii, 4, 6. Let it be observed, once for all, that " nei- ther is there salvation in any other" than " Jesus Christ of Nazareth ;" " for there is none other name under hea- ven, given among men whereby we must be saved," Acts iv, 10, 12, 13. Again : SiKaLoawri TOT 0eou j//zwv nai (ju-r)po( Tjfiuv, irjaov Xptarov ; "the righteousness of our God and Saviour, (viz.,) Jesus Christ," 2 Peter i, 1. As this construction will frequently fall in our way, it must be here considered. (1.) When two persons are intended, the demonstrative article is repeated. Thus : Kara TOY Kvptov, Kat Kara TOT Xpiarov avrov ; " against the Lord, and against his Christ," Acts iv, 26. O Oeog Kai TO apviov ; " God and the Lamb," Rev. xxi, 22. E/c tov dpovov TOY deov, Kat TOY apviov ; " from the throne of God, and of the Lamb," Rev. xxii, 1. (2.) When the demonstrative article is not repeated, one person only is intended. Thus: — Ba(n?.eiai' TOT Kvpiov rjy.uv /cat auTT/poc, iTjaov XpioTov ; " the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," 2 Pet. i, 11. Ti^uoei TOY Kvpiov tjfiuv Kat auTrjpor, hjaov XptoTov ; " the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ;" 2 Pet. iii, 18. TO 6e Qeu Kat Trarpt }]iiuv ; " to God and our Father," Phil, iv, 20. TB Oew Kat i^arpt ; " to God, even the Father," 1 Cor. xv, 24. Mr. Words- worth avers, " I have observed more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form O Xptarog Kat 6eoc, (Eph. V, 5,) some hundreds of instances of o fieyac Oeog Kat cuTTjp, (Tit. ii, 13,) and not fewer than several thousands of the form o deog Kai auTjjp, (2 Pet. i, 1.) While in no single case have I seen, where the sense could be deter- mined, any one of them used, but only of one person." {Middleton on the Greek Article.) Thus, as in the pas- sage under consideration, the article is not repeated, only one person is spoken of : " our God" and " our Saviour" is one pferson, viz., "Jesus Christ." For the same rea- son in Eph. V, 5, the original affords another proof of the divinity of Christ. The words are ev ttj Baai2.£ia 80 THE DlVINItY OF JESUS CHRIST. TOY :Kfjia-ov nai Oeov, in the kingdom of the Christ and God. But Mr. G. repeatedly objects that " Jesus Christ was once charged with making himself God, when he positively denied tlie charge." (Vol. i, p. 2-20.) The fact is this : Jesus Christ had spoken of God as his Father, implying that he was the Son of God. By this expression the Jews understood him as making himself a divine person, i. e., God ; and were about to stone him. Now Jesus did not deny that his expression implied that he is God ; which, as he never gave unnecessary offence, he un- doubtedly would have done, if truth had permitted it. But he vindicated what he had said by an argnmcntiim ad homines, and by an appeal to the works of the Father which were done by himself: and deduced the inference that the Father is in him, and he in the Father — i. e., that they were intimately one. See John x, 30-38.* When angels or men are called gods, the appellation is used with such qualifying circumstances as sufficiently indicate a subordinate sense. To the angels it is said. "Worship him," (viz., the Son of God,) '* all ye gods," Psa. xcvii, 7. " God standeth in the congregation of the mighty ; he judgeth among the gods. — I have said, ye are gods ; but ye shall die like men," Psa. Ixxxii, 1, &c. " I have made thee a god to Pharaoh," Exod. vii, 1. Now if it can be made to appear that the pre-existent nature of Christ is called God under similar qualifying circumstances, we will give up the doctrine of his divi- nity. But this is impossible. Who can more i)roperly be God, or be called God, than he who has all the divine perfections and the divine nature '? Under such circum- stances, when Jesus Christ is denominated God, it is not necessary to seek such palliatives as are called for when the same appellation is given to angels or to men. But to ♦ Mr. G. says Jesus Christ expressly denies that lie was God when he exclaims, " Why callest ihou rae gooin There is none good but one, that is God," Mntt. xix, 17. (Vol. i, p. 350.) This passaare is cited rcpeate to be the first to perceive and acknowledge it. 96 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. properly, but figuratively. But when a writer attributes to body only the properties of body, and to spirit only the properties of spirit ; and wlien he speaks of qualities, not as of real beings, but as of qualities, and of real beinirs, as of real beings — then he speaks, not figuratively, but properly. The supposition that the Holy Spirit is, by the sacred writers, improperly personified, if it have any foundation in truth, must be grounded on the impossibility of his being a proper person, or of his possessing any personal qualities. If mere abstract wisdom, power, or goodness be personified, we see immediately that the writer is speaking figuratively ; because these attributes have no real existence but in the spirits in which they inhere. But when we find a spirit personified — that very- kind of real being in which alone these personal qualities can inhere, we are sure that the words of the writer are not figurative, but that they are used with the utmost propriety. Now such by name, as well as by nature, is the Holy Spirit : who, therefore, of all other beings, is most properly spoken of as a person. To puzzle the reader after the Socinian manner, Mr. G. has told him that the " primary signification of Tiny/a,. which is commonly translated spirit, is the breath of the mouth." (Vol. i, p. 150.) The reader must be told, also, that it is the only word which the sacred writers of the New Testament use, and, in fact, the only term whicli the language afibrded them, by which to convey the idea of immaterial substance. IINEYMA aapna km oaea ovk ex^i '. «' A spirit hath not flesh and bones," Luke xxiv, 39. But does iMr. G. mean to insinuate that breatii is its proper signification when it is applied to the Deity ? Rather than relinquish a favourite error, while he is per- petually declaiming against the literal interpretation of scriptural figures, will he be guilty of a most gross and palpable absurdity, that of literally applying to God, who is a spirit, one of the meanest properties of an animal body ? Has God a mouth ? And does he actually breathe from it? God is Tnn/zo, a spirit. Is God then a breath ? Must not brtiath, if attributed to God, be attributed to him figuratively ? Andif figuratively, what is the meaning of tho word ? Can it be any thing corporeal .' Or is it not rather THE PERSON ALttTY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 97 properly translated spirit ? What then is the Holy Spirit, but a spirit ? Is not God properly a spirit ? What then is the Spirit of God but a spirit 1 If the Holy Spirit be nei- ther spirit nor matter, it is nothing. If the Spirit of God be not a spirit, there is no spirit in the universe. But if the Spirit of God be a spirit, what is the reason to be assigned for the supposition that personality is figu- ratively ascribed to him ? What can be properly a person, if a spirit be not ? This is not the way, however, in which the Socinians reason. They have adopted an idea of the nature of spirit altogether different from that which is suggestsd by the Scriptures. Mr. G. says, " From this very name (Spirit) I should draw precisely the opposite inference, that because it is a spirit, it is not a substance or person." (Vol. i, p. 125.) If in this confession he have not evinced much understanding, he has given a strong proof of his candour. It is at least an honest confession, and may serve as a beacon to " warn off" the unwary reader from the rocks of atheism. Mr. G. ac- knowledges that " God is a spirit." This is a branch of his natural religion. But " because it (he) is a spirit, it (he) is not a substance or person." Now, to say nothing of the crudities of Mr. G.'s philosophical notions of spirit, who could demonstrate more effectually than he has done, that Socinianism, deism, and atheism are nearly allied? God either is a person, or he is not. If he be not a per- son, he is not an intelligent and voluntary agent ; that is, there is no God. If he be a person, and spirit have no personality, no intellect, or will, then God is not spirit but matter. As the essential property of matter is ex- tension, and extension necessarily implies limits, matter cannot be infinite. A material God cannot be an infinite God; and a finite God is no God at all. Again: all attributes or accidents must have a substance in which to inhere. If " God is a spirit," and spirit is not a substance, then God is not a substance. If God be not a substance, he can have no accidents or attributes. God therefore is neither substance nor accident ; he has neither being nor attributes, i. e., he is nothing. If the " unskilful" will not take iJie alarm when Mr. G.'s trumpet gives no " un- certain sound," their case is hopeless. We appeal from the speculative atheism of Mr. G. to the better understand. 9 98 THE PERSONALITY OF THK HOLY SPIRIT. ing of plain, unlettered men, who read their Bibles. Let the absurdity, not to say blasphemy, into which his " precisely opposite inference" would lead us, serve, as the best argu- ment that could be produced, to convince us that a spirit is a substance and a person. So far from it being true that the Spirit of God is a mere attribute of spirit, that the proper attributes of spirit are ascribed to him. Goodness is an attribute of spirit, and is ascribed to him. " Thou art my God — thy Spirit is good," Psa. cxliii, 10. Hence that holiness which be- longs only to intelligent and voluntary agents is made pecu- liarly characteristic of him, and is not so often attributed to any other being : he is called emphatically the Holy Spirit. Mr. G. supposes the Spirit of God to be the mere power of God. But power and energy are attributed to the Spirit of God. St. Paul speaks of " the power of the Spirit of God," Rom. xv, 19. Now either the apostle means to speak of the power of a power, the attribute of an attribute, which is an absurdity ; or he must mean to attribute these personal qualities to the Spirit as to a spirit, a substance, and a real person. To pursue this subject farther. If the Holy Spirit be a spirit, how can it be a mere energy which has no person, ality? Our ideas of a person are those of an intelligent and voluntary agent ; and such are the ideas which the Scriptures give us of the Spirit of God. 1. He is an intelligent agent. " The things which God hath prepared for them that love him," says St. Paul, " he hath revealed unto us by his Spirit ; for the Spirit search- eth all tilings, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knowoth the things of a man, save the spirit of man M'hicli is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God," 1 Cor. ii, 9-11. Here we have a plain and unequivocal declaration that " the Spirit of God scarcheth and knoweth all things, even the deep things of God." How then will Mr. (i. get over it ? No- thing is more easy. He will raise a dust, and escape in the cloud. Let us hear liim, and examine his comment at full length. "Here are," says he, " the following posi- tive as'sertions, that the knowledge they (tbe apostles) possessed was revealed to them by the S|)irit of God him- self, (aucrv, himself!) or by divine inspiration." Very THE PERSONALiItY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 99 true ! " That there was nothing too great to be thus made known to them, even the deep counsels of the Almighty." Not so. This " assestion" is not St. Paul's, but MrrG.'s. St. Paul asserts that " the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God :" and Mr. G., to get red of this troublesome " assertion," substitutes one of his own which is not true. Infinite things are " too great" to be made fully known to finite minds. " The love of Christ," with the good leave of the Socinians, " passeth knowledge ;" even the knowledge of those who " are strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man," Eph. iii, 10, 19. " And then," Mr. G. adds, '■ as if for fear he should not be un- derstood, the apostle explains what he meant by the Spirit of God, by saying, it was exactly the same in God, as the spirit of a man is in a human being." That is, if Mr. G. please, as there is an intelligent spirit in man which knows the things of a man ; so the Spirit of God is an intelligent spirit which knoweth the things of God. Q. E. D. Thus has Mr. G. led us, undesignedly and unexpectedly, to the very conclusion which we wished. Fas est, et ah hoste doceri. 2. The Holy Spirit is a voluntary agent : he has a will. " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost," say the apostles, " and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things," &C., Acts xv, 28. Again : " He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spi- rit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to (the will of) God," Rom. viii, 27. But Mr. G. is dis- posed to controvert the meaning of this last passage, and to deny that it is of the Spirit of God the apostle is speak- ing. We will examine his paraphrase. " Our spiritual de- sires," says he, " come in aid of our bodily weakness." So our " not knowing what we should pray for as we ought," is a bodily weakness, and not a mental " infirmity." All the absurdity of this comment is only that of substituting body for spirit ; an easy thing with one who knows no difier- ence ! We proceed : — '• For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but our inward spiritual desires intercede for us, though we cannot express them in appro- priate lan^age." So, after all, this " bodily weakness" is only the want of grammatical knowledge ! Our poor weak bodies are not masters of rhetoric : we cannot ex- 100 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. press ourselves properly ! Nay, that is not the entire sum of our bodily weakness. Our bodies " know not what we should pray for as we ought." They are ignorant bodies ! Hence "our inward spiritual desires intercede for us." Our spirit takes pity on the weakness of our body ; and since the latter cannot know, desire, and ask, as the So- cinians think it ought, the former undertakes its cause, and performs these necessary duties much to the advantage of its dull companion. " And then," says Mr. G., " He that searcheth the heart knoweth the desires of our spirit, that, agreeably to the will of God, it pleadeth in behalf of the holy." (Vol. i, p. 122.) That is, we do not know what we ought to ask, but our spirit, which, though it was but this moment our very selves, is now another thing, knows all about it, hits upon " the will of God" exactly ; and by its " desires," the only language it can on such an occa- sion use, pleads successfully the cause of the holy ; that is, of our holy body ! The palpable contradictions and gross absurdities of this comment sufficiently separate it from the text. This is another glaring instance of the arbitrary and irrational manner in which Socinians explain the Scriptures. If, after this strong opiate, we can recover the use of our reason, let us examine the text itself. " We know not what we should pray for as we ought." It is but just now we have seen that the spirit of man is that in man which knoweth the things of a man. But this spirit in man knoweth not, of itself, what we ought to pray for. If it knew independently what to pray for as we ought, its own unaided desires would be according to the will of God. This ignorance is, therefore, our in- firmity. But " the Spirit helpeth our infirmities." If the Spirit helpeth our infirmities, and out infirmities are those of ignorance, wiiich is an infirmity of our spirit ; it cannot be our own spirit that helpeth itself. The apostle's words are not Trrev/tn tjuuv, our spirit ; but to wev^a, the Spirit. The question then is. What spirit is that by wiiich we are thus assisted ? (1.) We know of no spirit by which we can be thus * helped," but the Spirit of Him " that searclieth the heart?," who alone can perfectly know what we want, and what we may have, and who can " make intercession for the saints according to the will of THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 101 God." (2.) To suppose any other spirit which maketh intercession for the saints, is to vindicate the idolatries against which we have all protested. (3.) The ajJDstle is speaking of those " who have the first fruits of the Spirit, (viz., of the Spirit of God,) and who groan within them- selves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of their body." (4.) This is what the apostles teach as be- ing at once the privilege and the duty of all Christians — " praying in the Holy Ghost," Jude 20. St. Paul, speaking of the " diversity of spiritual gifts," says, " All these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will," 1 Cor. xii, 11. To evade the force of this clear and positive declaration, Mr. G. compares it with the following passage : " Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness." " Here," says he, " sin is a person, and the personal pronoun whom apphed to it. And not only has it will, but also keeps servants and pays wages" (Vol. i, p. 130.) Who does not see that, at this rate, the proper personality of God and man may easily be disproved? Sin, we know, is only an ab- stract quality. When, therefore, it is personified, we know that a figure is used, because properties and actions are ascribed to it which do not belong to it. To prove that volition is improperly ascribed to the Spirit of God on the same ground, it is therefore necessary, first, to prove that the Holy Spirit also is a mere abstract quality, and that there is a glaring absurdity in ascribing to it volition. But this Mr. G. has not even attempted to prove. And no wonder : for to attempt to prove that volition is impro- perly attributed to a spirit, is equivalent to an attempt to prove that volition is improperly attributed to man, to angels, and to God. To what has been advanced in proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, it is unnecessary to subjoin those proofs, the validity of which must depend on that of those which precede. The Scriptures attribute to the Holy Spirit the personal affections of grief and vexation ; the personal faculties ol^ hearing and speech, — and the personal offices of a teacher, a guide, a monitor, a Avitness, an ambassa- dor, and. a comforter. In attempting to set aside these 9* 102 THE PEK30NALITV OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. scriptural proofs of the doctrine in question, Mr. G., on one occasion, shows that simihir affections are attributed l<> other beings "vvhich are really persons ; and thus, while he denies that those affections prove that distinct personality which we have not yet examined, he grants that personality for which we now contend. (Vol. i, p. 130.) Thus, of one class of those proofs, he has left us the entire possession. To the rest he answers by showing that the personal facul- ties and offices of which we speak are often attributed to other beings, and even to things inanimate. (Vol. i, pp. 127, 128, 131.) His argument is not drawn out at length, lest it should break. The drift of it we suppose to be this : the personal faculties and offices are, by a figure, attributed to beings which manifestly have no personality, and there- fore they are figuratively attributed to the Spirit of God. But here, again, his proof is at once confused and defec- tive. Sense and speech are properly ascribed only to animated bodies. To inanimate bodies, or to incorporeal spirits, they can only be ascribed by a figure. Again : to inanimate matter, or irrational animals, because of their ■want of reason, which is necessary to the proper perform- ance of the functions of a moral teacher, a spiritual guide, &c., those offices can only be ascribed figuratively. But to spirits, which are naturally endowed with intellect and volition, whether tliosc spirits be corporeal or incorporeal, such functions are ascribed with the utmost propriety ; be- cause they, and only they, are capable of the performance of them. Mr. G. cannot, therefore, fairly take from us the proof arising from hence, without proving that the Holy Spirit is not a spirit, and that he is incapal)le of un- derstanding and will. Nor can we, on the other hand, sup- port those proofs against his objections, without a reference to the spirituality of the Spirit of Gpd, and to that Spirit's understanding and will. On the latter, therefore, the per- sonality of the Holy Spirit does and must depend. Rut when that si)irituality is once proved, our possession of all the proofs arising from the personal offices ascribed by tlie sacred writers to the Holy Spirit is confirmed. It is now time to pay some attention to the objections which Mr. G. has raised to this doctrine. 1. "The neuter pronoun, it, is in no other instance, in the Scriptures, ever applied to a person." THK PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 103 Gender is only properly attributed to animal bodies ; but God is of no gender, and therefore the sacred writers were left at liberty to speak grammatically, and^to put their articles and pronouns in the same gender with the nouns with which they should agree. To -deiov, the word used in Acts xvii, 29, and translated the godhead, is neuter, and has a neuter article. The word ■Kvev^a is of the neuter gender, and therefore requires that the article which is prefixed to it, and the pronoun to which it is the antecedent, should be put in the neuter gender. Had the evangelists and apostles written in Latin they would have used the masculine noun, spiritus, and, according to the above rule of grammar, their pronouns had then been put in the masculine gender. But when a word is used which is not of the neuter gender, the masculine article and the masculine pronoun are used with it. TzapaKlnfoc, he, the Comforter, is in the masculine gender. In this case, therefore, our Lord uses the masculine pronoun : — " If I go, I will send avrov, him ;" — "and when skelvo^, he, is come," John xvi, 7, 8. But this is not all. Even when the noun ■Kvevua is used, and the construction of the sentence is such that the rules of grammar do not require the pronoun to be put in the neuter gender, it is put in the masculine. Thus : " But when EKeivoc, he, to nvevfia, the Spirit is come," John xvi, 13. Again : ekelvoc, "■ He shall glorify me," John xvi, 14. Here again Mr. G. has led us to a strong argument in favour of the pei-sonality of the Holy Spirit ; for what reason can be assigned for the use of masculine pronouns which have a neuter antecedent, or precede a neuter noun, but the proper personality of the Spirit? When, on the other hand, Jesus Christ, who is unquestionably a person, is spoken of, either the mas- culine or the neuter article is used, as the noun may re- quire. 6e Kvpioq TO Tvfi'/za, says St. Paul : "The Lord is the Spirit." Here, that the articles may each agree with the noun to which it is prefixed, both the masculine and neuter articles are used. If what Mr. G. says be true, he will now " start with astonishment" to find that both the Lord and the Spirit are at once masculine and neuter ;^nd that, according to his mode of reasoning, they both are at once persons and " things, without life or sense !" 104 THE PERSONALITY OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 2. "Notwithstanding the promises of our Saviour to send a Comforter, and the personal offices he ascribed to it, no such person ever appeared to the apostles, nor do they appear to have expected it." (Vol. i, pp. 155, 156.) Mr. G.'s head is running on a corporeal appearance, rather than on a purely spiritual being. That no such appearance was expected or seen by the apostles, is granted. Mr. G. says he has heard of the apostles " re- ceiving the Holy Spirit ;" but it appears that, with him, an animated body is necessary to constitute a person ! Such are the distinctions, and such the arguments, on which Socinianism is founded ! 3. " In the epistles of the New Testament," Mr. G. says, " there are at the beginning and elsewhere wishes of peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, but none from the Spirit distinctly." (Vol. i, p. 156.) The reader will learn from the drift of this argument, that if the sacred writers liad wished peace " from the Spirit distinctly," Mr. G. would grant, not only that the Holy Spirit is a person, but that he is a third person in the divine nature. Now let us try whether his heart will bow to the word of truth. " John to the seven churches in Asia : Grace be unto you, and peace, from Him wliicli is, and which was, and which is to come ; and from the seven spirits which are i)efore his throne, viz., the seven Spirits of God, (chap, iii, 1,*) and from Jesus Christ," Rev. i, 14. Mr. G. must now be converted. 