THE PRINCIPAL 
 
 DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY 
 
 DEFENDED AGAINST THE 
 
 ERRORS OF SOCINIANISM: 
 
 AN ANSWER 
 
 THE REV. JOHN GRUNDY'S LECTURES. 
 
 BY EDWARD HARE. 
 
 NEW-YOEK, 
 
 Published by b. waugh and t* mason, 
 
 FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT THE CONFERENCE 
 OFFICE, 200 MULBERRY STREET. 
 
 J. Collord, Printer. 
 Ib3«. 
 
A 
 
 fr 
 
 A 
 
 ^r^> 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In a prefatory address, it is not uncommon for the 
 author to assign reasons for his undertaking, to adver- 
 tise the suhstance of his work, to obviate vulgar pre- 
 judices, and to apologize for his defect in the execution 
 of his design, or conciliate the candour of the public. 
 But when, as in the present instance, a book has been 
 published in periodical parts, and the principal parts 
 have been some time 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 
 r ainst what he justly, but inconsistently, calls " the 
 j 'incipal doctrines of Christianity :" and that this work 
 ! as originally intended to be a preservative against the 
 
 rors which he has zealously and industriously labour- 
 ed to disseminate. The manner in which this defence is 
 conducted is now before the religious public, who have 
 rendered all apologies unnecessary by exercising that 
 candour to which the author wished to appeal, and 
 which he now feels it his duty gratefully to acknow- 
 ledge. 
 
 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 pro- 
 bably confess that it would not be very appropriate. 
 < c Liberality of sentiment" is sometimes only another 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 name for bigotry : and " calm inquiry" is often con- 
 fined to one side of a question. The author does not 
 need to be informed that many of them regard his 
 opposition to their prejudices as a sufficient proof of 
 his " illiberality ;" that others of them condemn him 
 without a hearing, because he has attempted to vindi- 
 cate what they " never will believe ;" that some of them 
 lay aside the preservative, after five minutes' examina- 
 tion, 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 providen- 
 tial that he has this opportunity for explaining himself. 
 According to credible report, at a provincial meeting 
 of Unitarian ministers, recently held at Monton Green, 
 in the vicinity of Manchester, Mr. G. was pleased to 
 announce that " his main arguments are left untouch- 
 ed." The arguments which he has adduced 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 to defend. These are probably 
 what Mr. G. calls his " main arguments." Every man, 
 who is not a volunteer in faith, entertains his own 
 
PREFACE. 5 
 
 opinion on the Scriptural truths which he holds in 
 common 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 re- 
 sponsible for the precision of those statements from 
 which his opponent imagines himself to derive con- 
 siderable 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 vulnerable, 
 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 dis- 
 cussion 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 Ithu- 
 riel's spear. 
 
 E. H. 
 
 Manchester, April 29, 1814. 
 1* 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Preface Page 3-6 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Of the Impossibility of attaining to the Knowledge of Di- 
 vine Things by Reason ivithout Revelation . 9-22 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Of the Impropriety of mahing 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 VIII. 
 
 Of the Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity 123-154 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Of the Scriptural Use of the Doctrine of the Trinity 
 
 155-1 6a 
 
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 XII. 
 
 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 
 
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 evangelical 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 contradict the first." (Sermon on Christianity, an 
 X?itellectual 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 taught 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 then 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 they are laid before it in a 
 proper light. But until those objects are so proposed to 
 it, it can no more perceive or distinguish them, than the 
 bodily eye can see what is not presented 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 BEASON. 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 
 prepared 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 be- 
 lieve 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 things 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 OF 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 vain-glorious 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. Tully com- 
 plains, 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 pre- 
 tended 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 Know- 
 ledge of Divine Things, ) 
 
 Socrates told Alcibiades, " It is necessary you should 
 wait for some person to teach you how you ought U 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 dissipated 
 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 differ- 
 ence." (Stanley's Lives.) " Plato wished for a prophet to 
 reveal the will of God to us, without which we cannot 
 know it." And Plutarch says the same, " that the know- 
 ledge of the gods can be had only from them." Thus did 
 they plainly attribute whatever they knew of the gods, or 
 of divine things, to no principle but the gods. 
 
NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 13 
 
 The prospect of finding 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 
 boasted 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 vSyracuse, 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 procrastination, 
 and inquired the reason of this delay ; — M Because," said 
 the philosopher, u 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 wh'o was much more justly reputed for wisdom, ex- 
 claimed, " O the depth of the riches both 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 ? 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 1 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's 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," 1 Cor. 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 the 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 knows nothing, cannot be a subject of his thought, 
 2 
 
14 THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE TKIITG3 
 
 his reasonings, or his conversation. " He that answeretli 
 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. 4, c. i, sec. 1.) " Wherever we want ideas 
 our reasoning stops : we are at the end of our reckoning." 
 (Lib. 4, 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 visi- 
 ble creation inspire him with the vast idea of an incorpo- 
 real, 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 ? The positive idea of spirit is still 
 wanting. 
 
 Will the idea of one's self suggest the idea of spirit ? 
 This question scarcely needs to be proposed to a Soci- 
 nian 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 spi- 
 rit in man" might pardon this ignorance of the Socinians, 
 if the latter had no opportunity of reading the Bible, when 
 the great metaphysician, Locke, could attain no 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 immateriality : it being impossible for us, by the 
 contemplation of our own ideas, without revelation, to 
 discover whether omnipotence has not given to some sys- 
 tems of matter, fitly disposed, a power to perceive and 
 think." (Lib. 10, c. hi, 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, and 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, intel- 
 ligent, and free from body, was altogether inconceivable. " 
 (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 end- 
 ing, existing by succession and succeeding each other, 
 co.uld never lead to the idea of a being who is " from 
 everlasting to everlasting," and " with whom there is no 
 variableness, neither shadow of turning." To see imper- 
 fection and mutability in every thing around, could never 
 lead us, by any train of thinking, to the idea of a being 
 who is absolutely perfect, and to whom no change is possi- 
 ble. In a word, " Every thing about us being finite, we 
 have none but finite ideas, and it would be an act of om- 
 nipotence 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 when 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? It cannot be argued as the necessary result of 
 
16 THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE THINGS 
 
 the 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 possi- 
 bly have been ever displeased. If he must of necessity 
 remit the punishment 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 reason 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," who 
 " 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 arbitrary, they cannot 
 be known to us, unless he be 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?" 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 ar- 
 gue, 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 pre- 
 sumption. " These," we might rather say, " are parts of his 
 ways, but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thun- 
 der of his power who can understand ?" Job xxvi, 14. Be- 
 side this : a man might, with greater precision, argue, that 
 he who lives in the wilful commission of sin, in so doing 
 abuses all the benefits which he receives, and aggravates 
 his sin in proportion to the goodness which he abuses ; 
 and that thus he may possibly throw all the weight of the 
 argument which is adduced to prove God's pardoning 
 mercy, into the scale of Divine justice. Mercies abused 
 can never show the probability of the forgiveness of the 
 abuse. Again : it is not true that God has provided anti- 
 dotes to all our bodily diseases ; or, which is the same 
 thing, we do not know of such provision. Many of the 
 
NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 17 
 
 disorders of the human body are incurable and mortal ; 
 and therefore it follows analogically, that it is at least pos- 
 sible, for any thing that reason can find to the contrary, 
 that some of our mental diseases have no antidote, and 
 may prove destructive. 
 
 If reason cannot assure us that God will show mercy 
 to the transgressors of his law, it must be impossible for 
 us, without a declaration of his will, to ascertain on what 
 terms he will forgive and save us. The terms of his 
 mercy will not be such as a criminal would suggest or 
 choose. The wickedness of such a one is proof that he 
 has but mean ideas of the Divine perfections, and that he 
 has not a proper sense of the honour which is due to the 
 Most High. The offended, and not the offender, must fix 
 on the terms of reconciliation. Here, therefore, reason 
 will again be at a loss. Repentance and reformation may 
 appear to the eye of reason to be necessary to this end ; 
 but it cannot, without unreasonable partiality, be assumed 
 that they will certainly be accepted. In a thousand cases 
 repentance does not repair the damage which has been 
 done by sin. When a man has ruined his fortune and his 
 constitution by his profligacy, can he repair them by mere 
 repentance and reformation 1 When a man has hurt the 
 reputation, the property, the body, or the mind, of his 
 neighbour, what atonement can he make by repentance 
 and reformation ? In like manner, when a man has, by 
 his transgressions, robbed, dishonoured, and grieved the 
 Almighty, what recompense does he render to his Maker 
 by a discontinuance of his former practices ? Is it beyond 
 contradiction clear, that God is honoured by our amend- 
 ment, as much as he was dishonoured by our sin 1 that 
 reformation restores to him the benefits which we have 
 abused ? that repentance is pleasing to him in the full 
 proportion in which wickedness is displeasing ? Can a 
 penitent sinner do more than give to God all his heart, 
 and devote to him all the residue of his life? and would 
 not thus much have been due from him, if he had never 
 revolted ? Repentance and reformation then, can by no 
 form of argumentation, be proved to be all that is demand- 
 ed in order to our being forgiven and restored. " The 
 word of reconciliation" alone can inform us how God 
 can " be just and the justifier" of a penitent sinner. " His 
 2* 
 