4. " St. Paul wishes to tlie Corinthians the communion, fellowship, or participation of the Holy Spirit, which can with no propriety be spoken of a person." (Vol. i, p. 157.) So Mr. G. may suppose when he has first formed the most confused ideas of the Spirit of God. and has ima- gined, as we have just seen, that a body is necessary to constitute a person. But let us for a moment consider the subject. In his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle wishes n Knivuma t« aym rrvn'/iaror, " tiie fellow- ship of the Holy Spirit, to be with all of them." Now, very providentially, the same apostle, addressing his first epistle to the same church, says also, "God is faithful, bv whom ye are called itc Koivuviav m vm avrn, to the tel- ♦ The number seven is used in the Apocalypse as a number indicatin!? perfection. THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 105 lowship of his Son," 1 Cor. i, 9. St. Peter says, " You might be ^eiac koivuvoi (pvaecj^, partakers of the divine nature," 2 Pet. i, 4. And once more : " We arermade fxEToxoi Tov Xpt^ov, partakers of Christ," Heb. iii, 14. Mr. G. must have formed some erroneous idea of the subject, for the Father and the Son are undoubtedly persons ; and it appears from St. Peter and St. Paul that we may have the same communion, fellowship, or participation of the divine nature and of Christ. Let him, therefore, trans- late the words as he pleases, he cannot consistently object to the personality of the Holy Spirit, without objecting also to the personality of " the divine nature" and of Jesus (Christ. 5. Mr. G. has found in the Scriptures certain expres- sions applied to the Father and the Son, which are not, in his opinion, used concerning the Holy Spirit. From hence he infers that personality cannot be attributed to the latter as to the former. His argument may be set aside by observing that, if there be any distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, some things may well be attributed to one and not to another of them. The suppposed fact, on which this argument is founded, may be set aside by comparing other passages of Scripture witii those which Mr. G. has quoted. For instance : with respect to the Father and the Son, Mr. G. quotes the fol- lowing : — " Now God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you," 1 Thess. iii, 11. " 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 work ; 2 Thess. ii, 16. " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ," 1 Tim. i, 1. On the other hand, the sacred writers used similar, though not the same expressions con- cerning the Holy Spirit. For instance : " He shall lead you into all truth." " Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness," Matt, iv, 1. "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near and join thyself to this chariot," Acts viii, 29. "Tlhey assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not," Acts xvi, 7. " The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost," John xiv, 26. '• And walking in the 106 THE PERSONALITV OF THE HOLY SPIEIT. fear of God, and in the comfort (or consolation) of the Holy Ghost," Acts ix, 31. " That ye may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Ghost," Rom. xv, 13. " To be strengthened with might by his Spirit," Eph. iii, 16. "The Holy Ghost said. Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them," Acts xiii, 2. Thus we find that what Mr. G. thinks to be ascribed exclusively to the Father and the Son, is equally ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 6. " If the Holy Spirit be a distinct person in the god- head, then he was the parent of Jesus Christ." (Vol. i, p. 160.) To this we answer : It was not the divine, but the human nature of Jesus Christ, which was conceived of the virgin ; and, for obvious reasons, it is enough to say, that that was not produced by the Holy Spirit as a father, but without a father. It was a creation. All the absurdities, therefore, which Mr. G. has imagined to follow, fall to the ground. It appears, however, that the accounts which St. Luke and St. Matthew give of the miraculous concep- tion, when they can be converted into a battery against the doctrine of the trinity, are not spurious ! AVhen the miraculous conception is to be disproved, tiie Socinians cannot allow them to be genuine. 7. Mr. G. 's argument, in page 155. is not levelled against the doctrine of this chapter. His objections, numbered 5, 6, 7, and 8, may be put together as speci- mens of the depth of his metaphysical reasonings. " The Holy Spirit is said to be given by measure ; to be poured out ; the disciples are said to be filled and baptized with it ; it is said to be quenched ; and in several instances it is said to be divided. How do these sayings agree with the idea of his personality ?" (Vol. i^'pp. 166, 168.) Tills is a literary curiosity ! How is it that Mr. G., who is perpetually dreaming about metaphors, can see none here ? And why, when he was determined to inter- pret all these scri|)tural expressions literally, did he not seize the long-sought opportunity to prove tliat the Spirit is not spirit, but matter? What but mattt-r, which is an extended substance, can be measured, divided, poured out ? Wliat but fire, wliicli is matter, can be extinguished? And wherewith can any man, except a Socinian, (see p. THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 107 34,) be washed, but with water, which is another species of matter ? And, lastly, what is spirit but breath or wind, that is, air, which is also material .' Thus the dememstra- tion is complete, and the favourite system of materialism is triumphant. But a man, who is compos mentis, will at once see that all these are figurative expressions, by which the properties of matter are predicated of spirit : and, therefore, that every argument founded upon the literal in- terpretation of them must fall to the ground. Unless Mr. G. seriously intend to deny all spirituality to the Spirit, he will find that his objection is levelled against his own as much as at the common hypothesis. He thinks it " per- fectly rational to suppose that divine powers were divided, measured, and poured out, or that persons were baptized with them, or quenched them." Now let Mr. G. be asked. What is the cubic measure of the divine power ? Into how many parts is it divisible ? What quantity of it will fill a man of ordinary stature ? After a division of it into many parts, do those parts attract each other again, or does division annihilate some of them ? How is it used when Socinians baptize with it, instead of ordinary water ? What becomes of it when it is quenched? "O," says Mr. G., " these are all figurative expressions." The answer is satisfactory. But it is equally so as a reply to his objections to the personality of the Holy Spirit. 8. Mr. G.'s next objection is founded on the supposed ignorance of the Holy Spirit. Because our Lord has said, " No one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son," Mr. G. infers that the Holy Spirit knew neither the Father nor the Son, without a special revelation. From hence he argues that " the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be a person in the god- head distinct from the Father." (Vol. i, p. 169.) This argument is founded on a gross mistake. For, as we have already seen, " the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." What is here said of the Father and the Son, is therefore asserted also of the Holy Ghost. " No one, ovdtic, knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit^f God, and he to whom the Spirit of God shall reveal them." Will Mr. G. now draw the same inference concerning the Father and the Son ? 108 THE DIVIMITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 9. Lastly : " The expressions of the Holy Spirit being given by the Father, and sent by Jesus Christ, are in- compatible with the idea of its being a person." (Vol. i, p. 165.) What an argument ! So the Son of God was not a person, because, forsooth, " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son," John iii, 16 ; and be- cause the Father "sent him into the world." But Mr. G. has an answer ready. We are informed that Jesus Christ " came voluntarily." So then the Son of God was a person, had a will, before he came into the world, and came voluntarily ! Thus does a Socinian establish at one time, what at another he pulls down. But if it had not been expressly said that Jesus Christ came voluntarily into the world, Mr. G. would have denied him the honour of personality. And yet every person of us came into the world involuntarily. II. Having found the Holy Spirit to be, not a mere energy, an abstract attribute, but a substance, a real being, and a person, we now inquire whether he be a crea- ture or God. If the Holy Spirit be, as we have shown, a spirit, he must be either created of uncreated. It is not consistent with Mr. G.'s hypothesis to assert that he is created ; nor could such an assertion fmd any support from the autho- rity of Scripture. But if he be not a creature, and yet be a real being, he must be God. The Holy Spirit is frequently denominated the Spirit of God. If then, as our Lord has asserted, and Mr. G. has repeatedly granted, " God be a spirit," the Spirit of God is God. There is no way of evajjing this conclusion but by supposing that God is one spirit which is himself, and has another which is the Spirit of God. But by this supposition we run into two absurdities : viz., first, that there are two divine Spirits, and therefore two Ciods ; and, secondly, that these two Spirits are one Spirit, and these two Gods one God. Doctor Lardner, whom Mr. G. has thought proper to cite, " thinks that in many places the Spirit, or the Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost, is equivalent to God himself." N ith thee is the fountain of life ; and in thy light shall we see THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 117 light," Psa. xxxvi, 9. " If he gather unto himself his Spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust," Job xxxiv, 14, 15. 3. Let us next examine the analogy of being, its image and its operation. God is being itself: " I AM" is his name. Of that being the Father is the unknown, invisible essence. " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, which is in tlie bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Of that unknown Being the Son is the visible image. " Who is the image of the invisible God," Col. i, 15 ; " the x^^P^-x^^vp n^r vTvo^-aoEuc character of his substance," Heb. i, 3. The Holy Spirit is that Being operating on all created beings. " There are diversities of operations ; but it is the same God which worketh all in all." " All these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit," 1 Cor. xii, 6-11. The Father is God hidden from us ; the Son is God revealed to us; the Holy Spirit is God working in us. 4. There is also an allusion to mind, discourse, and breath or wisdom. Mr. G. says, " Our most sublime conception of God is as the all-pervading Mind." (Vol. i, p. 13.) This Mind has its Xoyoc, word, discourse, or reason : " His word is called o loyo^, the Word of God," Rev. xix, 13 ; John i, 1. As the word, or discourse of man, is conceived by his mind — is originally in his mind — is an image of his mind — when uttered, displays his mind — and his mind is displayed only by tiiat dis- course — so the Word of God is conceived by the Father — is originally in the Father — is an image of the Father ; in coming forth from the Father, displays the Father — and the Father is displayed only by him. Again : discourse is both internal and external. It is ratio vel oratio : rea- son or speech. Considered in the first point of view, wisdom is the support of reason, and the Holy Spirit is the wisdom of God. " Therefore also said the wisdom of God, &c.," Luke xi, 49. Considered in the latter point of view^ breath is the support of speech : and the Son spake by the Holy Spirit or breath. " Through the Holy Ghost he gave commandments unto the apostles," Acts i, 2. Hence when the Father, whom no man hath known, sent the Word to declare him, he sent upon him, for that purpose, the Spirit without measure. 118 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 5. The last analogy which we shall examine, and that which is most generally referred to in Scripture, is that of the Father, the Son, and one who, sent by the Father and the Son is, on account of the offices which he sus- tains, called the Comforter. The allusions by which this distinction is made are very obvious. We have a sufficiently clear idea of the relation of a son to a father. We equally understand what it is for one to be sent by a second, in the name of a third, to execute the purposes of both. Such are the mission, and the circum- stances of the mission, of the Holy Spirit. Let any one read without prejudice the following pas- sages, and make up his mind as to the nature ot' the dis- tinction which is there made between the three. '• I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter." " But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, cKeivoc, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatso- ever I have said unto you." "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, eKELvoc, he shall testify of me." " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when EKEivor, he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak ; and lie shall show you things to come. Ekeivoc he shall glorify me ; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." Every one who reads tliese verses will acknowledge that the distinction here made is the distinction of three persons. Mr. G. himself has granted' it. While he »mi. formly acknowledges a personal distinction between the Father and the Son, of the Spirit he even says, '• It wotdd have been next to an impossibility not to have repeatedly personified this divine influence." (Vol. i, p. 173.) Tliis is all that at present we ask. It is enougli tiiat the Soci- nians themselves authorize us thus to denominate the ideas which, by these forms of speech, are conveyed. Let it then be clearly understood that precisely in this sense we make use of the word person and its derivatives; viz., to Hx an idea which, in the use of the same terms, equally strikes the mind of a Socinian and of a Christian THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 119 believer. This idea is one of those analogies by which the sacred writers set forth the distinction which exists between the three. Now since the sacred writers have, in every case, taught us how to view this subject by analogy, we have no proper and precise ideas of it. We have no criterion to which to bring any one of these similitudes but by comparing one with another. To oppose one to another of them, (the common practice,) is not the way to receive instruction ; because they all stand upon the same authority, and no- thing but partiality to one's own opinion can assign a reason why this rather than that shall be relinquished. The only plan that can be vindicated is to assign to each of them its proper department, to compare them together for the correction of each other, and to adopt a system v/hich comprehends them all. In attempting to lay down such a plan, it must be ob- served that of the five analogies which have been exa- mined, every one gives us some idea of the doctrine of the trinity ; but one part of that doctrine is more perfectly taught by one of them, and another part by another. 1. Some of them more perfectly elucidate the unity of the three. That unity would never be inferred from the analogy of Father, Son, and Comforter. The idea which we have of three persons, is that of three distinct beings. But matter, form, and motion include only one being. The ideas of fire, light, and vital influence, imply no more than one sun. 2. Some of them show, much better than the rest, that the distinction is essential, necessary, and eternal. Mat- ter may possibly be without motion ; but light and heat are essential to the sun, which cannot be supposed for a mo- ment to exist as the sun without them : and energy is inseparable from a living, spiritual, and perfect being. There is not a perfect agreement between human paternity and filiation, and the doctrine of God and his eternal Word. Tlie generation of Him " whose goings forth have been from o(,old, from everlasting," Micah v, 2, is not, like human generation, a process which has a beginning. It is not the generation of an infant, which must be nourished that it may grow up to manhood ; but of one who is " the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." It is not the 120 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TKINITY. generation of one being by another being ; for *' the Word was God." It is not the generation of one who may again be annihilated ; for " the Son abidcth for ever." In all these points the analogy is lost. But here the Scriptures atiord us another source of ideas : an analogy which takes up the subject where the preceding seems only to contra- diet what tlie Scriptures have clearly revealed. When the ideas of a Fatlier and his Son no longer serve, the ideas of a Being, and his image conceived by himself, are to be substituted. Here then we have a new order of ideas. We lay aside the relation of paternity and filiation, and consider God as an eternal, ever perfect Mind, always capable of knowing himself; always actually knowing himself; always conceiving an image of himself ; to whom it is never possible that he should be without an image of himself, conceived by himself; whose image of himself, so conceived, must be always perfect as himself, because he always perfectly knows himself and contemplates him- self with a capacity to comprehend all hia own perfection ; who, because he is perfect, must perfectly conceive his own image; whose image can never vanish, because he cannot forget himself, and because he must love that image which, like himself", is perfect ; and lastly, who can, by that image of himself, which he has conceived, discover himself to any intelligent being, in proportion to the capa- city of the recipient. It is equally obvious that an all- perfect and eternal Mind can never have existed without its ?uyog reason or discourse, and the wisdom by which that reason is sustained. These comparisons illustrate the essential necessity of the distinctions of the trinity. 3. The nature of the distinction, utider the Christian economy, is best illustrated by the personal distinction of Father, Son, and Comforter. In prosecuting the allusion to human |taternity and filiation, the sacred writers have taken a scope that could not li^ive been allowed by any other of those coin|)arisons which, on other occasions, they have so much improved. As a son is begotten of his father, the Son of God is called " the only-begotten Son." John ill, 1(), «S:c. As a father conveys to his son perfect humanity, '' it |)Ieased the Father that in him (his dear Son) should all fiilness dwell ;" even "all the fiilness of the godhead," Col. i, 19 ; ii, 9. As a son has all the THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 121 members, senses, and faculties, which his lather has, " All that the Father hath (said the Son) is mine," John xvi, 15. Even Mr. G. ascribes to him the " divine perfections." (Vol. i, p. 200.) As a father loveth his son, so the Father says, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight," Matt, xvii, 5. As a father intrusts his affairs with his confiden- tial son, and makes him the heir of his property, so " the Father loveth the Son, — hath given all things into his hand," John iii, 35 ; " and hath appointed him heir of all things," Heb. i, 2. And lastly. As a son obeys, serves, and honours his father, so the Son of God obeys, serves, and honours the Father. How little of this could with pro- priety be said under any otiier of those heads of distinction by which the sacred writers have on other occasions illus- trated the subject. In like manner, no other than the per- sonal distinction could have warranted the Holy Spirit's being spoken of as " searching all things, even the deep things of God," as " knowing the things of God," as '' hearing what he should speak," as " taking of the things of the Son, and showing them to us," as instructing, wit- nessing, admonishing, reproving, comforting, wilUng, call- ing men to the ministry, commanding, and interceding. And farther : we could not speak with apparent propriety, of the form praying the essence to send the motion : of a vital influence showing to mankind the things of the light which is returned to the sun : of an image which is re- sorbed by its original, and an energy which is come to supply its place : or of a word, which knows, and loves, and obeys the mind from which it proceeds, which is re- turned to the bosom from whence it came, and which has left its breath behind to execute its commands, and to com- fort mankind during its absence. These scriptural dis- tinctions, it is evident, are, in such cases, of no use ; and to apply them to such doctrines of Scripture, would only be to give to truth the colour of absurdity. The personal dis- tinction is, in such cases, absolutely necessary. And this distinction, the most perfect we have found, applied, as the sacred writers have applied it, makes all these truths plain, natural, and easy. On the whole, we have learned, 1. That the trinitarian distinction is revealed, and consequently can be known only by analogy ; and therefore, as being revealed only by 11 122 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. imperfect shadows, is still a mystery. 2. That,without comprehending the exact truth, we cannot judge of the analogy between that truth and any other mean of eluci- dation ; and therefore it is presumptuous to attempt to ex- plain that distinction in any other way than that in which it is explained by divine revelation. 3. That, since the divine Author of the Christian revelation best knows in what degree, and under what form, we are capable of re- ceiving the truth, and which of all possible views of that truth arc likely to be most udvantageous to us, it becomes us to adopt such opinions, and to hold such language, as the Scriptures have suggested. Or, in the more appro- priate expressions of St. Paul, we should speak of the things of God, " not in words which man's wisdom teach- eth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." 4. That the Scriptures teach the doctrine of the trinity, not only when they make a personal distinction between the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, but also when they make a distinction which is not personal. 5. That our best con- ceptions of the subject are very imperfect, and therefore, unless we adopt all those modes of elucidations which are used by the sacred writers, we cannot, in the explanation of the Scriptures, avoid falling into many absurdities. 6. That none of those allusions, by which the Scriptures illustrate the trinity, should be pursued beyond the line of analogy. 7. That when we perceive ourselves to be led, by the abuse of scriptural terms, into any absurdity, or into any doctrine contrary to the plain letter of Scripture, we ought to remember that we have another order of scriptural ideas, which should serve as a clew to guide us out of the labyrinth. 8. That Christianity requires every one of its disciples, whether he embrace or reject the terms which are in common use, to maintain the doctrine of a trinity in unity ; to place it on its proper basis, divine revelation ; and to impute whatever of difficulty or appa- rent contradiction he meets, not to the unreasonableness of the doctrine, but to the imperfections of his own con- ceptioTis. •Si quid novisti reclius istis, Candidus imperti ; bi non, his utere mecum ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITV. 123^ CHAPTER Vlir. Of the Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Since the preceding pages were written, and some of them were already printed, Mr. G. has published his 9th, 10th, and 11th lectures, in which he has adopted the opi- nion that the doctrine of the trinity is the result of a gra- dual corruption of the doctrine of the gospel. Having zealously endeavoured, through one whole volume of lec- tures, to expunge from the Scriptures all the prominent evidence of what he denominates " the principal doctrines of Christianity," on the supposition that he has perfectly succeeded, he proceeds to maintain this opinion by mul- tiplied references to the fathers of the primitive church. If they who profess to maintain the doctrines which he has impugned, are prepared to surrender to him the well fortified citadel of Scripture, they must either grant to him the victory, or meet him to finish the contest in the ex- tensive fields of ecclesiastical history. While the reader hesitates, and hopes to find some alter- native, Mr. G. peremptorily summons him to surrender. "Look, my trinitarian friend, at the ground on which you stand at the year sixty-six. The apostles, you say, enter- tained the same views of Christianity as yourself. Well ; for thirty-three years they travel into different parts of the world for the sole purpose of making converts to the Christian religion ; the whole of that time is exclusively occupied in this important work ; and multitudes actually become their disciples. An account of their transactions^ is given by one of their own body ; but he totally omits to state that this doctrine of a trinity was one of the doctrines which they taught. Farther : in the course of these thirty- three years, the men thus employed publish twenty -two other works; yet, strange as it may appear, in none of these works is any one of these peculiar phrases to be found, trinity;"trinity in unity, three persons in one God, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." (Vol. ii, p. 8.) If the reader be a genuine " trinitarian friend," and have the heart of a Christian soldier, he will not be alarm- ed by the lofty tone which Mr. G. has assumed. He will 124 ORIGIX OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT. perceive that to give some degree of plausibility to the supposition that the doctrines in question have no support from Scripture, this Socinian herald has adopted the con- trivance of his predecessors, by substituting the pecuhar phrases of human invention for the doctrines taught by divine revelation. Without any implied censure on those who deem it their duty to vindicate the phrases to which Mr. G. has object, ed, and who think themselves adequate to the task, through- out the whole of this discussion no vindication of any set of phrases, except those of Scripture, has been attempted. Lest the truth of God should be exposed to contempt by be- ing identified with the inventions of men, it has been de- signed to extract from the Scriptures the genuine Christian doctrine, as much as may be, in the language of the sacred writers : to " speak of spiritual things in spiritual words," and to leave the judicious reader at liberty to make choice of what he deems the most appropriate terms. The con- test is not on our part about words, but things. When, therefore, Mr. G. speaks of " this phraseology," as be- ing thought " so essential to salvation," whom does his arguing reprove ? (Vol. ii, p. 9.) When he triumph- antly asks, " Should one of your missionaries, whether to the east or the west, preach one single year, make one single convert, publish one single book upon the doctrines he was sent to teach, and not once mention his import- ant subject, (in the phraseology so strongly objected to.) how would you think he had executed his commission ?" (vol. ii, p. 8,) we are under no dithculty ; for we readily and sincerely answer that we should not, on this ac- count, as Mr. G. supposes, '' designate him a faithless servant, who had neglected his duty, and had conceal. ed the word of God." *»The phraseology" of the schools is not the word of God, but the word of man. And if he " had not siumniHi to declare all the counsel of CJod," but had " fully preached" the v unadulterated" gospel : if he had been succcssfid in making converts (not So- cinian converts, converts to a mere opinion, but) such as St. Paul was sent to make: if he had "turned men from darkness to liglit, and trom the power of Satan to God, that they might receive remission of sins, and an inheritance among all them that are sanctified through ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 125 faith in Christ Jesus;" we should approve his labours and rejoice in his success.