18 THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE THINGS 
 
 thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are his ways our 
 ways : for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are 
 his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our 
 thoughts," Isa. lv, 8, 9. The " way of the Lord" can 
 only be understood from Divine revelation, in which he 
 " has made known unto us the mystery of his will, accord- 
 ing to his good pleasure which he had purposed in him- 
 self," Eph. i, 9. 
 
 4. There is still another subject connected with the 
 present controversy, on which reason is utterly silent : the 
 duration of future punishment. 
 
 Reason cannot assure us of a future state of existence. 
 It cannot ascertain the immortality of the soul. The great 
 reasoners of heathen antiquity thought the immortality of 
 man only probable. Socrates stands the foremost as its 
 advocate. But was he able to convince his friends of the 
 truth of it? Nay, was he himself thoroughly convinced ? 
 We appeal to the famous conclusion of his speech to his 
 judges : — " But now it is true, we should all retire to our 
 respective offices ; you to live, and I to die. But whe- 
 ther you or I are going upon the better expedition, is 
 known to none but God." An attentive reader of Plato's 
 Dialogues may discover in them a great deal of incon- 
 clusive reasoning on this subject. " I have," says Cicero, 
 "perused Plato with the greatest diligence and exactness, 
 over and over again : but know not how it is, while I read 
 him, I am convinced ; when I lay the book aside, and 
 begin to consider by myself, of the soul's immortality, all 
 the conviction instantly ceases." (Tusc. 2, lib. i, n. 11.) 
 " If, after all, I am mistaken in my belief of the souPs 
 immortality, I am pleased with my error." (De Senect.) 
 Such was the uncertainty in which, on this important sub- 
 ject, the strongest minds were held ! 
 
 Human reason, when the question is agitated, may sug- 
 gest many arguments which render it probable that this 
 is not our final state ; but certainty from that source is 
 impossible. That which had a beginning, may possibly 
 have an end. " Had the soul a natural immortality, the 
 origin of life in itself, it could never cease to be ; it would 
 be God." But, like all created beings, it is dependent on 
 its Creator, " in whom it lives, and moves, and has its be- 
 ing." It is therefore dependent on the sovereign will of 
 
NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON- 19 
 
 him who sees the possibility "that the spirit should fail 
 before him, and the souls which he has made," Isaiah 
 lvii, 16. 
 
 And from whence can reason infer how long it is the 
 will of God to prolong the existence of the human soul ? 
 That he has designed it for an eternal, or even for a future 
 state of existence, cannot be inferred from its nature, the 
 growth of its faculties, its abhorrence of annihilation, or 
 its desire of existence. By the nature of the soul, I mean 
 its immateriality. But reason does not uniformly perceive 
 that it is immaterial. Who can argue with greater pre- 
 cision than the Socinians ? Yet many of them are tho- 
 roughly convinced that their souls are no other than mere 
 matter. These cannot argue that because the human soul 
 is immaterial, it is immortal. All their hope is the re- 
 surrection of the body. But suppose the soul to be spi- 
 rit, and that some philosophers are aware that a spirit is 
 immaterial ; can it be fairly and confidently affirmed that 
 it is therefore immortal? Its immateriality renders it im- 
 possible that it should be destroyed by a dissolution of its 
 parts ; for that which is immaterial has no parts. But 
 how does it appear that there is no method of annihilation, 
 but dissolution ? Because the soul cannot perish by the 
 same means by which the body dies, does it follow that 
 it is immortal? The immortality of the soul cannot be 
 inferred from the growth of its faculties. We see human 
 bodies in a state of progressive improvement till they ar- 
 rive at a certain point, beyond which they speedily decline, 
 and sooner or later perish. And how shall we ascertain 
 that there is not a fixed point, beyond which the human 
 mind is incapable of improvement; a zenith which it 
 passes and then makes haste to set in darkness ? Its 
 abhorrence of annihilation, and its desire of perpetual ex- 
 istence, cannot prove to us its endless duration. In truth, 
 the abhorrence of annihilation, and the desire of immor- 
 tality, are neither so universal, nor so uniform, as those 
 who triumph in the argument adduced from them assume. 
 But if they were universal and uniform, they, in this case, 
 prove nothing. How many evils which we abhor, befall 
 us ! and how few of our desires are gratified ! W T ho would 
 infer that he shall never want, because he shrinks at the 
 thought of poverty ? or that he shall one day be a king, 
 
SO THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE THINGS 
 
 because his head itches for a diadem? This argument 
 would just as well convince us of the immortality of the 
 body, as of that of the soul. 
 
 Again : reason cannot assure us of the future resur- 
 rection of the body. The heathens did not place this 
 hope of the Christian even among probabilities ; nay, 
 some of them thought it impossible. " God," says Pliny, 
 " cannot do all things, neither recall the dead, nor make 
 mortal creatures immortal. " Hence, when St. Paul 
 preached to the Stoics and Epicureans at Athens, they 
 treated him as " a setter forth of new gods, because he 
 preached to them Jesus and the resurrection ;" and would 
 hear no more from one who could be guilty of mentioning 
 such an absurdity. And who can wonder at the error of 
 those who " knew not the Scriptures, neither the power 
 of God?" Which of us has seen a dead body revive? 
 What is there left in a rotten carcass, the dust of which is 
 scattered before the winds of heaven, to lead us to look 
 for a resuscitation 1 " Can these dry bones live? Lord, 
 thou knowest." And who beside knows, unless the Lord 
 of life have been pleased to give some intimation of his 
 purpose? W r e can indeed reason on this subject from 
 analogy. W r e see that day uniformly follows night ; find 
 therefore argue that the night of death may be followed by 
 the morning of a resurrection ? Very true ; it may ; but 
 is it evident from hence that it shall ? Might not one, 
 with equal propriety, attempt in this way to prove an end- 
 less succession of sleeping and waking, of dying and 
 reviving? Again: every spring produces a resurrection 
 in the vegetable world, from whence some men of great 
 name infer that there will at length be a resurrection in 
 the animal world ; and the apostle's allusion to a grain of 
 wheat, which " is not quickened except it die," is thought 
 to give countenance to the argument, and to prove its 
 validity. Now, not to say that it is but a lame 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 illustrate a future resurrection ? If it be an argument, 
 the following is well adapted to destroy it. " There is 
 hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, 
 and that the tender branch thereof will not cease : though 
 the root thereof was old in the earth, and the stock thereof 
 
NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 21 
 
 die in the ground ; yet through 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 par- 
 tiality of a man in his own cause, or of the unwillingness 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 willing to acknow- 
 ledge, what is due ffom the intelligent and accountable 
 creatures of God, to the Divine majesty, purity, justice, 
 and goodness. Unless he can comprehend thus much, he 
 has no data on which to ground his decision of this impor- 
 tant question, and must therefore refer it to that Gospel in 
 which " the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodli- 
 ness, and unrighteousness. " 
 
 Should that knowledge of Divine things, which, after all, 
 the wiser heathens confessedly possessed, render it doubt- 
 ful whether reason be so inadequate to the attainment 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 progenitors, was no 
 stranger to them. While the latter reigned in Egypt, 
 much valuable light would be diffused among the inhabit- 
 ants of that country. The Egyptians would make con- 
 siderable improvement in Divine knowledge during the 
 captivity of Israel, and not a little by the miraculous deli- 
 verance. 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 antiquity obtained, 
 not from reason, but from revelation, their best maxims, 
 and their most valuable knowledge. And thus " every 
 
22 THE KNOWLEDGE OF DIVINE THINGS 
 
 good and perfect gift'' may be traced up to " the Father 
 of lights." 
 
 It will very probably be objected, that the Scriptures 
 refer us to the works of God, that from those works we 
 may learn the knowledge of God, and be led by the crea- 
 tures to the Creator. 
 