* The Socinians themselves use many phrases which are not strictly scriptural : but they are not to be " made offenders for a word." If, in the language of Scripture, they can vindicate their metaphysical explanation of that truth, " there is one God," they are perfectly at liberty to use the phrase, " the unity of God." If they can thus prove that Jesus Christ is no other than a man, they will not be forbidden to insert in their creed the words " sim- ple humanity." And if they can demonstrate, from the same source, that the Holy Spirit is only the abstract power of God, we will hold no contest with them on ac- count of their denominating him " the divine energy," or " an attribute of God." We will leave the " strife of words" to those who admire and love it. What is there then unreasonable in our conduct if, while we believe the doctrine of the preceding chapters to be the doctrine of the Bible, we find it convenient to avoid circumlocution, by expressing our opinion in such terms as, we are aware, are not used by the sacred writers ? Having thus replied to the insidious insinuation of Mr. G.'s summons, we now declare more directly that no force which he has at his command shall cause us to sur- render the strong fortress of Scripture authority. Let him ** walk about our Zion, and go around about her ;" let him ** tell her towers, mark well her bulwarks, and consider her palaces." Having, in the four preceding chapters, stated our opi- nion of the doctrines under discussion, and having cxhi- * " I dare not," says the Rev. John Wesley, " insisf upon any one's using the word trinity or person. I use them mj self without any scruple, because I know of none better. But if any man has any scruple concerning them, who shall constrain fiim to use theml I cannot ; much less would I burn a man alive, and that with moist, green wood, for saying, ' Though I believe tiie Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet I scruple using the words triajty and persons, because I do not find those terms in the Bible.' " — {Sermons, vol. ii, p. 21.) The Rev. John Fletcher says, in like manner, " If by renouncing that comprehensive word (trinity) we could remove the prejudices of deists against the truth contencled for, we would give it up, and always say, The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is what we mean by the trinity." — {,Rat. Vin. of the Cath. Faith.) 11* 126 ORIGI.\ OF THE DOCTRIXK or THE TKIMTY. bitcd and established what we deem the most direct and positive proofs that that opinion is scriptural, we are now to show that those doctrines, so far from being, as Mr. Ci. holds, the invention of latter ages, have been gradually discovered from the dawn of divine revelation to the pcr- fec-t day. This argument does not rest on any single text, but on the general tenor of Scripture. " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," Gen. i, 1. "The original word D'hSn, Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of h'^•, el, or nS»v, eloah." {Dr. A. Clarke, in loc.) And therefore indicates to a Hebrew reader a plurality. " And God said. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," Gen. i, 36. The use of the plural pronouns in this passage is a confirmation of the inference deduced from the preceding ; and the pronouns, being personal, convey the idea of personality as well as of plurality. It does not appear that any created beings were em- ployed in the creation of man ; but it is unequivocally declared that £/o7w/n, "God created man in his (own) image," Gen. i, 27. When man was fallen from his original rectitude, " the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us," Gen. iii, 22. This distributive manner of speaking indi- cates that the distinction already made is not merely ver- bal, but real. When the Lord God cursed the author of the sin of our first parents, and promised them deliverance, he pro- mised that deliverance by one who should be their seed. " I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and be- tween thy seed and her seed : he shetll bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel," Gen. iii, 15. Of the fulfilment of this great promise, God gave fre- quent pledges, by the appearance of a divine person to the patriarchs, and to the Jewish cliiofs. This person at first appeared under the human form ; but before his depar- ture, his divinity was generally known and acknowledged by those to whom he appeared, and witii wiiom he con- versed. By being denotninated the Word, or the Angel of Jehovah, or the Captain of Jehovah's host, the distinc- tion already discovered is exhibited ; but by being also stvled Jehovah, his divinity is maintained. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 127 " The Word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram : I am thy shield, and thy ex- ceeding great reward." This Word of the Lord, Abram addressed as Jehovah : " And Abram said, Jehovah, God," &c., Gen. xv, 1, 2. Compare also verses 4, 7, 8, 18. " Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. As Abraham sat in the tent door in the heat of the day, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him," Gen. xviii, 1, 2. One of these is called Jehovah : " And Jehovah said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh ?" Of these men two proceeded toward Sodom. Compare Gen. xviii, 22 ; xix, 1. But the one who was called Je- hovah remained and communed with Abraham. Of him it is related : " And Jehovah said. Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do ?" Gen. xviii, 17. " And Jehovah said. Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great," &c., verse 20 ; see also verses 22, 26, author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who, however, cites the words of this psalm as the words of God to the Son. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 131 The Messiah was now known as the Son of G#d, and his name was deemed a mystery. If the " Angel Jeho- vah" said to Jacob, " Wherefore dost thou ask after my name ?" and to Manoah, " Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret" (or wonderful ?) Agur, per- haps with equal reference to the mystery of the incarna- tion, asks " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or de- scended ? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists ? Who hath bound the waters in a garment ? Who hath esta- blished all the ends of the earth ? What is his name and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell ?" Prov. xxx, 4. Both are equally mysterious. Isaiah, so often and so justly styled the evangelical prophet, in prospect of the coming of the Messiah, breaks out, " 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 Father of the everlasting age. The Prince of peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his king- dom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever ! the zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this," Isa. ix, 6, 7. Having spoken thus of the humiliation and exaltation, the hu- manity and the divinity of the Messiah, he returns to the same subject in diiferent language : " There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots, and the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him," Isa. xi, 1, 2. "And in that day," says he, " there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people ; to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious," Isa. xi, 10. " In that day thou shalt say. Behold God is my salvation, I will trust (in such a Saviour) and not be afraid; for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song ; he also is become my salva- tion," Isa. xii, 2. " It was impossible for a spiritual Jew to read this description of the Messiah's peaceful king, dom, wi_JJiout seeing that this root of Jesse, this Holy One of Israel, so great in the midst of Zion, was the same wonderful person whom the prophet had just before called the Son given, and the mighty God ;" (Fletcher's Rat. Vin. ;) that he was that Jehovah who should become their Saviour. 132 ORIGIN OK THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. The same prophet, introducing the harbinger of the Messiah, exclaims, " 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. And the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together," Isa. xl, 3, 5. Again : " O Zion, that bringest good tidings, say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God. Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him : behold his reward is with him, and his work be- fore him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd," Isa. xl, 9-11. Who this shepherd is the Jews, without the New Testament, could understand. The Prophel Ezekiel would inform them, " 1 will set one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd," Ezck. xxxiv. Jeremiah is the author of that direct testimony to the divinity of the Messiah : " Behold the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely : and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our right- eousness," Jer. xxiii, 5. 6. (See p. 91.) Zechariah, speaking prophetically of the Messiah as the Shepherd of Israel, says, " Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts," Zech. xiii, 7. Such are the testimonies which the writers of the Old Testament aflbrd of the person and character of the Mes- siah. If we inquire what they taught concerning the Holy Spirit, we shall find the outlines of the doctrine which we have already derived from the New Testament. That in the Old Testament there is frequent notice of the Holy Spirit, is too obvious to need any proof. As he is there denominated the Spirit of God. an enlightened Jew could entertain no doubt of his proper divinity. Mr. G. has granted that it is as obvious that the Spirit of God is God, as that the spirit of man is man. (See Led. vol. i, p. 123.) The Old Testament is not, however, without farther proof of this. " The hand of the Lord God fell 'there upon me — and he (the Lord God) put forth the form ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 133 of a hand, and took me by a lock of mine head, and the Spirit lift me up between the earth and the heaven," Ezek. viii, 13. Here the same Being who is denominated the Lord God is also denominated the Spirit. Thus in Judg. XV, 14, it is expressly said, "The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him" (Samson.) Yet when the Spirit de- parted from him, it is said, " He wist not that the Lord was departed from him," ver. 16, 20. The Spirit of Jehovah and Jehovah are, therefore, one and the same Being. To the Spirit of God, the writers of the Old Testa- ment, tlierefore, attribute the divine perfections of omni- presence, omniscience, and omnipotence. (See pp. 110, 111, 112.) Hence even the Old Testament introduces the Spirit of God as one of the Elohim to whom creation is ascribed. " And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," Gen. i, 2. " By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens," Job xx, 30. " The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life," Job XXX, 4. " Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created : and thou renewest the face of the earth," Psa. civ, 30. We have now the true explanation of the Elohim, who in the beginning made the heavens and the earth. " By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth," Psa. xxxiii, 6. This great subject is still farther illustrated in the pur- posed work of redemption, as in the following passages : " Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called : I am he ; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens : when I call unto them they stand up together. And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me," Isa. xlviii, 12-16. The Jewish reader Avould perceive, not only the divine character of the speaker, bwt his mission by God and by his Spirit. In this passage the distinction is, like what we have found in the New Testament, a personal distinction. One person is the speaker, two others have sent him. Again : " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, (the Messiah, the anointed,) 12 134 OKIGIN OF TIIE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. because the Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek," &c., Isa. Ixi, 1. Once more: " Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read — tor my mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered ihem," Isa. xxxiv, 16. " In these words (says Mr. Jones) there is one person speaking of the spirit of another person." Such are some of the many passages contained in the Okl Testament, by which the doctrines under discussion have been gradually discovered. It is true the Socinians have much to object ; and in the course of this develope- ment we have taken but httle notice of them. And it is equally true that we also have much to say in contirma- tion of our own comments on these passages. Much useful light might have been cast on the subject of this chapter bv comparing the Old Testament with the New. But such a measure, whatever good purpose it might have answered, would have been a deviation from our present design. The preceding quotations have i)een made by way of appeal to the candour of the unprejudiced reader, in proof that the doctrine, though not the phrase of tlie tri- nity, originated with Moses and the prophets, and that the very doctrine of the preceding chapters is nearly, if not fullv maintained by a dispensation preceding the Christian. The qivestion now to be examined is, not what will a pre- judiced Socinian object to the language of the Old Testn- mcnt, or how will an enlightened Christian comment upon it ; but what was the light in which this part of divine revelation would strike a studious and unjirejudiccd .lew? "The Hebrew doctors supposed the tirst verse of Ge- nesis to contain some latent mystery. 'I'lie Rabbi Ibba indeed expressly says it docs, and ivdds, This mystery is not to be revealed till the coming of the Messiah." (Simpson on the Drily of Jesus, p. 35v5.) " An eminent Jewish rabbi, Simeon ben Joachi, in his comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these re- markable words : ' Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim : there are three degrees, and each degree by itself -alone, and vet notwithstanding they art; all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other.' " (Dr. A. C'htrkc, in loc.) "The Jewish rabbi, Liniborch, tells us that in the word Elohim there are three degrees, each distinct by itself, yet ORIGIN or THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 135 all one, joined in one, and not divided from one another." {^Leslie's Short Method with the Deists.) " R. Bechai, a celebrated author among the Jews, dis- coursing of the word Elohim, has these words: 'Accord- ing to the cabalistical way, this name Elohim is two words, namely. El him, that is, they are God. But the explanation of the Jod is to be fetched from Eccles. xii, 1. Remember thy Creators. He that is prudent will under- stand it. ' " [Kidder^s Demonstration of the Messiah, part iii, page 81.) " The author of Midras Tillim, on Exodus xx, 5, says, * I am the Lord, thy God, a jealous God.' Three answering to the three by whom the world was made." (Ibid. p. 84.) The Chaldee paraphrase does undoubtedly represent the sense of the Jews in general, as it is their public interpre- tation of Scripture. What we lind common and frequent in it we must suppose to be the general opinion of that people. " Now it is certain that this paraphrast doth often use memra, the Word of God, for Jehovah, God him- self, and that especially with relation to the creation of the world. As Isa. xlv, 12, ' I made the eartli,' the Chaldee translateth, ' I by my Word made the earth.' And Genesis i, 27, we read, ' Et creavit Deus hominem.' And God created man; * the Jerusalem Targum, Verhum Domini creavit hominem.'' The Word of God created man. ^ And most clearly. Gen. iii, 8 : Audierunt vocem Domini Dei ;' they heard the voice of the Lord God ; ' the Chaldee paraphrase, Et audierunt vocem Yerhi Domini Dei ;' and they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God." {Pearson on the Creed, p. 117.) On the celebrated prophecy of Isaiah, chap, ix, 6, uni- versally applied to the Messiah, the Chaldee paraphrase says, " His name shall be called God, a man enduring to eternity, Christ." The Syriac says, " His name is called Admiration, and Counsellor, the most mighty God of ages." The Arabic : '• His name shall be called the strong God." {Simpson on the Deity of Jesus, p. 96.) In the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, this passage is evident- ly mutilated. There the Messiah is abridged of all his high titles, and is simply called, " HAeyahig iSovh/g ayyeXoc : the angel of the great counsel." This is a comment father than a translation. There are, however, several 186 ORIGIN OF THE nOCTRINE OF THE TRIJflTT. reasons for supposing that the Seventy originally translated this verse. " Eusebius (D. E. p. 336) gives the Greek version uncorrupted, ' Wonderful Counsellor, mighty God.' " {Simpson on the Deity of Jesus, p. 98.) The Jews attribute also the name Jehovah to the Mes- siah. " In the Sepher Ikkarim, 1. ii, c. 8 : ' The Scrip- ture calleth the name of the Messias, Jehovah our right- eousness.' And Midras Tillim, on Psalm xxi : 'God calleth the Messias by his own name, and his name is Je- hovah ;' as is said Exod. xv, 3, "The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah is his name." And it is written of the Mes- sias, Jer. xxiii, 6, " And this is the name which they shall call him, Jehovali our righteousness." Thus Echa Rabati, Lam. i, 6, ' What is the name of the Messias ? R. Abba said, Jehovah is his name, as it is said, Jer. xxiii, 6 : And this ia the name which they shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness.' The Simie he reports of Rabbi Levi." (Pearson on tlie Creed, p. 149.) Such were the opinions of the Jews. Whether they were founded in trutii is not the present question. It is enough that they held such opinions, and that they de- rived them from Moses and the prophets. We proceed to the New Testament. When Jesus hud been baptized by John, in Jordan, he " went up straightway out of the water : and lo, the hea- vens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and ligiiting upon him. And lo, a voice from heaven, saying. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," Matt, iii, 16, 17. Having wit, nessed this introductory revelation of the Son of Gud, the iiaptist " bare witness of him and proclaimed, saying, This is he of whom I spake, lie that comctii after me is preferred belore me, for lie was !)efore me. And of his ful. ness have all we (already) received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came (always) by Jesus Cln'ist. No man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, which is in the bo- som of the Father, he hath (always hitherto) declared him. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit dc- scen«liiig from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not : but that he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon w hoiu thou slialt 'ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITV. 137 see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, tMI? same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God," John i, IS- IS, 32-34. The meaning of this phrase, " the Son of God," we must now examine. Under the Christian dispensation mere men, because they are " the offspring of God," and are " made in the likeness of God," and because they are restored to the paternal favour, and holy image of God, in Christ Jesus, are denominated " the sons of God." In the appellation given to Jesus Christ there is, liowever, something by which he is distinguished from all others. 1. The sons of men are constituted the sons of God through him. " As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. even to them that believe on his name," John i, 12, •' For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," Gal. iii, 26. 2. They are made the sons of God by adoption : " pre- destinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ," Eph. i, 5. He is begotten of the Father : " Jehovah hath said unto me. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," Psa. ii, 7. He is therefore called God's own or proper Son : " He that spared not, tov tSiov vlov, his own, or proper Son,'' 3. To distinguish him still farther from all others, he is repeatedly styled the only begotten Son. " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." In Mr. G.'s opinion this expression only means " well or best beloved :" in proof of which he observes that " Isaac is called the only begotten son of Abraham, who had an older son living at the time." (Vol. i, p. 339.) This answer is plausible, but not solid. " The promises" which Abraham " had received" related to a son whom Sarah should bear to him ; " And God said, (to Abraham,) Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed : and I will establish iny covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him," Gen. xvii, 15-19. In the apos- tle's sens*, therefore, Isaac was Abraham's only begotten son ; the only one in whom the promises could be fulfill- ed ; the. only son of his mother. And just so the " only begotten Son of God" is a Son sui generu ; the only one of tliat kind. 12* 138 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 4. This truth our Lord has illustrated, and this inter- pretation he has confirmed, wiien in allusion to himself he says, " Having yet therefore one Son, his well beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying. They will reverence my Son," Mark xii, 6. 5. He is therefore distinguished from Moses and the prophets as the Son of God. " God, who spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son," Heb. i, 1, 2. " Moses, verily, was faithful in all l^is house as a servant ; but Christ as a Son over his own Tnouse," Heb. iii, 5, 6. 6. God's giving his Son is made the measure of the divine benevolence and beneficence. " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son," John iii, 16. " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things," Rom. viii, 32. But if Jesus Christ be the Son of God only in a sense in which mankind in general may be- come the sons of God, what illustration or proof does such a gift afford of the infinite benevolence or beneficence of the Father? 7. The greatest possible blessings depend on our be- lieving that he is the Son of God. " Who is he that over- cometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God," 1 John v, 8. " Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in liini, and he in God," 1 John iv, 15. Is it probable that such privileges should be attached to an acknowledgment that Jesus Christ was, in the common sense of the word, a child of the Most High? 9. Sometliing extraordinary must be intended by the phrase, because he himself says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," Matt, xi, 27. And when Simon Peter confessed, " Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus answered and said. Blessed art thou Simon Barjona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thco, but my Father which is in heaven," Matt, xvi, 17. Tiicse observations may at least authorize us to insti- tute an inquiry into the particular meaning of this phrase. The Socinians uniformly take advantage of tliis apel- lation, and of many tilings which arc aflirmcd concerning Jesus Christ as " the Son of God," to point out and prove ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 139 his "inferiority and subordination to the Father."