 When God has declared himself to men, he justly 
 appeals to his works as vouchers for the character which 
 he has given of himself, and of the wisdom, power, and 
 goodness 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 the 
 works of God, as independent proofs of his existence, 
 among those to whom a verbal revelation was addressed, 
 were unnecessary. That the Old Testament is full of 
 appeals to the works of God, is too obvious to be called 
 in question. But on close examination, the true reason 
 for those appeals will be found to be this : the nations 
 who surrounded the Israelites were, without exception, 
 worshippers of idols ; and the God of Israel wished to be 
 distinguished 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 the being of God. The pas- 
 sage alluded to, which we will examine as we proceed, is 
 the following : — 4t 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 had given 
 to them some knowledge of himself. He had not left 
 them to the instructions of unassisted reason. M 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 
 {iis existence, but) his eternal power and Godhead, so that 
 
NOT ATTAINABLE BY REASON. 23 
 
 they are without excuse. Because that (instead of finding 
 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. Professing themselves to be wise, they 
 became fools ; and changed the glory of the incorruptible 
 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 himself 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 II. 
 
 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 follow :• — 
 
 " To what end was reason given ? Precisely, that it 
 might be the rule of life ; 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. 4 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 1" (Sermon on Chris- 
 tianity, an Intellectual 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, 
 whether " 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 pathless deserts of the 
 deep. If 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 
 philosophical theologians who make Divine revelation 
 bow before human reason. Or, if he would condescend 
 to embark with those who understand the art of spiritual 
 navigation a little better than hinself, 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 pre- 
 scribed, and oblige their helmsman, 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 rea- 
 son is the "rule," by which reason, the "judge," must 
 " try the spirits ;" or that it is the c * 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 pro- 
 priety of making reason " the touchstone of every doc- 
 trine." " 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. u Hereby 
 know ye the Spirit of God. Every spirit 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 the flesh, 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. G.'s quotations will show, 
 is all that he has proved. Who but himself would have 
 
DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 25 
 
 thought that Jesus Christ taught us to appeal from the 
 Scriptures to the " touchstone" of reason, when, on a 
 subject of pure revelation, he said to the Jews, " Search 
 the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; 
 and they (not reason) are they which testify of me ?" 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 
 of argumentation, 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 1 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 z another esteemeth every day alike. Let every 
 3 
 
26 REASON NOT THE TEST OF THE 
 
 one (sv r(*i iSiu voi ir'kypocpopsi&u)) abound in his own 
 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 
 regard 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 to 
 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 enow 
 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 light, 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 
 fione effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them 
 that perish, foolishness ; but unto us which 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 1 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 require a sign, 
 and the Greeks seek after wisdom : but we preach Christ 
 crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling 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 
 
 w that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him 
 are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wis- 
 dom, &c, 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 of 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 nought. 
 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 wo 
 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 
 with 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 be 
 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 foolish 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 at Laodicea, and for 
 as many as have not seen my face in the flesh ; that their 
 hearts might 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 stablished in the faith, as ye have 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," Psalm 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 1 
 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 word faithfully* 
 What is the chaff to the wheat 1 saith the Lord ? Is not 
 my word like as a fire 1 saith the Lord ; and like a ham- 
 mer that hreaketh the rocks in pieces," Jer. xxiii, 9, &c. 
 " For I testify 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 OF THE 
 
 things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are 
 written in this book ; and if any man shall take away 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 pro- 
 per 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 reformers, 
 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 the ge- 
 neral appellation of Gnostics are comprehended all those 
 who, in the first ages of Christianity, corrupted the doc- 
 trine of the Gospel by a profane mixture of the tenets of 
 the oriental philosophy, with 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 
 vere 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, than 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 was 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. Syntagm., 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. 4 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. James Yates, in a sermon on the grounds of Unitarian dis« 
 sent, preached at Glasgow, pp. 16, 17, 22j 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. 
 
 44 In order to convey a just idea of the constitution of 
 Unitarian societies, it is necessary to premise, that, while 
 we are united by a few 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 and independ- 
 ent 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 death of Christ was an incalcu- 
 lable 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 example, 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 opinions; 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 intermediate state, and the philoso- 
 phical doctrines of materialism and necessity, we either 
 remain in doubt or espouse opposite 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." (JMr. 
 Yates 1 s Sermon, pp. 13-15.) 
 