^ After the manner of most Trinitarians, we have as uniformly answered their arguments by applying it to his human nature. (See pp. 70-70.) This reply is not an evasion, but is founded in truth, and accords with the declaration of the angel to Mary : " That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God," Luke i, 35. We now contend that " that holy thing" which was " born" of the virgin was called '' the Son of God," because it was united with the divine nature ; for after it was announced by John the Baptist that Jesus is " the Son of God," it was always demonstrated by the manifestation of his ilivine perfections, and was the uniform inference which was drawn by believers from such manifestations. When John had declared Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, the next day he pointed out " the Lamb of God" to Andrew and another of his disciples. Andrew brought to Jesus his brother Simon Peter ; and Jesus, by showing to Simon how perfectly he knew him, confirmed to him the testimony of Andrew. The day following, Jesus found Philip, who, being of the city of Andrew and Peter, had probably learned these things from them, and called him to be one of his immediate followers. Thus made acquaint- ed with the character of Jesus, " Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." When Nathanael's prejudice was van- quished, and he was coming " to see," Jesus confirmed the testimony of Philip by demonstrating his omniscience. And Nathaniel, "■ believing," because Jesus said unto him, I saw thee under the fig tree, " answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel,'' John i, 35-51. Thus the faith of the apostles was founded on the testimony of John the Baptist, and con- firmed, not by the testimony of Jesus, but by the evidence of his omniscience. The next day he confirmed their faith, by a raanifesta- tion of his omnipotence, when he turned the water into wine. " This beginning of miracles," says the evangelist, " did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory, (the glory of his omnipotence and of his divine na- ture,) and his disciples believed on him," John ii, 11: 140 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY* that is, they believed more tirmly the testimony of John concerning him. Tlie man who was born bUnd, and whose eyes our Lord had opened, had previously heard nothing of Jesus being the Son of God ; but having been the subject of so great a miracle, and iiearing this great truth from Jesus himself, he believed the testimony on the evidence of the miracle. In what sense he believed it, is obvious from the account which the Evangelist John has given of him : " He said, Lord, I believe, and worshipped him," Jolm ix, 38. The same inference was drawn from the same premises, and in the same manner, by the men who witnessed an- other of his miracles. " When they (Jesus artd Peter) were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God," Matt, xiv, 32, 33. When Jesus said to Mary, the sister of Lazarus, " I am the resurrection and the life: (I raise the dead and sup- port the living :) believest thou this ?" Mary answered, "Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God," John xi, 25-27. Thus, if others inferred that he is the Son of God from the manifestation of his omnipo- tence, Mary inferred his omnipotence from his being the Son of God. The numberless miracles which Jesus wrought arc re- corded in confirmation of this truth. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,'" John XX, 30, 31. From all these passages it is obvioii8 in what sense ihis phrase was understood in the days of our Lord's ministry. No one thought of his i)eing the Son of God, until it was revealed. When his disciples witnessed his divine per- fections of omniscience or omnipotence, they accepted them as proofs of his divinity, and consfM|U(M)tly believed and acknowledged him to i)e the Son of God. And when they acknowledged hi in to be the Son of God, as a proof that in so doing they acknowledged his divinity, they M'orship|)('d him. If farliier i)roof that tliis phrase was then used to sig- nify proper divinity be necessary, we have it from the ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 141 adversaries of Jesus, who plainly show that in this sense it was generally understood. 1. " When the tempter came to Jesus, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread," Matt, iv, 3. He expected it should be proved that Jesus is the Son of God, by the manifestation of divine perfections. And he received such evidence of the know, ledge of Jesus, who called him by his name, and of the power of Jesus by whom he was perfectly discomfited, that the demons were forced to cry out, saying, " Thou art Christ, the Son of God," Luke iv, 41. 2. The Jews uniformly sliow that this was the idea which the phrase in question conveyed to them. When, on one occasion, they persecuted Jesus, and sought to slay him because he had healed a man on the Sabbath day, he " answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said, also, that God was his uhov, proper Father, making himself equal with God," John v, 17, 18. It is scarcely necessary to observe, (1.) that, as Father and Son are correlative terms, by calling God his Father, in connection with the asser- tion that his works were such as the works of the Father, he led the Jews to suppose that he meant to call God idiov naTEpa, his proper Father, and thereby made himself equal with God : or (2,) that our Lord did not treat them as if they misunderstood him, but went on to confirm the statement which he had already given. At another time they said unto him, "Thou blasphe- mest," and were about to stone him, " because he said, I am the Son of God," John x, 32, 36. They construed this expression into blasphemy) "because (said they) that thou being a man, makest thyself God," John x, 33. At a subsequent time, the sanhedrim were united in the same opinion. When Jesus had confessed himself to be "the Son of God," the high priest rent his clothes, saying, " He hath spoken blasphemy :" and the scribes and elders said, " He is gtlilty of death," Matt, xxvi, 63-06. And lastly, when he was ci'ucified they expected that if he was the Son of God he was omnipotent. Hence they said, " If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross," Matt, xxvii, 40. 142 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRI^TITY. Thus we find that the divine perfections were mani- fested in Jesus Christ, as demonstrations of his being a divine person. Mr. G. and his Socinian brethren affect to overlook tliis kind of evidence, and perpetually call for clear and positive declarations of the divinity of our Lord from his own mouth. By this manoeuvre a thousand witnesses are silenced in the many divine miracles which he daily wrought among the people, and by which he "shovveth forth his glory." Yet tiie manifestation of his divine perfections was the most proper mean of esta- blishing the belief of his deity. Without such evidence, the assertion of Jesus Christ must have passed for nothing. An imposter may give out, like Simon Magus, that he is " the great power of God ;" but he only who manifests tho divine perfections, and does "the works of God," gives satisfactory proof of his divinity. When "the Jews sought to kill " our Lord, " because — he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God — Jesus answered 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 doth, these also doth the Son likewise. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that the witness wiiich he wit- iiesseth of me is true. Ye sent unto John, and he bear witness unto the truth. But I have greater witness than that of John, for the works w Inch the Father liath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me," John v, 18, 10, 31-33, 36,37. That we have not reasoned falsely on these premises, we have a decisive proof in the argument which Jesus Christ himself used. "Say ye of him, whom tiie Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world. Thou l)lasphe- niest ; because I said, I am tiie Son of CJod ? If I do not tlie works of my Father, believe me noL But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works ; that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me. and I in liim," John X. 3(5-38. Here we see that in our Lord's opinion, his miraculous works evinced his union with the godiiead, and his union with the godhead was what he alluded to in denominating himself the Son of God. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 143 The multiplied evidences of our Lord's divinify, de- 4'ived from the miracles which, with divine power, he wrought during the years of his public ministry, are sup- jjosed by the Socinians to be unsatisfactory, because the disci|)les themselves were not thereby immovably fixed in the belief of that doctrine. " When he was seized by men," says our opponent, " they all forsook him and fled ; a demonstration as decisive as can possibly be given of the ■opinion they entertained of his person." (Vol. ii, p. 9.) This argument is the most futile that one could wish an adversary to advance. We know that the faith of the disciples, till the descent of the Holy Spirit, was exceed, ingly weak and unsteady. Their cowardice on this occa- sion was not " a decisive demonstration" of their faith, but of their unbelief. Whatever they had believed concerning him, whether, that he was equal with God, that he was the Son of God, or that he was the Messiah, — they now doubted. Hence, when, after a long conversation with him, they said, '■■ Now we are sure that thou knovvest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee : by this we be- lieve that thou camest forth from God : Jesus answered them. Do ye now believe ? Behold the hour cometh, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone," John xvi, 30-32. But notwithstanding this tlieir unbelief, and their desertion of their Master, they had previously '• trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel." When he " vvho was made of the seed of David, accord- ing to the flesh, was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resur- rection from the dead," Rom. i, 3, 4, then their faith be- came victorious : they openly acknowledged his divinity, and no more deserted him or his cause. Thomas, though the most obstinate in his unbelief, was the first to make confession of his subsequent faith. The demonstration of our Lord's divinity was now com- plete, an^ constrained him to exclaim, " My Lord and my God." But especially when they had received that Spirit whom Jesus had promised to them, who " spake not of himself, but glorified" the Saviour ; who should " guide them into 144 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRIME OF THE TRINITY. all truth ;" who should " take of the things" of Christ, and "show them unto thcui;" and who should demon- strate to them that " all the Father hath" is his ; that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father : then thov did not, as Mr. G. has rashly asserted, " invariably style him a man," (vol. ii, p. 9.) but unanimously declared his divinity. Matthew announced him to be " God with us," Matt, i, 28. Peter denominated him "Lord of all," Acts X, 36. Paul asserted, to the Romans, that he " is over all, God blessed for evermore," Rom. ix, 5 ; to the Corinthians, that " to us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," 1 Cor. viii, 6; and that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," 2 Cor. v, 19 ; to the Ephesians, that he is " the fulness of Him that iilleth all in all," that he is " Christ and God," Eph. i, 23 ; V, 5 ; to the Philippians, that " he was iu the form of God, and thought it not robbery lo be equal with God," Phil, ii, 6 ; to the Colossians, that " it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell," Col. i. 19 ; that " in him dwoUeth all the fulness of the godhead bodily," Col. ii, 9; that " by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether tliev be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created by him and for him, and (that) he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. i, 16, 17 ; to Timothy, that " (iod was manifest in the flesh," 1 Tim. iii, 16 ; to Titus, that "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ jj;ave himself for us," Tit. ii. 13; to the Heltrews lliat "by him (Jod made the worlds," that he is " upholding all tiiiiics by the word of his power." Heb. i, 2, 3; that "unto the Son he (the 'Father) saith. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," Heb. i, 8 ; and that ovToc, ''he was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the hous»\ For every house is builded viro Tivor, by some one, but he that built all things is God," Heb. iii, 3, 4. John asserted that he " was (Joil," and that "all things were made by bim, and without him was not any thill!.' m;\(le that was mad<\" John i, 1. 3 ; that he " is the true God. and eternal life." 1 John i. 20. Jude spake of him as "the only wise (tod our Saviour;" — "the only Governor God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," Jude 4, 25. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 145 While they thus unanimously speak of his godhead, they attribute to him those infinite perfections which belong to no being but the Deity. They represent him as being " be- fore all things," Col. i, 17 ; as having " all power in hea- ven and on earth," Matt, xxxviii, 28 : and therefore be- ing in heaven and on earth : as having in him " all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge :" and as " able to save and to destroy," James iv, 12. (See p. 69.) His godhead, therefore, can be denied only on principles which separate between the divine perfections and the divine nature. (See pp. 70, 71.) On this ascription of divinity and divine perfections to Jesus Christ, the whole system of apostolic doctrine is founded : and the latter so necessarily implies the former, that all must stand or fall together. For instance : 1. According to the apostles we are to behold " the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. iv, 6. But how can God be seen in him, if God be not in him? or how can Jesus Christ display to us the glory of the divine perfections, unless he possess them ? 2. The apostles refer us to him for pardon, assuring us that he is " exalted a prince and a Saviour, to give forgiveness of sins," Acts v, 31. Who can forgive sins but God only ? How then can Jesus forgive sins if he be not God ? Must not he who dispenses pardons be supreme ? Must not God be in Christ, to reconcile the world to himself? 3. The apostles attribute to him the new creation. Of this new creation man is the principal subject. He is created " after God, in righteousness and true holiness," Eph. iv, 24. But are not wisdom, power, and goodness equal to what were exerted in making man in the divine image, necessary to this purpose ? Who but God can reproduce what once was the perfection of the work of God ? 4. The apostles inform us that " whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," Rom. x, 13 ; and address themselves to the Christian world as to " those that in et^ry place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord," 1 Cor. i, 2. But to what purpose is he in- voked, unless he be omnipresent, and can in every place hear and answer, — omniscient, and can discern all our wants, — omnipotent, and therefore able to remove or pre- 13 146 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRITVITT. vent all the evils which we deprecate, and to bestow all the divine blessings which we supplicate ? 5. The apostles teach us to expect that he " shall change our vile bodies, and fashion them like unto his own glorious body." How can he effect this, with power less than that which at first " created man out of the dust of the earth?" or unless he were " able to subdue even all things to himself," Phil, iii, 21. 6. The apostles assert that it is he " who shall judge both the quick and the dead," 2 Tim. iv, 1. But how can he judge mankind, unless he have that power which God exclusively asserts, Jer. xvii, 10, the power- to search the human heart : unless he be " he that searcheth the heart and trieth the reins of the children of men, to give unto every one as his work shall be ?" How can he judge between God and man, unless he know — what none but Cod can know — the infinite perfections of the divine nature? Without this, how can he know what is due to those perfections, or what is due from them ? Thus is the divinity of Jesus Christ everywhere inter- woven with the apostolic system of doctrine. But Mr. G. confidently affirms that St. John, who " was left to censure whatever opinions arose, contrary to those taught by Jesus and his apostles," (vol. ii, p. 10.) has censured none but those of the Gnostics, who denied the proper humanity of Jesus Christ. The question of the true origin and character of the Ebionites, at whose errors, also, both the gospel and the First Epistle of St. John are generally supposed to have been levelled, we leave for the ecclesiastical historians to determine. On this subject the reader will do well to consult Hishop Horsley's letters to Dr. Priestley. Whatever the Ebi- onites were, St. John's gospel begins with the eternity and divinity of the Word : which he assert.^ in such plain terms that Mr. G. is forced to concede, pro tcmporr, that "the Word was no other than (lod liiiiisclf." (Vol. i, p. 197.) As the pre-cwistence and divinity of Jesus Christ are thus asserted in (lie i)eginning of tliat hook, the proofs of those (lortrines make up the substance of it. The evauiielist having thus asserted that the eternal and divine " Word was made (lesh, and dwelt among us," he sub- joins, " And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 147 begotten of the Father," John i, 14. He then proceeds to show how his glory was seen, in all the testimonies concerning him, and in all his sayings and miracles, by which his divine nature or his divine perfections were manifested. All these, he professes, he wrote " that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," John XX, 31. This declaration of his purpose is imme- diately connected with the confession of faith which Thomas made, (My Lord and my God,) our Lord's ap- probation of it, and his benediction on those who should believe, like him, on the testimony of his apostles. It is true, a Socinian can see no divinity implied in that phrase, " the Son of God." When his prejudice is removed he will see that St. John, in his first epistle, has not censured the Gnostics only, who denied our Lord's humanity, but those also who denied his Messiahship and his divinity. On the one hand he has indeed said, " Every spirit that con- fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard, that it should come," 1 John iv, 3. But, on the other hand, he has also said, " Now are there many antichrists. They went out from us, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ ? he is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son," 1 John ii, 18-22. " Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God," 1 John iv, 15. " Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God," 1 John v, 5. "These things have I written unto you, (not merely to show that Jesus Christ was a real man, but) that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God," 1 John v, 13. And that this design might not be misinterpreted, he concludes that epistle with these words, in which he de- clares the true deity of the Son of God : " We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an un- derstanding 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," 1 John v, 20. The Holy Spirit is never in the sacred Scriptures de- nominated either a person, or God the Holy Ghost. Our Lord, however, in speaking of him, often gave him the 148 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRIiXE OF THE TRINITY. strongest distinct and personal characters ; and to his authority, on this subject, we have made our appeal. (See pp. 117, 118.) He also denominated the Holy Spi- rit the Spirit of God, Matt, xii, 28, and by that appella- tion indicated his proper divinity. Now this is precisely the doctrine on which we insist. On the whole : After Thomas had addressed Jesus Christ as his Lord and his God, and had been commended in the presence of his brethren for this confession of his faith, our Lord gave commandment to his disciples to " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Matt, xxviii, 19. This was the summit of what our Lord taught to his disciples, and this institution was a summary of the instruction which he had previously given to them. He did not say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three ; but he did not make it impiety for us so to count them. It was not necessary to teach that three are three. He did not say these three are one : or that the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost is God ; but he appointed that, by a religious rite, the faithful shall be devoted to them, though he had also taught that " the Lord our God is one Lord, and him only we should serve." According to this institution, by which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are held forth as the one object of the faith and obedience of the Christian church, the apostles initiated every believer into this doctrine. And this doctrine, as well as the baptismal vow which was founded on it, they perpetuated by a form of benediction which is a counterpart of the form of baptism : " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ihe love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all." In this simple form this great subject was left by Christ and his apostles. It would be arrogance to suppose that any addition which has been made to it is an improvement. The religious controversies of some of the first ages intro- duced a phraseology to wliich the sacrod writers, we find, were perfect strangers. Such an unscriptural pliraseology a Bible Christian might easily be persuaded to relinquish, if the sacrifice were to be made in favour of tiie truth as it is in Jesus. But the Socinians prohibit a recantation of the former^ by identifying it with the latter ; and almost ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 149 vindicate the propriety of the phraseology, by using the same weapons against both. The cause of truth would not have stood on a firmer basis, if the technical terms of the schools had turned out to be those of Christ and his apostles. To the word trinity, it would then be objected that it does not convey the idea of three persons. To the phrase trinity in unity, that it may express a threefold distinction in one being, very different from the personal distinction whichTrinitarians maintain. Had the apostles spoken of three persons in one God, it would have been represented that these words, literally understood, sug- gest a contradiction ; that three persons are three beings ; that three beings cannot subsist in one being ; and that therefore the language of the writer must be understood as " highly figurative." If the sacred writers had apphed to Jesus Christ the scholastic appellation " God the Son," it would have been very shrewdly observed that the word Son indicates a subordinate relation, and that therefore the phrase is a denial, rather than an assertion of his supreme godhead. And lastly. Had the phrase God the Holy Ghost been used in Scripture, to any argument founded upon it, it could easily have been answered, either, first, that this is a rhetorical figure, by which only the abstract power, energy, or operation of God is meant : in proof of which the following passage would be cited, " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee :" or, second, that by this periphrasis God simply is meant ; for " God is a Spi- rit," and he is a Holy Spirit. « By God the Holy Ghost, therefore, is meant, God who is a Holy Spirit." At this rate no terms of human invention will serve to silence a thorough Unitarian. But Mr. G. knows that, if the plain, direct, and obvious meaning of the sacred writers be allowed to be their true meaning, the doctrine of the preceding pages will want no scholastic terms for its support. Having shown that the language of sacred Scripture is such as sufficiently accounts for the origin of the Trini- tarian doctrines, it is not very necessary to seek their origin in the volumes of ecclesiastical history. After this, to enter with the Socinians into a discussion of the opi- nions of the early Christians cannot justly be demanded ; 13* 150 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY- and, if not done with caution, would be to betray the cause of truth, by removing it from its proper foundation. In this discussion the question is, What is the doctrine of the Old and of the New Testament ? The sacred writers lie open to all ; whereas the Christian fathers are known to comparatively few. Hence an appeal to the fonnei may be generally considered in the light of an argument whicli carries conviction to every honest mind ; but an appeal to the latter is, in most cases, little better than a naked assertion, to ascertain the truth of which, the reader must depend on the judgment and integrity of the writer. The former are incomparably the best authorities. Their cre- dit is justly established on the basis of divine inspiration; while that of the latter is often at the best but dubious. The first age of the Christian church produced but few writers whose works have descended with unquestionable proof of their genuineness ; and of those few none have written professedly on the subjects now under discussion. The consequence is, that little satisfaction is to be derived from their testimony ; and every man feels himself at liberty to accommodate their language to his own precon- ceived opinion. This fact is confirmed by Mr. G.'s lectures, in which, to prove that the mere humanity of Jesus Christ was maintained by them, he has been able only to cull a few passages such as the writings of any modern Trinitarian wouhl plentifully afford to prove that they believed his proper humanity : in which he has cited certain expressions indicative of the distinction and rela- tion between the Father and the Son, such its Athanasius himself would not have rejected :* Uit in which he has exhibited from thosn fathers nothing which has the most distant appearance of a denial of supreme divinity to Jesus Christ. The few passages of tliose early writers, which give countenance to a doctrine on wiiich they were not professedly writing, eitlier are torn in j)ieces on the rack of criticism, or, l)ecause otiier passages of a similar kind have been interpolated, arc cancelled as interpola- tions. If the Scriptures themselves do not afford satis factory evidence of the doctrines which they contain, the ♦ The answers already given to his ciintions from Scrniture on the humanity of Christ are equally applicable to those from the ClirisiioA falliers. ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 151 J* case is therefore desperate. When we descend to later ages, we meet with writers enow on these subjects ; but their testimony is not admitted because they were not the immediate disciples of the apostles. But if their testi- mony were admitted, and tlieir scholastic terms were canonized, the men who can set aside the testimony of the apostles, and make the more appropriate terms of Scrip, ture speak their own language, can, with equal ease, enlist the metaphysical fathers of the fourth century under the banner of Socinus, and convert the Nicene and even the Athanasian creed into evidence in favour of their cause, But if we, on the other hand, could defend the doctrines of the trinity by lucid and appropriate quotations drawn from the writings of all the Christian fathers from Cle- ment to Athanasius, unless we could prove them from Christ and his apostles, all our authors must rank in the list of heretics. These reasons for not resting the question on any but scriptural authority may suffice. It is not designed, how- ever, to insinuate that the primitive church was either Unitarian or neutral. While we distinguish between the words of human wisdom and the truth of God, we may have sufficient proof that the primitive church was what we call Trinitarian. Clemens, bishop of Rome, was an eminent Christian writer of the first century, and one who had conversed with the apostles. Mr. G. has quoted from him the prin- cipal passages, among which are the following : — 1. One in which he calls Jesus the Son of God : " Thus saith the Lord, Thou art my Son, tliis day have I begotten thee." (Vol. ii, p. 47.) 2. Another, in which, speaking of Ja- cob, he says, " From him (sprang) the Lord Jesus according to the flesh :" (vol. ii, p. 48 :) words which, without a Socinian comment, imply that in another respect Jesus Christ did not spring from Jacob. This scriptural phrase (according to tlie flesh) indicates that Jesus Christ was not Qjerely human : for, (1.) Where is it applied in a similar manner to any mere man ? (2.) In the above passage Clemens speaks of the priests and Levites as springing from Jacob ; but does not add, as in the case of our Lord, " according to the flesh." (3.) St. Paul has pointed out the true sense of this phrase in that antithesis 152 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITT. in which he says, " Jesus Christ was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh ; but the Son of God, ac- cording to the Spirit of hohness," Rom. i, 3, 4. 3. A third, in which, speaking of Jesus Christ, he says, " He came not in the pomp of pride and arrogance, aUhough he had it in his power, but in humihty." '< More ancient copies, (those which Jerome used,) instead of Kanrep dwa/i. £voc, ' although he had it in his power,' had Kainep navra dvvafievoc, ' although he had all things in his power.' The expressions clearly imply that, ere he came, he had the power to choose, and that all things were in his power :" {Horsley's Letters, p. 131 :) i. e., both his pre-existence and his omnipotence. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was a disciple and familar friend of the apostles. His short epistles are replete with testimonies of the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus Christ. It is not necessary for us to attempt a vindica- tion of their genuineness against the cavils of Socinians. The reader may consult, on this subject. Dr. Horsley's Letters to Dr. Priestley. If those epistles are not genu- ine, they cannot be produced against us. If they are genuine, they are evidence in our favour. The following passages may suffice to illustrate their general tenor : — 1. On the pre-existence of Christ : "Who was with the Father before all ages, and appeared at the end of the world." {Ad. Mag. sec. 5.) 2. On the twofold nature of Christ : " Of the race of David, according to the flesh, but the Son of God, according to the will and power of God." {Ad. Smyr. sec. 5.) 3. Of the divinity of Christ : " I glo- rify God, even Jesus Christ." {Ad. Smyr. sec. 1.) 4. Of the worship of Christ : " Pray to Christ for me, that by the beasts I may be found a sacrifice to God." {Ad. Rom. sec. 4.) 5. Of the trinity : " Be ye strengthened in the concord of God, enjoying his inseparable Spirit, which is Jesus Christ." {Ad Mag. sec. 13.) Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of St. John In his epistle to the Philippians, speaking of Jesus Christ, he says, " Whom every living creature shall worship." iSec. 2.) The following passage, in which he prays to esus Christ, and calls him " the Son of (iod," (a term which, as we have shown, indicated a divine person,) is quoted by Mr. G. : " The Son of God, Jesus Christ, ORIGIX OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 153 build you up in faith," dec. {Epist. to Phil. sec. 12.) — " When he Avas at the stake, he finished his prayer with these words : — ' For this, and for all other things, I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, by the eternal and heavenly high priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son ; with whom, to thee, and to the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all succeeding ages. Amen." (Martyr, of Poly- carp, sec. 14.) Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, was a disciple of Polycarp. He says, "We show that the Word, existing in the be- ginning with God, united himself to the work of his own hands, when he became a man capable of suffering." (Lib. iii, cap. 20.) Again : "To this purpose our Lord came to us, not so as he might have come, but so as we might be able to behold him ; for he might have come to us in his own unspeakable glory, but we should not have been able to endure the magnitude of his glory." (Adv. Hceret. lib. iv, cap. 74.) " The Scripture (says he) is full of the Son of God's appearing, sometimes to talk and eat with Abraham ; at another time to seek Adam ; at another time to bring down judgment upon Sodom ; then again to direct Jacob in the way; and again to con- verse with Moses out of the bush." (Lib. iv, cap. 23.) " The Father of our Lord Jesus manifests and reveals himself to all, to whom he is at all revealed, by his Word, who is his Son. For they know the Father, to whomso- ever the Son will reveal him. Now the Son, co-existing always with the Father, reveals the Father of old, even always from the beginning, to angels and archangels, and powers and dominions, and to men." (Lib. ii, cap. 55.) He adds, " Every knee should bow to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father." (Lib. i, cap. 2.) " The Father, by his own Word and Spirit, makes, governs, and gives being to all things." (Lib. i, cap. 22, sec. 1.) " For his Word and his Wisdom, the Son and the Holy Spirit are always with him ; by whom and with whom he made all things freely, and of his own accord, to whom he also spake in these words. Let us make man in our image and likeness." (Lib. i, cap. 37.) Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist, wrote about the year 140. He says, " But the Son of the Father, even he 154 ORIGIN OP THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. who alone is properly called his Son, the Word which was with him before the creation, because by him he in the be- ginning made and disposed all things," &c. (Apol.) And again : " But this Being, who was really begotten of the Father, and proceeded from him, did, before ail creatures were made, exist with the Father, and the Father con- versed with him." (Dial, cum Tryph.) Once more : — *' God, and his onlj begotten Son, together with the Spirit, we worship and adore." (Apol.) Athenagoras was another Christian apologist who wrote in the second century. Speaking of the Son, he says, " He is to the Father as the first offspring ; not as some- thing made. For God, being an eternal intelligence, him- self from the beginning had the Logos in himself, being •eternally rational." (Horsley^s Letters, p. 59.) Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, was also a writer of the second century, in defence of Christianity. Addressing himself to Autolycus, he says, " It was to no other that he said, ' Let us make,' than to his own Word, and to his own Wisdom." Again : " The three days which preceded the creation of the luminaries, were types of the trinity, rpiaioc ; of God, and of his Word, and of his Wis- dom." (Ad Autolyc. p. 114.) The passage just quoted from Irenaeus shows that, by "his Word and his Wisdom," the writers of this age meant " the Son, and the Holv Spirit." Clemens of Alexandria, an eminent writer of the se- cond century, says, " The Son of God is always every, where, and contained nowhere : all mind, all light, all eye of his Fatlier, beholding all things, hearing all things, knowing all things." And again :" Ignorance cannot affect God, him that was the Father's Counsellor before the foundation of the world." (Stom. lib. vii, cap. 2.) Tortullian is (he lust writer of this century to whom we appeal. Tlie following |)assage is translated from his treatise, de Pnrscriptionc, by Dr. Priestley, and arknow- Icdfjed by him to contain the catholic faith. The rule of faith. " bv wliich wo are taught to believe that tliere is but on«* on the head of the goat," Lev. xvi, 21. In the passage more immediately under con- sideration, as well as in the institution of sin-otVcrings in general, the offerers were retpiired either pcrsoDtillv, or by their representatives, to " bring" the victim " before the talrernacle of the conijregation," and to " lay their hands u|)on its head before the Lord." Hv this act they designated it as their offering to make atonement for their sin ; and their sin was consequently forgiven. As this economy was intended to adumbrate the di>3« rROPlTlATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 169 pensation of the gospel, the principles on which it was founded, and the doctrines which it holds forth, are to be applied for the illustration of our subject : these being the shadows of which Christ is the substance. In the Christian economy, and under the government of Him who is " a great King in all the earth," Jesus Christ is ordained " the High Priest of our profession," Heb. iii, 2. In him we have one infinitely greater than Aaron or his sons. " We have a great High Priest, that is passed into (or through) the heavens, Jesus the Son of God," Heb. iv, 14. "We have such a High Priest who is set on the throne of the Majesty in the heavens : a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle^ which the Lord pitched, and not man," Heb. viii, 1, 2. For " Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us," Heb. ix, 24. And " no man cometh to the Father but by him," John xiv, 6. As " every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices, it is of necessity that this man have somewhat to offer." The priests who " offered gifts according to the law, served only unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. But now hath he obtained a more ex- cellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a bettercovenant, which is established upon better promises," Heb. viii, 3-6. " The way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing : which was a figure for the time then present, in which were ofl^ered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. But Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building ; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us," Heb ix, 8-12f In these interesting passages the reader will perceive a continued comparison between the priesthood, ministry, and sacrifices of the Jewish institution, and those of Jesus Christ : the design of which is to show that the 15 170 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICK OF JESUS CHRIST. former was figurative of the latter, and that the latter resembles, but infinitely excels, the former. The oblations of the Jewish high priest, we have found, were "gifts and sacrifices for sins." That which our great Higii Priest ofl'ered, was of the latter kind, a sin-ofiering ; as is sufficiently obvious from the follow- ing passages : — " When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin," Isa. liii, ] 0. " He hath made him to be afiapTiav, a sin-offering for us," 2 Cor. v, 21. " Who needcth not delay to ofier up sacrifice, first for his own sin, and then for the people's: for this he did once when he offered up himself," Heb. vii, 27. "Now once he hath appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," Heb. i.x, 25. " Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many," Heb. ix, 28. "But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins," &c., Heb. x, 12. And "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," Heb. X, 26. What then is the jneaning of these phrases ? Mr. G. explains them thus : — " In every sacrifice the victim is supposed to die for the good and benefit (not for the sins, it seems) of the persons on whose account it is otfered : 80 Christ, dying in the cause of virtue, and to bestow the greatest of all blessings upon the human race, a proof of a future state, is beautifiilly represented as having given his life a sacrifice for us. The reseml)lance between the death of Christ, according to this account ot" the nature and object of it, and the sin-offerings spoken of in the Old Testament, appears to me to be a sufficient foundation for its being called by that name, and would abundantly justify the metaphor," &c. (Vol. ii, p. 148.)' What striking re- semblance Mr. G. sees between a martyr dying in the cause of virtue, and a victim bleeding for sin : or between an animal which died and was no more, and a person who died to give a proof of a future state by his resurrection, we confe.ss our inability to conjecture. If the advocates of proper atonement were obliged to interi>ret the scrip, tures which relate to that subject in tliis vague manner, and could give no more rational or scriptural proof of the justness of tiieir opinions than is contained in this unmean- ing cant of Mr. (i. and the editor of the Theological Repository, how would the Socinians triumph ! But leaving PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 171 this explanation to its unavoidable fate, we appeal to the Scriptures, in proof that the application of the phrase, " sacrifice for sin," to the death of Christ is not a " meta- phor," as Mr. G. calls it, in which all discernible analogy- is lost ; but that in all the circumstances essential to a sin. offering, that of Jesus Christ agrees with those which were offered under the law^. 1. We have seen that the sacrifices for sins were offered by the Jewish priests on account of the sins of the people. The following passages will distinctly show that Jesus Christ offered up himself for the sins of mankind : — " He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. 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. For the transgression of my people was he stricken. He shall bear their ini. quities. He hath poured out his soul unto death ; and he Avas numbered with the transgressors : and he bare the sin of many," Isa. liii, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12. " Who was delivered for our offences," Rom. iv, 25. " I deUvered unto yoil first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures," 1 Cor. xv, 3. " Who gave himself for our sins," Gal. i, 4. " Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree," 1 Pet. ii, 24. 2. The Jewish sin-offerings made an atonement for the persons for whom they were offered, in consequence of which their sins were forgiven. (See page 164.) It has been remarked that the blood, which is the life, is that which made atonement for the soul. Now, as under the law the blood of the victim was shed, so the "blood of Christ was shed for many, for the remission of sins," Matt, xxvi, 28, and as in the former case the high priest went into the most holy place with the " blood which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people," Heb. ix. 7, so " Christ by his own blood entered once into the holy place, (not made with hands,) having obtained eternal redemption for us," Heb. ix, 12. Thus, as the Jewish high priest made atonement by the shedding and sprinkling of blood, Jesus Christ has made atonement by the shed- ding and " sprinkling" of his blood. The words used on this subject, by the sacred writers, 172 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OP JESDS CHRIST. are the same which are used by the LXX, viz., the deriva- tives of iAau, I am propitious. Those interpreters render Lev. iv, 20, 26, 35, 6i.c., " the priest shall make atone- ment," by e^iAaaerai. In Ezek. xHv, 27, where it is said the priest shall bring his peace-oftering, they use the word iXaafiov. Thus, in like manner, the Prophet Daniel, pre- dicting the death of the Messiah, declares it to be one part of the design of it, according to the LXX, e^i?.acraaeai, to make atonement or propitiation for iniquity, Dan. ix, 24. The apostle to the Hebrews says, " It behooved" Christ as our " merciful High Priest, i/.aaKeaSat, to make atonement or propitiation for the sins of the people," Heb. ii, 17. Hence Jesus Christ is said to be a propitiation or atone- ment for our sins. " God loved us ; and sent his Son iXacfiov, a propitiation or atonement for our sins," 1 John iv, 10. "If ajiy man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is i?.aafio^, the propitiation or atonement for our sins," 1 John ii, 2. In his unguarded etfort to get rid of this word, (vol. ii, page 151,) Mr. G. has confounded it with lAaarj/piov, Avhich means a propitiatory. It is not improbable that St. Paul meant by it a propitiatory sacrifice. But we found no argument upon it, because, though it cannot be disproved, it may be disputed. To serve an hypotliesis Mr. G. translates it, "a mercy seat." But this shifting of the terms destroys his argument.* The reader will do well to keep in mind that the one proper word which in the ♦ Dr. Prie-stley, in the conclusion of his History of the Doctrine of Aloncment, has explicitly granted that the Socinian.s had not yet been alile "to e.xplnin all jiariicuiar expressions in the apostolical epi!5tles, &c., in a manner perfectly consistent with (what they deem) the general strain of their own writings." {Hist, of Cor. toI. i, p. ^0.) It would have been candid to have told the public which are all those " particular expressions." The word i?.aafio^. propitiation, seems to be one of them, which therefore he has pa.'Nsed over by jusl ob.serving that 1 John ii, '2, and iv, 10," are the onlvplaces in which the word propitiation, I'/aa/joc, occurs in the New Testament." (P. 183.) He had overlooked the prophecy of Daniel and the Epistle to the Hebrews. This one word wa.s too hard for him: and well it might, for it is directly to the point. But Mr. G. is a little more hardy, and venture.s, since Dr. Priestley could not "explain" this " particular expression in the apostolic epistles without any eHort or straining," to make a mighty " etfort," and to " strain" very much to explain it according to his own hypothesis But his "straining effort" tends onlv to his own discomrtture. PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 173 original means propitiation or atonement, remains unan- swered, and is unanswerable. The purpose of atonement or propitiation, is reconcilia- tion. It is not denied, but asserted, by Mr. G., tliat " we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son," Rom. v, 10. (Vol. ii, p. 144.) "But in this reconciliation," he says, "• the change is never said to be in God, but always in man." (Vol. ii, p. 146.) The phrase " to be recon- ciled to God," is certainly ambiguous, and may be inter- preted as meaning either to be conciliated by him, or to be admitted to his friendship. It becomes, therefore, an im- portant question. What is the sense in which it is used in the Scriptures? When the Philistines suspected that David, who was then with them, would appease the anger of Saul by be- coming their adversary, they said, '• Wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master ? should it not be with the heads of these men ?" 1 Sam. xxix, 4. Here, to recon- cile one's self to another is obviously to appease his wrath, or conciliate his favour. " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brotlier hath aught against thee, first be reconciled to thy brother," Matt, v, 23, 24. Here the case is that of a brother offended ; and to be reconciled to him is to appease or conciliate him. The next passage is still more in point, because it refers to the case in hand : " God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their trespasses," 2 Cor. V, 13. Here for God to reconcile the world to himself is to forgive their trespasses. From these passages, the meaning of the phrase is plain, and no ambiguity re- mains. It is in this sense " we are reconciled to God, by the death of his Son," Rom. v, 10. The effect of the Jewish atonements was, that the sins of the persons for whom they were offered were forgiven. (See p. 166.) Such precisely is the consequence of the death of Christ, as the following passages will sufficiently prove -.-W My righteous servant shall justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities," Isa. liii, 11. "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," Matt, xxvi, 28. " We have redemp- tion through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," Eph. i, 7. See also Col. i, 14. "Being now justified by his blood," 15* 174 PROPITIATOKY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. Rom. V, 9. Thus, " God for Christ's sake (says St. Paul) hath forgiven you," Eph. iv, 32. 3. The benefit of the sin-ofiering was appropriated by the person for whom an atonement was to be made, by his confession of his sin, and his acknowledgment of the sacrifice as otiered for him. Just so to appropriate the benefit of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, it is neces- sary that men should confess their sin with a penitent heart, and depend on the propitiation which he has made. He that thus appropriates the benefit of his sacrifice ob- tains mercy. " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us frorn all un- righteousness," 1 John i, 9. " All have sinned and come short of the glory of God : being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ: whom God hath set forth a propitiatory through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, that he might be just and the justi- fier of him which believeth in Jesus," Rom. vi, 23, 26. Thus we find that between the Levitical sacrifices and the great Christian sacrifice the resemblance is exact and striking, and that the latter answers to the former as the antitype to its typical representative. Whatever there is of difl'erence between them consists chietly in the superiority of the Christian atonement, the consi- deration of which will greatly confirm the truths which have been stated. The Jewish sacrifices were but "a shadow of good things to come :" the Christian sacrifice is the " sub- stance." Those were ofi'ercd for inere ceremonial or civil purposes : this for moral guilt and pollution. Those were mere animals : Christ " otiered up himself." It was impossible that " the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins ;" but Jesus has " put away sin by the .sacrifice of himself," llcl). x, 4; i\, 2(5. The former >' could not make him that did the service perlict as per- taining to the conseiencr," Heh. ix. : but •' tlit> l)lood of Christ, who by the eternal Spirit olfered liimself without spot to God, can purge our conscience from dead works to .serve the living God," Heb. ix, 14. " The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, could only sanctify to the purifying of the PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRISjJ. 175 flesh," Heb. ix, 13, and therefore only gained admission into the visible tabernacle ; but we, " having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience," " have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," Heb. x, 19,22. "Every (Levitical) priest stood daily in the temple, offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God ; for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And, therefore, where remis- sion of sins is (such as he has obtained) there is no more offering for sins," Heb. x, 11, 12, 14, 18. To this statement Mr. G. finds many objections, against which we must vindicate it. 1. " The term priest is applied to Christians in gene- ral," (vol. ii, p. 146,) who are said to oflfer themselves or other gifts as sacrifices. (Vol. ii, p. 149.) " If (these terms) prove an atonement, then the atonement is in part effected by all Christians." (Vol. ii, p. 146.) The short answer is, that " Christians in general" are not denominated high priests, nor their sacrifices propitia- tory, or sacrifices for sin. Their sacrifices are eucharis- tic sacrifices, or thank-oflferings. " I beseech you by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice," Rom. xii, 1. Again : " Let us offer the sacri- fice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of <\ur lips, giving thanks to his name," Heb. xiii, 15. In off^er- ing these sacrifices, " Christians in general" act as priests. " Ye also (are) a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices," 1 Pet. ii, 5. The priesthood of " Christians in general'' is however subordinate, and acceptable only through the peculiar and peerless priesthood of Jesus Christ. " By him,'' says the apostle, " let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God," Heb. xiii, 15. And again : Our " spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God (only) by Jesus Christ," 1 Pet ii, 5. We have therefore but one great -High Priest, the Son of God ; and " there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin," since " by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." 2. But " Jesus Christ is said to have been made a curse for us." « A curse (says Mr. G.) and an accept- able sacrifice are totally inconsistent. For to render a 176 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. sacrifice acceptable, it was absolutely requisite that it should be pure." (Vol. ii, pp. 150, 152.) Mr. G. has only taken for granted, that to be " made a curse," and to be impure, are identically the same. Does he mean to assert that Jesus Christ's " hanging on a tree" was a " blemish" on his moral character ? 3. " Again : Christ was a pries^t, a victim, and the mercy seat. How are these things to be reconciled, if all are to be taken literally?" (Vol. ii, p. 153.) He was both the priest and the victim 'by " offering up himself." , But the word iXaarr/piov (Roni. lii, 25) is not properly " a mercy seat," but a propitiatory'. The " mercy seat" was called ilaaTripiov, a propitiatory, because there the blood of atonement was sprinkled, in consequence of which God, who was supposed to sit on the mercy seat, was propitious. Through the atoning blood of Christ God is propitious to us ; and therefore Christ also may be called O.aarijpiov, a propitiatory. " God is in Christ reconciling the world to himselt', not imputing to them their trespasses." Before this subject is dismissed, a train of important reflections, arising out of the preceding observations, demand the reader's most serious attention. The immo- lation of victims for the expiation of sin is justly supposed to have been originally of divine institution. When God taifght our first parents to clothe tliemselves with the skins of beasts, he undoubtedly taught them first to slay those beasts that were to be flayed, certainly not for food, and therefore most probably in sacrifice. The proof that Abel oftercd a sacrifice to God is, however, ^nuch more clear and positive ; and the respect whicli God had to his ofler- ing makes it nearly certain that it was presented according to a previous divine appoiiitiiient. Abel could not know that the life of an unoflVnding animal would be an accept- able offering, so as to offer it, as it is said he did. by faitii, unless he had first received some intimation of it from above : for " faith cometli by hearing, and hearinir by the word of God," Rom. x, 17. In the days of Noah, it is still more obvious from tlic distinction then observed be- tween clean and unclean animals, the more ample provision which was made of the former, the offering wiiich he made of them, and the grateful acceptance of that offer- PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 177 ing — that sacrifice made an important part of the institu- tion of rehgious worship. (Gen. vii and viii.) The sacri- fices which Abram ofl'ered were, we are assured, of divine appointment. (Gen. xv, 9.) When the wrath of God was kindled against tlie friends of Job, God said, "Take unto you seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering ; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept, lest I deal with you after your folly," Job xlii, 1.* These divine institutions were, under the Levitical dispensation, made, by the same authority, the basis of a more extended and particular sacrificial institution, which agreed in every respect with that which preceded, both as to the quality of the sacrifices to be offered, and the manner of offering them. This agreement is a confirmation of the divine authority of the former. The extension of the law of sacrifice, we learn from the inspired writers, was intended to be a more perfect figure of good things to come. No human invention, no common transaction of mankind with each other, was sufficient to elucidate the method of salva- tion by Jesus Christ. The relations of mankind to each other differ widely from the relations which exist between God and his creatures. Nothing, therefore, but transac tions between God and men, can properly illustrate trans- actions between God and men. Hence He, who alone was acquainted with " the mystery of his will which he had purposed in himself," adapted all the circumstances of these institutions to this one great purpose. Hence the apostles, when treating on the grand topic of their ministry, " Christ crucified," derive their principal ideas and phrases from this preceding economy, and make the institutions of the patriarchal and Mosaic ages a key to the new dispensation. The sacrifices for sin, which were offered from the primitive times according to the divine appointment, and were regulated by the wisdom of Him who knew the end from the beginning, are the volume from wljich they derive their most luminous lessons of instruction. And what shall we infer from this, but that God has intended, by the whole sacrificial code, to give to mankind the most just and the most appropriate ideas of » A most important illustration of the design of sacrifices, as well as of their divine institution. 178 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. the sacrifice and propitiation of " the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world ;" — that his own previous institutions are an infalUhle guide to our understanding ; and that every allusion which is made to mere human affairs is very imperfect, and neither can be, nor ought to be applied in the same unqualified manner, for the illus- tration of the objects of the death of Christ. The divine Author of revelation has, however, been pleased, for our instruction on this most important subject, to introduce allusions to the ordinary transactions of man- kind with each other. Among these the terms of eman- cipation, as redemption, ransom, with others of the same class, hold a conspicuous place. With the Socinians it is a common practice to insist that scriptural terms be always interpreted in the same sense ; and, while they themselves are often completely at a loss to affix to a word such a meaning as will admit of a universal application, they are perpetually bawling for consistency. They have, however, priidcnce enough not to try whether the meaning which they prefer will bear them out in their imaginary consistency, without leading them into the most glaring absurdities. That the terms already alluded to are sometimes used by the sacred writers improperly, we do not deny. To redeem, or to ransom, is, as Mr. G. says, " to buy again." (Vol. ii, p. 136.) Now the proper mean of redemption is a price, and that price is a ransom. But the Scrip- tures sometimes speak of a thing being " bought without money, and without price;" and of a people being " re- deemed without money." Thus God paid no price for the redemption of Israel out of Egypt. Every man of common sense sees that this is what rhetoricians call. in their technical sense, an impropriety in speech ; and that the impropriety is marked by the terms " without price." Mr. G. takes for granted that the same terms must always be used in the same improper sense. If it should appear, however, that the Scriptures often make specific mention of the price by whicli redemption is ac- complished, it will be obvious that the terms in question are often used properly : and if this proper way of speak- ing be found to be applied to our redemption by Jesus Christ, it will follow that the scriptural idea of our PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 179 redemption by his death is that of a redemption by price. The word redemption is often used in the Old Testa- ment in such a manner as can only be interpreted of a price paid : and sometimes that price is particularly spe- cified. For instance : — " If thy brother sell himself unto the stranger, after that he is sold he may be redeemed again ; one of his brethren may redeem him. And he shall reckon with him that bought him, from the year that he was sold to him, unto the year of jubilee : and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years. If there be yet many years behind, according to them he shall give again the price of his redemption, out of the money that he was bought for." (See Lev. xxv, 47-52 ; Exod. xiii, 13, 15 ; Lev. xxv, 25 ; xxvii, 13, 15, 20 ; Ruth iv, 4 ; Num. xviii, 15, &c., &c.) The word ransom is used in the same manner : " If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him,'' Exod. xxi, 30 ; see also Psalm xlix, 7 ; Prov. vi, 35 ; xxi, 18 ; Isa. xliii, 3, &c., &c. The use made of these terms when, in the New Testa- ment, they are applied to the death of Christ, is exactly similar to that already examined. It is true indeed that the word redemption is sometimes used in a different sense. Thus we read of " the redemption of our body," Rom. viii, 23 ; of "the day of redemption,'' Eph. iv, 30 ; and of " Christ who, of God, is made unto us redemption," 1 Cor. i, 30. In these passages no price is alluded to : our bodies especially are said to be " redeemed from death," to be " ransomed from the power of the grave" by the power of Him who " is able to subdue all things to him- self." But not without a previous redemption by price. This last is most frequently meant when we are said to be redeemed by Jesus Christ. Thus : " Ye are bought with a price," 1 Cor. vi, 20. " Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as sil- ver and*gold, from your vain conversation, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot," 1 Pet i, 18, 19. " Who gave himself (as the price) for us, that he might redeem us from all iniqui- ty," Tit. ii, 14. " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed 180 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CUBIST. US to God by thy blood," Rev. v, 9. " We have redenip- tion through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," 1 Col. i, 14 ; Eph. i, 7. According to the doctrine of these pas- sages we are redeemed, or brought back, by a price ; that price is the precious blood of Christ ; and the forgiveness of sins is the efiect of our being so redeemed. The meaning of the word ransom is the same as a price of redemption, and is applied to the death of Christ precisely as we apply it to the price paid for the redemp- tion of a captive. '• The Son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ran- som for many," Matt, xx, 28 ; Mark x, 45. " There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus ; •who gave himself a ransom for all," 1 Tim. ii, 6, 6. The second order of terms taken from the transactions of mankind with each other, for the illustration of this subject, are judicial. In the examination of these Mr. G. will render us some assistance. " The Almighty is described as a judge, taking cog- nizance of the behaviour of mankind, and inquiring iiow far their actions had accorded with the laws which he had given to man. The trial could not but have the most unfavourable issue.'' (Vol. ii, p. 166.) '* What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law ; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh is justified in his sight : for by the law is the knowledge of sin,") Rum. iii, 19, 20. But the sin- ner, whose " moutii is stopped," and who cannot put in a plea of " not guilty,'' "has an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," l.lohnii/1. An advocate, as Mr. G. grants, is one who *' makes intercession." (Vol. ii, p. 169.) As an advocate, then, Jesus Christ ''ever liveth to make intercession for us," Heb. vii, 25. An advocate or interces.sor is one who pleads the cause of an- other. Here again Mr. G. comes forward, in his usual style, demanding the same unilorm ap|»lication of the same terms. According to him, because God is .sometimes said to plead in behalf of a people by delivering them, or against them by punisliing them, the same expressions must always be interpreted in the .same manner. (Vol. ii. p. 170.) It has been often repeated that the occasional PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 181 improper use of any phrase is no argument that that phrase is always used in the same sense. When Mr. G. has put his own interpretation on the passages which he has cited, and shown how " the Ahnighty is spoken of as pleading a cause," (vol. ii, p. 170,) he will not be able to adapt the same interpretation to the following passages : — " O that one might plead for a man with God, as a man pleadeth for his neighbour." " Hear now my reasoning, and hearken to the pleadings of my lips," Job xiii, 6 ; xvi, 21. Nor will his explication of the pleadings of the Almighty serve to neutralize the intercession of Christ, our advocate with the Father. In vain does he inform us that an " intercessor is merely one who acts as a medium between two parties :" or that the word intercession " is synonymous with mediation." (Vol. ii, p. 170.) All this may be true : but the mediation of Jesus Christ is exercised not only with men, in behalf of God, but with God, in behalf of men. He is our advocate with the Father. He ever liveth to make intercession for us. And will any Socinian be hardy enough to speak out, and to say that as God Almighty pleads for his people, by execut- ing judgment on their enemies with whom he pleads, so Jesus Christ pleads for a sinner by executing judgment on him with whom he pleads ? One would hope that even a " rational divine" should shrink from such blasphemy. But if " Jesus Christ the righteous" be properly our " advocate with the Father," he must have some plea to put in in behalf of him whose " mouth is stopped" and who stands " guilty before God." He cannot advocate his cause by pleading his innocence. What he does plead, we learn from the authority by which we are assured that he is our advocate. " If any man sin we have an advo- cate 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," 1 John ii, 1, 2. " There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for all," 1 Tim. ii, 5, 6. *•" For this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inherit- ance," Heb. ix, 15. " He is able to save to the uttermost 16 182 PROPlflATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. them that come to God by him, seeing he ever hveth to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest (an Intercessor) became us — who needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice — for this he did once when he offered up himself," Heb. vii, 25-27. Thus we see that the media- lion, advocation, or intercession of Christ is uniformly connected with the sacrifice which he has offered, the propitiation which he has made, the ransom which he has paid : in a word, with his death for our transgressions. This, therefore, is the ground of his intercession, and the plea which he urges as our advocate. " He bare the sins of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors," Isa. liii, 12. This doctrine is best illustrated by the Levitical law, under which " the high priest alone (as the advocate of the people) entered into the second tabernacle once every year, not without Wood, which he offered for the errors of the people," Heb. ix, 7. In this light we are to consider those scriptural expressions concerning Christ dying for our sins.* " The wages of sin is death," Rom. vi, 23. That punish- ment he is represented as having borne for us. " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows : he was wounded for our transgressions ; he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him. and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, and turned every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all. For the transgressions of my people was he stricken. He ♦ We liave luit quoted here those scriptures which speak of the Saviour dying for men. Such are Rom. v, 6, H; xW, 15 ; 1 Cor. viii, 11 ; 2 Cor. V, 15; Gal. ii, 20; 1 Tliess. v, 10. The reason for this omi.ssion is, that these script itrcs come under the class of the terms of emancipation. He "ijavc himself for us, that he mii,'ht redeom us." " Chri.sl hath redeemed us Irom the curse of the law, being made n cur.se (dying a deaiii pronoimced accursed) for us ; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," Gal. iii, 13. He f,'avo " his life a ran.som for many." In all these pa.ssages, there- fore, Christ is considered as having given himself a price for us. The scriptures quoted above belong to the class of judicial terms. In them .Icsus Christ is conMcicrcd a^ having borne a penally in lieu of that which mankind have incurred. The ideal meaning of these two classes of terms is therefore somewhat different, though their doctrinal meaaing is precisely the same. PROriTIATOKY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 183l hath poured out his soul unto death : and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors," Isa. Hii, 4-12. " Who was delivered (viz., to death) for our offences, and was raised again for our justification," Rom. iv, 25. " Who gave himself for our sins," Gal. i, 4. " For Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust," 1 Pet. iii, 18. " Who his own self bare our sins. in his own body on the tree," 1 Pet. ii, 24. Such is the plea of our " advocate with the Father :" and when the sinner " comes to God through him ;'' who, " ever liveth to make intercession" for him, — when he takes hold on the plea of his advocate, — ^he is justified. That is, says Mr. G., " all his previous faults are for- given.'' (Vol. ii, p. 167.) The same act of God being called justification, when considered as the act of a right- eous Judge ; and pardon, when considered as the act of a gracious Father. That, according to the Scriptures, he is justified or forgiven on the plea of Jesus Christ, his advocate, the following passages will testify : — " By his knowledge (the knowledge of himself) shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities," Isa. liii, 11. " All have sinned and come short of the glory of God : being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ : whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood," Rom. iii, 23-25. " Who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification," Rom. iv, 25. " Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him," Rom. v, 9. As this is the plea on which a sinner is justified, it is the subject of his subsequent glorying. He can now say, " 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 raaketh intercession for us," Rom. viii, 33, 34. Having taken a general survey of what the sacred writers ifave taught, we now examine what weight there is in Mr. G.'s objections. 1. "He insinuates that the prophets, John the Baptist, our Lord, and his apostles, were silent on this subject." (Vol. ii, pp. 171, 175, 180.) 184 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. The whole strength of this argument consists in Mr. G.'s having substituted the phraseology of theologists for that of the Scriptures. He requires us to prove that the sacred writers speak of Jesus Christ as " satisfying infinite justice, or appeasing the wrath of an offended God." (Vol. ii, p. 171.) We here enter our protest against this per- petual shifting of the terms. The question to be discussed is, whether the sacrifice of Christ be propitiatory ? If this should be decided in the affirmative, we may leave to speculative men to inquire whether a propitiatory sacri- fice can in any sense be said to " satisfy infinite justice," or to '* appease the wrath of an offended God ?" But however this last question may be decided, the first is not at all affected by the decision. To give solidity to his reasoning, Mr. G. ought to prove that the Old and the New Testament do not speak of the death of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for sins, a ransom or price of redemption, and the plea on which a sinner is justified. Hie labor ; hoc opus est ! The reader will scarcely need to be inform, ed that it is beyond the power of Socinian magic. We have seen already that the sacrificial code of the Levitical institution is replete with types of the sacrifice for sin which Jesus Christ should offer. The fifty-third chapter of the prophecy of Isaiah, almost the whole of which we have already quoted, speaks of the death of Christ as the consequence of our iniquity being laid on him, as the chastisement of our peace, as an offering for our sin, and as the plea on whicii we are justified. John the Baptist, with an obvious alhision to tlic lamb oflered as a sin-offering, (Lev. iv, 32,) called the attention of the Jews to Jesus Christ, as " the Lamb df God which taketh away the sin of the world," John i, 29. Our Lord said, " The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many," Matt, xx, 28. " The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," John vi, 51. " This is (the sign of) my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," Matt. xxvi, 28 : and before he was parted from " his apostles," he said unto them, " Tliese are the words which I spake unto you, that all tilings must be fulfilled wiiich were written in the law of Moses, and in tlie prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me, (the things to which we have PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 185 now alluded.) Then opened he their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures, (which before they did not understand,) and said unto them. Thus it is writ- ten, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day ; and that repentance and remis- sion of sins should be preached in his name," Luke xxiv, 44-47. Thus instructed, and thus understanding the Scriptures, the apostles went forth and preached forgive- ness of sins through him. " Repent," said they, " and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, (be ' baptized unto his death,' Rom. vi, 3,) for the remis- sion of sins," Acts ii, 38. " They that dwell at Jerusa- lem, desired Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, (see Isa. liii,) they laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead. Be it known unto you, therefore, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins : and by him all that beUeve are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses," Acts xiii, 27-30, 38, 39. When Philip joined the Ethio- pian eunuch, and found him reading the fifty-third of Isaiah, he " began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus," Acts viii, 35. This subject, however, like every other Christian doctrine, is not so fully recorded in that book, which contains rather the acts than the doc- trine of the apostles, as in their epistles, from Avhich we have already adduced various specimens.* 2. Mr. G. thinks there are " two main points upon which this question rests. First, Do you believe that a great and material change took place in the nature, attri- butes, character, of the One Supreme ?" (Vol. ii, p. 158.) No : we do not. We believe only that change was wrought by the atonement, which Mr. G. attributes to the mere repentence of a criminal ; and that God, having set forth Christ a propitiatory through faith in his blood, could be just and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Second, " Do you believe that this change took place in * Mr. G., as usual, has referred to the unbelieving Jews, who " did not even expect asuflering Messiah." (Vol. ii, p. 174.) This is not the only- proof that the unbelief of the Jews is the standard of Soci- nian faith. He is perfectly welcome to all the support which he can derive from their testimony. 