 Mr. Yates ought to have the thanks of the Christian 
 world 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. 
 11 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 sal- 
 vation." 
 
 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 y^t agreed on " the philosophical doctrines of mate- 
 rialism and necessity." But ought they not to know from 
 whence 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, be- 
 fore 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 affections, 
 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 1 
 
 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 man- 
 ner the world is benefitted by the death of Christ. They 
 are not agreed whether baptism, (i. e. washing,) should 
 be administered with or without water ! Risum teneatis ? 
 They are not agreed whether they have an immortal soul ; 
 or whether they have any soul at all ; whether they are 
 walking in glorious liberty, or are bound in the adamantine 
 chains of inexorable necessity ! Such are the consist- 
 encies 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 tower of which the 
 foundation 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 themselves, 
 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? 
 
DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 35 
 
 and therefore could never enlighten the world by their 
 instructions ; so, when philosophical divines bring the 
 doctrines of revelation to the test of human reason, and 
 make their own conceptions the rule by which they are to 
 judge, they can easily agree to discard many points of doc- 
 trine which in their own opinion ought not to be taught, 
 because they are false, but have among themselves no 
 positive revealed 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 neutralized ; so by the negative and skeptical philo- 
 sophy of modern teachers, Christianity is destroyed. It 
 is true, indeed, while the Socinians differ among them- 
 selves in matters which they deem of " inferior import- 
 ance," 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 " crucifying 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 
 Gad. It is suited, especially in those parts which most 
 immediately 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 
 
36 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 Gospel 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 revela- 
 tion of them. These are mysteries still. " We see them 
 through a glass darkly :" " we know them but in part," 
 1 Cor. xiii, 12. The Gospel does not in every case ena- 
 able us to answer those questions, — why ? how 1 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 either 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 
 " secret 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 we 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 we have 
 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, without pre- 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL* 37 
 
 judice or prepossession, at the feet of Christ and of his 
 apostles, and to learn from them what are M 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 
 £heir destruction his aim, is of great importance. 
 
 It is not our purpose to prove that there is an cmnipre* 
 sent, omniscient, omnipotent, prescient, and infinitely ma- 
 licious fiend. {Led. vol. i, pp. 18, 73, 74, 84, 91, 92, 102.) 
 Mr. G., for aught we know, may have heard ignorant per- 
 sons speak as if there were ; and it must be confessed that 
 he has made the best use of their misrepresentations. 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 infinite 
 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, 
 M visible and invisible," even *' thrones, dominions, prin- 
 cipalities, and powers," Col. i, 16. These invisible inha- 
 bitants of heaven are intelligent beings ; for they " do al- 
 ways 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 
 vis, who are taught to pray, that his " will may be done 
 on earth, as it is done in heaven." They are spiritual 
 substances : not clothed with flesh like us ; for " he 
 gnaketh his angels spirits," Heb. i, 7, 
 
 4 
 
38 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. 
 
 These celestial spirits are called angels or messen* 
 gers, because they have been known to mankind chiefly 
 in the character of messengers from God. 
 
 From St. Peter and St. Jude we learn that soni6 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 tem- 
 poral. It relates to the journey of the Israelites through 
 the wilderness, to their rebellion and their subsequent 
 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 first 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. aidwg, which our 
 translators have properly rendered "everlasting." It is 
 from as», 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, aurou Xoyog ai5io£, 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 ds&poig, without assigning any 
 reason, and contrary to all authority, " the chains of 
 Hades." In this 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 watched not over their princi- 
 pality, but deserted their proper station, he hath reserved 
 cmtil 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 we re- 
 mark : — 
 
 1. That the passage is still perfectly applicable to our 
 purpose. 
 
THE EXISTENCE 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 ? The word ayythog means a messenger 
 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 1 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 V 9 (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 appli- 
 cation 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 there- 
 fore fully in our possession. It stands thus : " God spared 
 not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, 
 and delivered 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 Luci- 
 fer, 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 the clouds : I will be 
 like the Most High," Isa. 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 EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. 
 
 (Vol. i, p. 73.) A similar notion, he admits, obtained 
 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." (Yol. 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 him as in no 
 way connected with the Scripture account of the devil* 
 or with the design of the mission of Jesus Christ. (Yol. 
 i> p. 98.) It will therefore be necessary to examine it. 
 