16* 186 PROPITIATOUY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. consequence of the death of a God ?" (Vol. ii, p. 158.) No. We beheve that " God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," and Tvepi afiapnag, a sacrifice for sin,* condemned sin in the flesh," Rom. viii, 3 : tliat the Christian atonement was made by " the oflering of the body of Jesus Christ." From these "two main points, upon which (according to Mr. G.) this question rests," it appears that he is only pursuing a phantom, the creature of his own imagination, and controverting a doctrine which no man in his sober senses believes. If that was the case, says Mr. G., "then it could have been a man only who accomplished the atonement." (Vol. ii, p. 191.) We answer : The human nature was the sacrifice which " by the eternal Spirit he offered without spot to God :" and, therefore, "his blood can purge our consciences from dead works." " God (therefore) was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their trespasses." .3. You must, however, says Mr. G., be " reduced to the following dilemma ; either that the mercy of the Father was not equal to the mercy of the Son, or that the justice of the Son was not equal to the justice of the Father." (Vol. ii, p. 188.) Before we answer this objection, it is necessary to understand an obvious and common distinction with respect to divine justice. " Justice, as it respects moral character, has with propriety been distinguished into dis- tributive and public." As we may hereafter find it neces- sary to recur to this distinction, it will be well to explain what we mean by it. "Distributive justice consists in a due administration of rewards and punishments according to personal desert. Public justice has respect to the well being of the whole. Its province is to guard the rigtits of moral government, and take care tliat the divine authority be not impaired." {Jcrram on the Alontnirnt. let. iv. p. 82.) Any doctrine may be made to appear alwurd by being misrepresented. According to Mr. G.'s representation • So the LXX. use that phra.so in Isa. liii, 10 ; and so the apwstle uses it in Heb. x,6. OXoxntTti/iorfl Kaiirrpi a/mpr lacovKtvi^oKt}. •Of which our translators render, " In bumt-oflerings and sacrifices for sins thou liast ha'.l no pleasure." PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 187 of our doctrine, there are two Gods : the Father fttid the Son. The Father is just and unmerciful. The Son iS merciful, but regardless of justice. The Son, one of these Gods, sacrifices his divinity to the justice of the Father, the other God. Appeased by this sacrifice, the Father forgives the criminal, not in mercy, but in mere justice. This may be absurd enough ! But whose doctrine is it ? Not ours. Let the scriptural doctrine be stated, and Mr. G.'s dilemma vanishes. " God so loved the world (was so merciful) that he gave his only begotten Son," that human person, " in whom dwelt all the fulness of the godhead." This human person, " by the eternal Spirit," which dwelt in him without measure, " offered himself without spot to God," " an offering and a sacrifice, for a sweet-smelling savour." By this display of public justice in " condemning sin in the flesh," this human person is " set forth a propitiatory through faith in his blood, ta declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare his righeousness, that he might be just, as to his public charac- ter, and yet surrender the claims of distributive justice. as the (merciful) justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Thus the mercy of the Father is exercised, and distributive justice is waived, without any infringement on public jus- tice. The Father is merciful in providing and accepting the sacrifice, and just in requiring it. The Son is merci- ful in offering the sacrifice in our behalf; and just in his concern for the maintenance of public justice, in thus pre- serving the sanction of the righteous law inviolate, in " magnifying the law, and making it honourable." Where is now this formidable dilemma ? If Mr. G. still think that, on our principles, the Son as well as the Father, if he were just, must have demanded a similar atonement, the opinion can only arise out of the same mistaken notion of our real principles. It was the divine, and not the human nature, which was to be propitiated. 4. " Will it be said that God himself provided the atonemeat to be made to himself? Then it renders the whole doctrine a complete nullit3\ ^^ "^ person owe me a sum of money, is it not the same thing whether I remit the debt at once, or supply another person with money to pay me again in the debtor's name ? If satisfaction be made 188 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. to any purpose, it must be in some manner in which the offender may be a sufferer, and the offended person a gainer." (Vol. ii, p. 191.) This argument is rather specious than soHd, and all its apparent weight arises partly out of the confusion of the various terms that are used, and partly out of the change of their application. (1.) Mr. G. sets out with speaking of an atonement, and then changes that term for the word satisfaction. Now many persons use the word atonement in its proper sense, who do not think that the term satis- faction is perfectly synonymous. Mr. G. should remem- ber that, like Dr. Priestley, he undertakes to controvert " the whole doctrine of atonement, with every modifica- tion of it. (Hist, of Corrup., \ol. i, p. Ib4.) Whatever he may have to urge against the term satisfaction will, therefore, make nothing against a proper atonement or propitiation. (2.) He uses the term satisfaction in a sense M'hich those judicious men, who think proper to make use of it, will not acknowledge. And tlien (3.) To make out his objection, he changes the sense of the term, from the satisfaction required by a moral governor, the exaction of a legal penalty, to that required by a creditor, the payment of a debt. Thus tiiis unscriptural word has, in one argument, no less than three different applications, not one of which we should admit, if we admit the use of the term. Now as (1.) this term is not scriptural, and (2.) it is apt to be so variously and improperly applied, we shall not contend a moment for the use of it. But as it may still be objected that we retain the idea, while we decline to con- tend for the word, we will explain ou/selves. We have already distinguished between the several classes of terms by which the design of the death of Christ is illustrated in tbe New Testament; we will now inquire to which of those classes the idea of satisfaction may be attached, if attached at all ; and in what sense it is attached. (1.) We conceive that it cannot properly be attached to the " terms of emancijiation." It is true, when Jesus Christ is said to " give his life a ransom for many," the idea conveyed by those terms is that of the redeniption of a captive who has been sold or imprisoned for his debt. It is, therefore, only anotlicr way of speaking of the pay- PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 189 ment of a debt. Now the payment of a debt is a satis- faction to the creditor. We do not suppose, however, that the death of Christ is represented as a ransom, because it was positively the payment of a debt ; but because it ^ answers a purpose, with respect to the sinner, similar to that which the payment of a debt answers with respect to the debtor. The debtor is acquitted in the one case ; the sinner in the other. Beyond this point the analogy vanishes. Hence the Scriptures nowhere say that Christ gave himself a ransom to God : but that he gave himself a ransom for us ; and that " he gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God." (2.) We conceive that it cannot properly be attached to the sacrificial terms. On making the experiment we find that we cannot attach it naturally and easily without adopting (3.) The judicial terms, to which, therefore, if at all, it must be attached. We have already observed that jus- tice, is either distributive or public. The first question then is, Are we to regard the death of Christ as a penalty exacted by distributive or public justice ? Certainly not by distributive justice, because [1.] the penalty exacted by distributive justice is the death of the offender ; and [2.] the design of the death of Christ is to obtain mercy for the offender ; or in other words, to provide that distri- butive justice may relinquish its demands. It must then be public justice which exacted the penalty, and on account of which he "was delivered for our offences." "Public justice has regard to the well being of the whole. Its province is to guard the rights of moral government, and to take care that the divine authority be not impaired." (See p. 186.) To secure this end of public justice, " God hath set forth Jesus Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remis- sion of sins through the forbearance of God ; that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." If the feader think that that which supports the autho- rity of moral government, when distributive justice is sur- rendered, and thereby answers the demands of public jus- tice, be a satisfaction to public justice, he will not ask Mr. G.'s leave to call it so. But we choose rather to abide 190 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. by the scriptural terms, which are not liable to the same exceptions as those which arc of human invention. After this explanation we contend that, although to " supply another person with money to pay me again in the debtor's name," is much the same thing as to " remit the debt at once ; for God to provide that public justice may not be impaired by the surrender of distributive jus- tice, is not the same thing as to remit the claims of distri- butive justice without such a provision. In the one case the tone of authority is relaxed ; in the other it is strictly maintained. Or, to return to the point from which Mr. G. set out, and to which he ought to have adhered : the end of an atonement may equally be answered, whoever may provide the sacrifice. Thus all the sin-offerings which, under the Old Testament, were offered to God as atonements for sin, were provided by Him to whom they were offered, whose are " the cattle upon a thousand hills." 5. " But this doctrine converts justice into vengeance. It first plunges its sword into the soul of the innocent ; it afterwards pursues multitudes of those whose punishment he bore, and relentlessly plunges them into the flames of hell liecause they cannot satisfy its demands, which were all satisfied by his suffering in their stead." (Vol. ii, p. 184.) This objection is levelled, point blank, at the doc- trine of divine revelation, and therefore requires a serious answer. (1.) It is from the book of God we learn tiiat the Lord of hosts said, " Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man (that is) my fellow ; smite the Shep- herd," Zech. xiii, 7. Mr. G. will not find it easy, on the Socinian scheme, to account for justice "plunging its sword into the soul of the innocent." This can be done only according to that evangelical system which teaches tliat " it pleased the Lord to bruise him ;" that " he was wounded for our transgressions ;" that "he was bruised for our iniquities ;" and tliat " the chastisement of our peace was upon him." I'Vom the same source of instruc- tion we have learned liiat they who "deny the Lord that bought them, l)ring on themselves swiflt destruction," 2 Pet. ii, 1. Nor is it our doctrine that thus "converts the justice of God into vengeance," but that of Him who PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OP JESUS CHRIST. 191 hath said, " Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recom- pense, saith the Lord," Heb. x, 30. (2.) There is no injustice in the final punishment of obstinate sinners, although Jesus Christ have died for their sins. If the death of Christ had been intended to procure absolutely the forgiveness of the sins for which he died, justice might then require even the forgiveness of the impenitent and unbelieving. But if the blood of Christ be the blood of the new covenant, a covenant which demands " repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," " for the remission of sins," — the " faithfulness and justice" which require the absolution of those who, with a proper reference to the propitiatory sacrifice, " confess their sins," do not require the abso- lution of those who obstinately continue in their sin and unbelief. " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life," John iii, 16. They, therefore, who obstinately refuse to believe in him, are justly led to " die in their iniquity." '• If we sin wilfully (by rejecting reconciliation) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sa- crifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." The sinner, then, is justly charged, not only with the sins the pardon of which he has obstinately refused, but with that of " treading undei» foot the Son of God," and of " counting the blood of the covenant a common thing." In other words : the end of public justice is not answer- ed by the death of Christ, in those who live and die im- penitent, and therefore must be answered by the exer- cise of distributive justice. 6. The next objection to be considered, is that which is taken from the necessity of repentance, of forgiveness of injuries, and of good works, in order to eternal sal- vation. From hence Mr. G. boldly infers that there is no room for any other atonement. (Vol. ii, pp. 172, 178, 179,-487.) (1.) Repentance is undoubtedly necessary for the for- givenessof sins ; but it does not follow that repentance only is necessary. It has been already proved by many scriptural arguments that we are justified by the blood of 192 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICK OF JESUS CHRIST. Christ. It is also a well known fact that St. Peter ex- horted the Jews not only to repent, but to " be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins," Acts ii, 38. As " enemies to God in their minds by wicked works," mankind are properly exhorted to renounce that enmity by genuine repentance ; but the apostles, who thus beseech them, •' Be ye reconciled to God," state the me- dium of that reconciliation to be, that God " hath made him (Christ) to be afiapnav, a sin-offering for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him :" and that thus " God was in Christ recon- ciling the world unto himself, not imputing their tres- passes unto them," 2 Cor. v, 19-21. Should the Socinians still urge that, under the Old Tes- tament, genuine penitents were pardoned, although they knew nothing of the Christian atonement, — we answer that they applied to the promised mercy of God : but that mercy, though they understood not perfectly the medium through which it was exercised, was extended through the predicted atonement of Christ. This is supposed to be the meaning of those words : " Whom God has set forth a propitiation, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past," Rom. iii, 25. (2.) Our Lord has undoubtedly enforced the forgive- ness of injuries on pain of the divine displeasure, and made it one of the terms of our forgiveness, and conse- quently of our salvation. But this is no way inconsist- ent with our being forgiven for the sake of what Christ has suffered. If a Socinian cannot reconcile them, he may submit to be instructed by an apostle who said, '* Be kind, one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath Ibrgiven you," Eph. iv, 32. (3.) On the subject of justification by good works, i. e., by universal holiness, it will be necessary to make some distinction. Mr. G. has distinguished between the ju?fti. fication of a sinner on earth, and what he calls a "future justification," when " we must all stand before the judg- ment scat of Christ, and give an accoimt of ourselves to God." (Vol. ii, p. 168.) Of the former he observes, " The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, says. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God ;" and PHOFITIATORY SACRIFICE OP JESUS CHRIST. 193 ef the latter, that " the sentence to be pronouncefl^at the day of judgment is invariably stated to be pronounced according to the works of the individual." (Vol. ii, p. 192.) To all this we agree. It is a Uttle curious, how- ever, that, after making this distinction, and after stating that the justification of a sinner is " by faith," he should "rest the case upon this striking fact alone," (vol. ii, p. 193,) viz., that mankind are finally to be judged ac- cording to their works. If the distinction which he has made be just, the proof that " the doers of the law shall be justified, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," Rom. ii, 13, 16, is no argument against that scriptural truth, " that (in the day of grace) a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law," Rom. iii, 28. Here we might quote a number of passages to show that " to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justitieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness," Rom. iv, 5. But Mr. G., aware how numerous such passages are, has evaded them all by stating that, " when the Apostle Paul speaks of faith and works, as in contrast with each other, by works he means the ceremonies of the Jewish law." (Vol. ii, p. 169.) With what propriety this bold assertion is made we will examine. " Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law ; that every mouth may he stopped, and all the world become guilty before God." Is it the ceremonial law by which every mouth is stopped, and which proves all the world to be guilty 1 " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight ; for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Is it the ceremonial law by which is the knowledge of sin ? The apostle says, " I had not known sin but by the law ; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet," Rom. viii, 7. Is it then the ceremonial law which has said, " Thou shalt not covet ?" Every one knows thai,this is the language of the moral law. Continu- ing to speak of that, the apostle proceeds to point out the proper mean of justification : " But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, even the righteous- ness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all 17 194 PROriTIATOBT SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. and upon all them that believe : being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth a propitiatory through faith in bis blood. Therefore we conclude that a man is jus- tified by faitli without the deeds of the law." Hence he subjoins, " Do we then make void tlie law through faith? God forbid : yea, we establish the law," Rom. iii, 19-31. Certainly not the ceremonial, but the moral law is esta- blished by faith. This subject might be prosecuted much farther ; but this is enough in reply to Mr. G.'s mere assertion. There is no more inconsistency between a sinner's being "justified, (in the day of grace,) by the blood of Christ," and his being rewarded in the day of judgment, ♦' according to the deeds (subsequently) done in the body," than there is between a rebel's being pardoned by the clemency of his prince, and his being afterward rewarded for his subsequent faithful servict-s. Nor is the doctrine of justification by the death of Ciirist unfavourable to obedience. It is the only mean by which piety and morality can l)e established among men. The love of God and of our neighbor is the sum of the law, which, therelbre, he that loveth bath fulfilled. But " herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be tbe propitiation for our sins. We love him because he first loved us. And if God so loved us, we ouglit also to love one another," 1 John iv, 10, 11, 19. «• S\ hat the law could not do, in that it was weak through the ilesh, God, sending his own J^'on in the likeness of sinl'id Ilesh, and a sacrifice for sin, (see p. 18(5,) con- deinnt'd sin in the flesh : that tlic riglrteousness of the law n)iglit !)(' fultillcd in us who walk not after the flesh, but aflt;r tlu! Spirit," lioin. viii, 3, 4. The sacrifice of Christ is not only an expiation : it is also an ablution. The reader will porhaj)s remember, that under the Levitical dispensation, tbe red heil'er was appointed as a representation of both these purposes, but priMci|Hilly of the latter. 'I'his animal was " brought forth witliout the camp" and slain. Her blnfid was then sprin- kled seven times before the tabernacle of tbe congrega- tion." The whole carcass was then burned, and iier a»hes were preserved to make " a water of separation, a PROPITIATOEir SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 195 purification for sin," Num. xix, 1, 3, 4, 9. Inallu*sion to this institution, the apostle to the Hebrews says, — " For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary for sin, are burned without the camp. Where- fore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate," Heb. xiii, 11, 12. There is the same allusion in those words : " If the blood of bulls and of goats, (as expiations,) and the ashes of a heifer (as a purification for sin) sprinkling the un- clean, sanctifietli to the purifying of the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of Christ purge your con- science from dead works (as an expiation, and thereby sanctify to the purifying of the soul) to serve the living Ood," (and thus answer also the purpose of an ablution,) Heb. X, 13, 14. On earth, " the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth from all sin," and therefore in heaven the moral purity of glorified saints is ascribed to the effi- cacy of this great sacrifice: "These are they that have come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb," Rev, vii, 14. And hence, all their salvation is attributed " to him that hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood," Rev. i, 3. For the sake of meeting these difficulties in a scrip- tural manner, we have already distinguished three classes of ideas and terms, by which the subject before us is revealed. To these we may add another class which we may denominate domestic. Of all these, it is worth while to observe that each of them is used for particular purposes. (1.) The domestic terms are used to point out the aggravated nature and ruinous consequences of sin, the nature and propriety of repentance, and the rea. diness with which God forgives the penitent. Of this observation the parable of the prodigal son is the best illustration. They are used also to show that God will forgive sin only on terms which are consistent with the good order of his family. Hence we are taught to pray, " Our Fa^jer which art in heaven — forgive us our tres- passes, as we forgive them that trespass against us." (2.) The sacrificial terms are used to give us the most proper views of the design of the death of Christ, as the object of our faith, the medium of onr access to God, and 196 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JBSUS CHRIST. the meritorious cause of our pardon and acceptance. (3.) The judicial terms are useil to show how the forgiveness of offending man is rendered consistent with the pubhc justice of the offended God: how mercy and truth meet together ; and righteousness and peace have kissed each other." (4.) The terms of emancipation are to show that our redemption obhges us to serve and obey our Re- deemer. " Ye are not your own, (says St. Paul,) for ye are bought with a price, therefore glorify God, in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." But no one class of terms will perfectly answer everv purpose of divine revelation. It is not by a partial view- that we can form just ideas of this subject in all its bear- ings, but by a comprehensive view of the whole. Jehovah is not to be regarded merely as a Father ; but as a Re- deemer, a moral Governor, and a God. Hence the sacred writers, for the complicated purposes already spe- cified, sometimes mingle, in one sentence, all the various classes of terms which we have enumerated. The two following passages will afford the most perfect specimens : " If ye call on the Father, who without respect of per- sons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear : forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold ; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot," 1 Pet. i, 17-19. " All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God : that he might be just, and the justificr of hiui which believeth in Jesus," Rom. iii, 23-*26. If the reader observe that the terms, '• the blood of a lamb without blemish, and without spot," are sacri- ficial ; and the terms " remission of sins through the for- bearance of God," are used i"n allusion to paternal kind- ness and mercy, and are domestic, he will see that the four classes of terms are distinctly adopted in both these passages. 7. " But it is evident from several of our Lord's dis- courses, that he coni^idered that the apostles, by their ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 197 tSeath, were to accomplish the same object as he'T)y his death." (Vol. ii, p. 192.) This objection furnishes a strong argument in favour of the doctrine which we have endeavoured to establish. The apostles suffered in the cause of truth as well as their Master. " They drank of his cup, and were baptized with his baptism :" and they call on us to follow their example as they followed his. But was Paul crucified for us ? or were any baptized in his name for the remis- sion of sins ? Were they made a sin-offering for us ? Did they redeem any of us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ? Are we justified by their blood 1 These are, however, the objects which are said to be accomplished by the death of Christ : objects which the apostles never imagined would be accomplished by theirs. This vast superiority of the design and efficacy of the death of Christ will be eternally celebrated, when all the sprinkled race shall join in the Antisocinian song, " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." CHAPTER XI. Of tlie Eternity of the future Punuhment of the Wicked. It is a strong indication of the badness of a cause, when its advocate, at the opening of his plea, assails the ear of the judge with appeals to his passions rather than to his reason. Mr. G. has pot, however, been pru- dent enough to lull our suspicions by avoiding this manceu- vre. To prepossess the mind of the reader, he has repre- sented the God of his own system as uniting in himself every thing which he deems amiable, while the God of his opponents is caricatured as a hideous assemblage of every thino- teriijfic. Like one who can suit his friends with gods according to their own heart, he then calls upon them to make their choice. Before the reader fix his choice in a matter so import- ant, it will be well for him to review the drawings which 17* 198 ETERNITY OF FtTTURE PUNISHMENT. Mr. G. has sketched. The God whom Me are supposed to worship, he caricatures thus : — " He is a monarch, a small proportion of whose subjects are his avowed favour- ites and friends. These he crowns with the higliest honours, and loads with the greatest dignities; they sit around his throne and enjoy his smiles and favours : but at least nine-tenths of the subjects of this monarch are immersed in gloomy dungeons, ' shut from the common air, and common use of their own limbs,' enchained in the blackness of darkness, exposed to repeated and in- creasing racks and tortures of every kind ; their deep horrific groans continually assail his car, tlieir .distorted limbs and writhing agonies meet his eye in every direc- tion, while he, well pleased, looks on and smiles in calm complacence." (Vol. i, p. 201.) Perhaps some shrewd men will think they behold here a distorted likeness of the God who has been worshipped in some parts of Christendom. For our part, we think that if Moloch can " smile," he must be the true original. At any rate, this is not the God who has revealed himself in the Bible, and whom we adore. We worship a God *' with whom there is no respect of persons," Rom. ii, 11 : who " is good to all." and whose " tender mercies are over all his works," Psa. cxlv, 9 : who " so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever bc- lieveth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John iii, 16: "who ee?.a, wisheth all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," 1 Tim. ii, 4 : " who is long siiHering to usward, //;; ,itath of the wicked ; but that the wicked turn from his way and \ivo." E/ck. xxxiii. 11 : and who even " beseeciies the rebellious to be reconciled to him," 2 Cor. v, 20. Hut if we reject this hideous devil-god, whom Mr. G. has presented to our imagination, in order to drive us to the worship of another of his own making, let iis examine whether this latter be more like tho true (iod. You shall (now) be introduced to a monarch who reigns over his subjects with parental kindness; he considers all as his children ; he feels a tender concern and love for all ; ETERNITV OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 199 his laws are equitable and impartial ; his grand object is to make all happy ; the obstinate, the wajward, the re- bellious, he is compelled to punish ; but his punishment is proportioned to the degree of their guilt, and the object of it still is to guide them to reformation and to happi ness." (Vol. ii, p. 200.) This being is something more like " the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." But, however amiable he may ap- pear, we have reason to complain that, to serve an hypo- thesis, he is robbed of an essential part of his real cha- racter. That our God is a Father, we acknowledge with filial gratitude ; but not that he is, as Mr. G. has represented him, a Father only. If the character of a Father would have perfectly represented to us " the God of judgment," wiiy, in making him known to us, are other characters very different from this, though not opposed to it, used by the sacred writers? Mr. G., it is true, makes mention of him as a " Monarch," and speaks of "■ his laws," and of the " punishment" of " the rebellious ;" but he takes care to lose the Monarch in the Father, and his judicial punishments in parental chastisements. The clxaracter of a moral governor is thus entirely blotted out, and the name only is. left ; while all the unmingled affec- tion of a parent remains. Such a character as Mr. G. has drawn may suit the mere father of a family, and in him would be truly amiable ; but it does not exactly suit the '• Governor of all the earth." However proper it may be for a moral governor to chastise corrigible oflTend- ers for their amendment, it is also his part " not to bear the sword (by which daring rebels and incorrigible offend- ers are cut off) in vain ; for he is a revenger to exe- cute wrath upon him that doeth evil," Rom. xiii, 4. The nature of the divine government as described in the Scriptures is of such importance to the present sub- ject, that it demands our particular consideration. God is not a Governor who merely gives rules of conduct to his subjects, and chastises the transgressors for their amend- ment ; bcrt who maintains his authority by declaring him- self that " one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to de- stroy," James v, 12. The penalties by which his laws are enforced are not such as do not touch the life of the criminal : they are capital punishments. The language 200 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. of his law is, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," Ezekr xviii, 4. That penalty is not designed for the final benefit of the ofi'ender. The divine autliority has indeed appoint' ed it a -priori, for the benefit of the governed by the pre- vention of crimes ; but it is not inflicted, a jwsieriari, for the final benefit of those who disregard that authority. " Cursed," therefore, " is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them," Gal. iii, 10. His offending sul)jects, who are finally impenitent, are no longer regarded by him with paternal affection. " It is a people of no understanding : therefore he that made them will not have mercy pn them, and he that formed them will show them no favour," Isa. xxvii, 11 ; "for our God is a consuming fire," Heb. xii, 29. " The Lord trieth the righteous : but the wick- ed, and him that loveth violence, his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire, and brimstone, and a horrible tempest : this shall be the portion of their cup," Psa. xi, 5, 6. " He (tiie sinner) shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, wiiich is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation," Uev. xiv, 10. From this distinction between the parental and the regal character of the Most High, arises another distinction equally obliterated by the Socinians, and yet equally scriptural : that between the wholesome chastisement which is intended for the amendment of the offender, and the judicial punishment which is inflicted on the incor- rigible. This distinction is marked by circumstances which are specifically attributed to the one, and arc posi- tively denied of the other. Thus : " Wiiom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgelh dvery son whom he receiveth," Hel). xii, G. But it cannot be a proof of his love to the disobedient, that " he will render unto them indignation and wrath," Rom. ii, 8 ; for " the wicked his soul hateth," Psalm xi, 5 : nor can God be said to receive those to whom he says. " I never knew you ! Depart from me, ye that work inicpiity !" Matt, vii, 23. •• If we endure chastening, (Jod dealcth with us as with sons; and if we be without chastisement, then are we bastards and not sons," Ili-b. xii, 7, 8. But it is not eiiually true that " we arc bastards and not sons," if we be without the damnation of hell, and if Christ say, "Come, ye blessed of my ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 201 Father," Matt, xxv, 34, " Blessed is the man wKom the Lord chasteneth," Psa. xciv, 12 ; but they are not blessed to whom the King shall say, " Depart trom me, ot Karripa. /levoi, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," Matt, xxv, 41. So essential is the diticrence between the chastisement of God's children, and the punishment of his rebellious subjects ! But Mr. G. positively asserts that when our Lord says, " These shall go away into everlasting punishment," he means "corrective chastisement." (Vol. ii, p. 206.) To prove this, he exhibits the usual criticism on the word Kolaaic, which our translators render punishment, and which he thinks decisive in favor of the opinion, that to "go accursed into everlasting fire," is to receive "the benefit " of a " corrective chastisement." While we take the liberty to contradict his statement, the reader will keep in mind that Mr. G. rests the question on the meaning of this word, and undertakes to prove that it does and must mean "corrective chastisement." Now for the proof. 1. "In this sense it was used by heathen Greek writers and philosophers." (Vol. ii, p. 206.) But not one of them is quoted, so that this stands for — nothing. Besides, if they were quoted, and the passages should be found to prove that KolaoL^ is sometimes used in this sense, how is it proved that it is never used in any other sense? 2. " Grotius states it to be one of the words used by them, in reference to such punishments as were intended for the benefit of him who oftended, or of him to whom it was of importance that the offence should not have been committed, or in short for the benefit of some one." (Vol. ii, p. 205.) So it appears from Grotius, that Ko?Mai(; does not always mean a punishment inflicted for the benefit of the oflender, but sometimes for the benefit of him who is injured by the olfence ! 3. "The two passages in the New Testament in which the verb KOAai^u is used, perfectly accord with, if they do not require, the same construction. Acts iv, 21 ; 2 Peter ii, 9." (¥ol. ii, p. 208.) To make good Mr. G.'s argu- ment, the word must absolutely " recjuire" this construction. But as he has not condescended to examine those texts, that task devolves upon us. The first of these passages is as follows : — "When they (the Jewish rulers) had far- *i02 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. ther threatened them (Peter and John) they let them go, finding nothing how Ko/.aauvrai, they might punish them, because of the people." These rulers dared not, at one time, to lay their hands on Jesus Christ, for fear of the people ; but when that fear was removed, they put him to death. The fear of the people, in like manner, restrained them, in the present case, from putting Peter and John to death. But how will it be made to appear that, if they had dared to slay them, they would have inflicted that punishment as a salutary chastisement? The other pas- sage runs thus : '• The Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment, Ko2.ai^o/iEvovc, to be pun- ished." The punishment here referred to is that to be inflicted in " the day of judgment." To suppose, then, that here the word means a corrective chastisement, is to take for granted the very thing which should be proved. 4. " Tlie word Ko?.aaic occurs in only one other place in the New Testament, and there it relates to the eflbcts produced upon the body and mind by the operation of fear, 1 John iv, 18." (Vol. ii, p. 205.) The words are, " Fear hath KuWaaiv, torment." But how does it appear that here it means " corrective chastisement ?" We do not find, then, that Mr. G. has made out his case, viz., that " this term, so far from encouraging, directly opposes the supposition of never ending torments." (Vol. ii, p. 208. After this examination, that the meaning of the word may not be left in any degree of uncertainty, it becomes necessary to show that Ko7MaiQ ia a very proper word to express a vindictive punishment. 1. Andreas Cesar, in his commentary on Rev. xiv, 11, observes, "It is said that their smoke ascendeth up for ever and ever, that we may loarn that Ku7Maiv, the |)unisli- ment of the wicked is are/.evTii-ov, endless, as also the rest of the righteous is aiuviov, everlasting. Here we have the word in dispute connected witli an adjective which ex- pressly fixes its meaning to endless; and consequently here it must mean more than a corrective, limited punish- ment. 2. " The next example shall be taken from Polycarp. bishop of Smyrna, who was cotemporary with, and the disciple of John. He answered the proconsul who threat. ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 203 ened to burn him, ' Ye threaten me with a fire tharturns for an hour, and shall shortly be extinguished, but are ignorant that there is a fire ot* future judgment, and ever- lasting KolaoEug, punishment, reserved for the ungodly.' {Epis. Smyr. Eccles.) The antitheses, in this passage, evidently point out a punishment endless in its duration : and as this venerable martyr has used this word in a sense entirely unUmited, we have a proof that noXaaic is a proper word for expressing a future, vindictive punishment. 3. " The next example is from Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, who, in his defence of Gregory Nyssene, showed from Scripture ' that, as the rest of the righteous is unspeakable, so also Kolaaiv, the punishment of the wicked is aTelevrriTov, endless, and most intolerable.' — {Photius, cod. 233.) Here again the adjective connected with it, fixing its meaning to endless, shows that more is meant than a limited and corrective punishment. 4. "The last example shall be from Lucian. Tantalus, deploring his dreadful state in the infernal regions, as be- ing ready to perish with thirst in the midst of abundance of water, says to Menippus, ' This is the very nature of my 7/ Ko?.aaic, punishment, that my soul should thirst, as though it were a body.' This punishment is called, in a line or two below, KafadcKij, vindictive." {Scrutator, pages 89, 90.) Hitherto we have been proving that the future punish- ment of the wicked is not designed for their correction. It was necessary first to settle this point, because if that punishment were intended for their correction, it probably would sooner or later have an end. We now come to that part of the evidence which goes to prove that that punish- ment will be positively eternal. The English reader will very easily advert to the fol- lowing passages of holy writ : — " Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," Matt. XXV, 41. " And these shall go away into everlast- ing punisljjnent," Matt, xxv, 46. " Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot ofiend thee, cut them off", and cast them from thee ; it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the everlasting fire," Matt, xviii, 8. « The Lord Jesus 204 ETERNITY OF FUTIRE PUNISHMENT. shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," 2 Thess. i, 7-9. '• He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost is in danger of eternal damnation," Mark iii, 29. " These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever," 2 Pet. ii, 17. " These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear ; clouds without water, carried about with winds ; trees whose fruit witherethj without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots ; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame ; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever," Jude 12, 13. "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation ; and he shall be tormented with tire and brim- stone in the |)resence of the holy angels, and in the pre- sence of the Lamb : and the smoke of their torment as- cendeth up for ever and ever," Rev. xiv, 9-11. Mr. G. is well aware how this last passage will overturn his whole hypothesis, and, therefore, he has taken some pains to expunge it. 1. To show that this passage re- lates to temporal events, he cites the eighth verse : "Ba- bylon is fallen." (Vol. ii. p. 235.) Hut Babylon may fall on cartli first, and the Babylonians may be punished in hell afterward. 2. He oiyects that " the passage does not assert that the persons should be tortured for tiiis length of time, but that the smoke tliereof should ascend." (Vol. ii, p. 23.0.) This is curious enougli, and may serve to show to what shifts some men will condescend. How can the smoke of their torment ascend, when they are no longer tormented? Whatever smoke may ascend, it can- not be the smoke of their torment, when their torment is at an end. 3. To secure this point, however, that the smoke of their torment may ascend when they are no longer tormented, Mr. G. ventures to say tliat " the phrase is taken from Isa. xiv, 10," where it is said, "And ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 205 the streams thereof shall be turned to pitch, and the dust thereof to brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitcli. It shall not be quenched day nor night ; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever," &c. (Vol. ii, p. 236.) Now what is there in all this passage to show that a smoke can ascend which can properly be called the smoke of their torment, when their torment has long ago ceased ? The English reader can have no doubt whether, if the preceding translations be just, the doctrine of eternal pun- ishment be true. But the premises are not allowed by our opponents. It is in vain to urge that our translators understood something of Greek : neither their learning nor their integrity can lie relied on by a Socinian. It is, there- fore, a matter of absolute necessity to re-examine the subject. The word aiuv is derived from two words, aei uv, which signify, always being. This etymology points out the ideal meaning of the word atuv : which properly signifies the whole duration of that being to which it is applied, in that respect in which it is applied. It cannot reasonably be denied that Aristotle understood the meaning of it, and the use which was made of it by his contemporaries and predecessors in Grecian literature. Speaking of God and celestial intelligences, he says, " They neither inhabit place, nor wax old by time, nor are subject to changes or passions : but living the best and most satisfying life, 6ia. reXei rov arravTa aiuva, they continue through all eternity. And this the ancients properh' expressed by tlie word itself: for the consummation which contains the time of every one's life, not supernatural, is called his aiuv. For the very same reason, the consummation of the whole heaven, and that which contains the whole infinite dura- tion and infinity of all things, is aiuv eternity, otto th aiei eivai Ei?,7}(pur tijv c^iuwiuav, a'davatoQ i:ai •&eioc, taking its nanrie from always being, immortal, and divine." (Aris. de ccdo, lib, i, cap. 11.) When this word is applied to the present stage of human existence, it includes the whole term of the natural life of the individual of whom it is predicated. Thus, according to Mr. G., " The Apostle Paul says, I will not eat flesh, «tf Tov aiuva, for ever," 1 Cor. viii, 13, that is, during my 18 "206 ETERNITY OF FUTUKE PUNISHMENT. natural life. But when it is applied to any beings as unconnected with the present limited duration, it is then used in speaking of beings whose existence is endless, and that state of those beings, the duration of which it is intended to mark, it indicates to be endless as their exist- ence. This is the case in the following passages : — " If any one eat of this bread, he shall live (hereafter,) etj- Tov aiuva, for ever," John vi, 51, 58. " We have heard out of the law, that the Christ remaineth, eig tov aiuva, for ever," John xii, 34. " His righteousness remaineth, etg TOV aiuva, for ever," 2 Cor. ix, 9. " Being born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, of the word of God, which liveth and abideth eic tov aiuva, for ever," 1 Pet. i, 23. " The truth which shall be with us, etc tov aiuva, for ever," 2 John 2. Now we call upon the Soci- nians to point out one single passage in which this phrase is applied to any being unconnected with this changing scene, in which it evidently defines a limited duration. When this word is put in the plural with the same pre- position, eic Ttsc aiuvac, it does not imply " two eternities, or two for overs," as Mr. G. shrewdly objects, (vol. ii, p. 220,) but includes both the present temporary and the future endless state. Let the reader consider the follow, ing passages : — "The Creator, who is blessed eic i"«f a'w- vcf, now and for ever," Rom. i, 25 ; i.e., who is blessed by his creatures through their present temporary and their future eternal state. " Jesus Christ, who is over all, God blessed eir -«c aiuva^, now and for ever," Rom. ix, 25. But as this use of the word implies both the present mea- sured, and the future immeasurable duration, it is never used in speaking of the punishment of the wicked. Yet from the use made of it in the places referred to, wc may perceive that we have given the true meaning of the term, and that, as applied to a future duration, it still implies eternity. There is a third phrase, however, which diflers from both these : it is, fir 7«f muvar; tuv aiufiov, which is gene- rally translated " for ever and ever," and might perhaps be rendored, tiirough tl>e durations of durations. This form of speech is very intelligible, and may be properly called the superlative. What is the huly c»f holies, but the most holy? What is the heaven of heavens, but the high- ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 207 est heaven ? And what are the " durations of durations," or, as some Socinians call them, " the ages of ages," but that duration which is the greatest of ail, that is proper eternity. This phrase is used only on the most important occasions, and to indicate an unlimited duration. It is usedi (1.) To point out the eternity of the Most High :• " He that sat on the throne who liveth eic r«f muvac ruv aiuvuv, for ever and ever." (See Rev. iv, 9, 10; v, 14; X, 6 ; XV, 7.) (2.) To mark the endless duration of his government : " He shall reign eig t8q aiuvac tuv aiuvuv, for ever and ever." (See Rev. xi, 15.) (3.) To indicate the everlasting praise which shall be rendered to him : — - "Blessing, honour, glory, and power, be unto him that sit^ teth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, slq -sg aiuvag TUV aiuvuv, for ever and ever." (See Rev. v, 13 ; vii, 12.) (4.) To describe the endless duration of the blessedness of the righteous : " And they shall reign eic rsr aiuvag tuv aiuvuv, for ever and ever." (See Rev. xxii, 5.) (5.) And finally, to describe the duration of the punishment of the wicked : " And her smoke rose up «f thq aiuvac tuv aiu- vuv, for ever and ever." (See Rev. xiv, 11 ; xix, 3 ; XX, 10.) It is for the Socinians to show where the apostles have used this phrase in a sense manifestly limited. The adjective aiuvioc derives from the substantive aiuv its abstract meaning, and therefore admits and requires a similar application. This word, Mr. G. thinks, should be rendered lasting, in conformity with what he deems the indefinite duration of an aiuv. Had the word acuvLog been, in the view of the sacred writers, as indefinite as the word lasting, it could not have served their purpose. Nothing could be of greater importance in enforcing religion on the minds of mankind, than the difference between time and eternity. Nothing was more necessary to them, therefore, than a definite term by which they might deci- sively distinguish between things temporal and things eter- nal. Any periphrasis had been better than a word, the meaning of which was indefinite. But the meaning of the word lasting is perfectly indefinite, and may include either a long or a short period of time ; and, therefore, it does not at all distinguish between those things which have an end, and those which have no end. 208 EIEHJN'ITY OF FVTL'RE rUMSIIMENT. As the word aiuv has a definite meaning, and, when appUed to duration, always includes the whole period of that duration to which it refers — and as, when it refers to existence beyond this world, it always includes unmea- sured duration — the adjective must also have a definite meaning. With liberty, therefore, to make the san^ use of the translation which is made of the original, we cannot render it better than by the word eternal. This is precisely and distinctly the sense in which it is used by the sacred writers ; and it is, therefore, the very word which they have adopted to distinguish interminable duration iVoni that which has an end. For instance : " Our light aflliction which is but for a moment, \vorketh out for us a far more exceeding and oiw^iov eternal weight of glory." Again : " For the things which are seen are irpocTKaipa, temporal, but the things which are not seen are aiuvia, eternal," 2 Cor. iv, 17, 18. In these two places we find that aiuvior is used to distinguish the things which have no end, from those which are indeed " lasting," but not everlasting. If the word had not an independent power to make this distinction, it could not have answered the apostle's purpose. This word, then, is used to announce the unlimited du- ration of things undoubtedly without limit. (1.) It is put for the endless duration of God himself. He is calle