 The demoniacs, of whom we have so many accounts in 
 the New Testament, were persons really possessed by 
 demons. Such is the account which the evangelists 
 give of them. They do not speak of them as supposed to- 
 be possessed, but as being really so. " There met him 
 two possessed with demons," Matt, viii, 28. Such is their 
 uniform language. These demons were 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 saitb, I will return 
 imto my house whence I came out. Then goeth he, and 
 taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than him- 
 self; and they enter in, and dwell there : and the last 
 state of that man is worse than the first," Luke xi, 24-26.. 
 Hence, their uniform language rs, 4fr 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 off from all 
 intercourse with persons who might give them any inform- 
 ation respecting Jesus Christ, and therefore knew nothing 
 of him, what were they who said, "What have we to do 
 with thee, Jesus, thou son of God ? art thou come hither 
 to torment us before the time 1" who in answer to the 
 question, " What is thy name ? said, Legion : because 
 many demons were entered into him?" Luke viii, 30. — 
 Who besought him to " suffer them to go away into the 
 herd of swine ?" Who 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 1 that resolves to return to his first abode t 
 and that taketh with him seven other spirits, more wicked 
 than himself I 
 
THE EXISTENCE 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 that " he 
 adopted the phraseology" of those " to whom his instruc- 
 tions were addressed." (Vol.. i, p. 73.) He makes, in- 
 deed, some apology for this, by supposing the doctrines 
 of demonology to be merely philosophical : and " our Sa- 
 vour (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 igno- 
 rance 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 
 come?" Luke xi, 20. Was he not then, on Mr. G.'s hy- 
 pothesis, a false and uncommissioned teacher 1 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 t 
 the Socinians, who now teach that " whatsoever was writ- 
 ten of old time was (not) written for our learning," but in 
 conformity 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 preju- 
 dices, " that Jesus and his apostles pursued one direct 
 course, in opposition to long-established opinions, and re- 
 gardless and fearless of consequences, leaving them to 
 God." (Vol. i, p. 108.) Such is Mr. G.'s consistency! 
 On the supposition that Jesus Christ was 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 
 passages in the New Testament, where persons are spo- 
 ken of as being possessed : they have no reference to our 
 subject ;" (vol. i, p. 74 :) except that those passages are 
 ' - 4 * 
 
42 THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIE. 
 
 an 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 eastern 
 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 we read so often of " the devil and his an- 
 gels." 
 
 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 the 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 equi- 
 valent 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 spiritual wick- 
 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 sub- 
 ject," 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 1 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 the 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 the 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 1 
 
 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. SO ;) but of which 
 the prohibition taught man to know what was good, viz. 
 to abstain from that fruit; and what w 7 as 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 
 serpent " was cursed above all cattle," because we be- 
 lieve that Mr. G. cannot contradict that saying, any more 
 than he can deny that it " w T as compelled to crawl upon 
 the ground and eat the dust" with its food. 
 
 As Mr. G.'s prejudice has raised these, to him, insu- 
 perable difficulties in the common interpretation of this 
 passage, his ingenuity, 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." (Yol. i, p. 81.) But here we must pay a just 
 tribute to Mr. G.'s prudence ! He does not say that k 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 be unfair to say, that he ought 
 to be sure that he has not multiplied, instead of lessening 
 our difficulties. 1., This 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 means 
 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 u 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 w r as 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 real 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 his affairs 
 with as much discretion, and do his work with as much 
 ability, as he himself. To effect 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, any 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 effect without a cause. It had 
 a beginning without an author. 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 tempta- 
 tions of that " upright man," imputes them all to Satan, 
 and was probably written to make known to God's people 
 the author of mischief, and to guard them against his 
 temptations. Mr. G. grants, that " this 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 theo- 
 logy, or conjured up by philosophers, at a non-plus to 
 account for the origin of evil." (Vol. i, p. 76.) We, on 
 the other hand, may be excused if we have imbibed our 
 opinions from that book, for those opinions cannot now be 
 $aid to be unscriptural. 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 which 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 non-plus," 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 with- 
 out 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 actually took place, couched in such 
 terms as will best convey the truth to human minds. In 
 what terms w T ould 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 souls to 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 manner 
 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 unawed, 
 unabashed, into the presence of the Almighty ! The great 
 Jehovah condescends to hold a conversation with him, 
 upon terms of the utmost familiarity. 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!" (Yol. 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 
 Messed is the man that endureth 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 ? w 
 He could not afflict Job without permission ; for after 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 all Job's trials 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 who 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 
 he successful in their schemes of hostility." This is the 
 
THE EXISTENCE 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's body 
 with boils? Mr. G. has left you to find out all that as you 
 may. He does not wish to be responsible for the difficul- 
 ties 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. Without 
 repeating, that the whole account is couched in terms the 
 most proper for conveying the truth of the facts to man- 
 kind, we will hear and answer his objections. 
 
 11 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. U 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 wh^re is the difficulty ? " 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 was speaking io the 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.' 3 (Vol. 
 i, p. 88.) Mr. G. is very much concerned that the devii 
 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 much 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 in the other. In either case, 
 44 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, which 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 powers 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 EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. 51 
 
 himself from the 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 the 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. Matthewsays 
 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 by 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- 
 fectly 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 he had received 
 the Holy Spirit, and when he was under the special 
 guidance of that Spirit, were " worldly thoughts." (Yol. 
 i, 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 accepta- 
 tion 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." (Yol. i, p. 76.) Thus all Mr. G.'s 
 difficulties are solved by applying this " occult quality," 
 this " propensity to ill," to him " who was holy, harmless, 
 undefiled, 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, putting this foot foremost, found his way to the 
 pinnacle of the temple, that he might cast himself down ; 
 or to the mountain 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 covenant 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, p. 94.) So the 
 words " disputing," and " discoursing," — the ** body of 
 Moses" and the 4k soul of Moses," — " devil" and " adver- 
 sary," 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, 
 
 * Gtuery. "Would Mr. G. and his consistent brethren of the 
 Socinian unbelief, find "that propensity to ill, (so) observab'e in the 
 human mind," if they were discussing the question of the depravity 
 of human nature? Here, they find it "observable" in Jesus Christ 
 himself. Is this more like a •' free inquiry" after truth, or a contest 
 for victory, in which even truth itself, with its inseparable compa- 
 nion, consistency, is to be immolated ? 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. 53 
 
 another being, created by the fertile imagination of the 
 Jews, is permitted by the Socinians to occupy his place. 
 And this " elucidation" is supposed to be a satisfactory 
 answer to all who urge the testimony of St. Jude, as evi- 
 dence of the existence of the devil. Such are the argu- 
 ments 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 dispute 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. calis 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 thu 
 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 children 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 of the Gospel which has 
 been preached to him ? — " the god of this word 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 lusts 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'?" 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 offend, 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 ever- 
 lasting 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, — 
 W r e must now proceed to answer Mr. G.'s incidental ob- 
 jections. 
 
 I. 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 there is no chief of demons, no 
 spiritual devil or hellish Satan. 
 
THE EXISTENCE OP THE DfiVIL. 65 
 
 II. It will not answer Mr. G.'s purpose to show that 
 44 nearly every office, which is usually ascribed to the de- 
 vil, is in some part of the Scriptures, ascribed either 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 
 betrayed, and the chief priests, who crucified, our Lord ; 
 44 for being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore- 
 knowledge 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 Almigh- 
 ty is the same as if it were his own act and deed. For 
 to permit 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 absolutely prevent it. Is, then, all the sin of man- 
 kind to be charged on the Almighty, as his own act and 
 deed ? 3. He rather proves, than disproves, the existence 
 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 effect, it will be necessary 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 OP THE DEVIL. 
 
 severe trial, that " the trial of their faith might be found 
 unto praise and honour and glory, at the appearing of Je- 
 sus Christ." 2. Bodily disorders may have been inflicted 
 on men by the devil, as in the case of Job, with intent 
 that those men may " curse God and die." But God in- 
 flicts them often as a salutary chastisement; that like Job, 
 those men may bless God and live. 3. The wicked dis- 
 positions and conduct of men are imputed to the devil, 
 because he delights in wickedness ; but God is said to 
 harden their hearts ; that is, to give them up to judicial 
 hardness, 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 might be damned ;" and 
 thus, not " to promote the deceit of Satan," but to give up 
 to him as incurable, those " who believed 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 Di- 
 vine revelation. Thus do some men " sport themselves 
 with their own deceivings." 
 
 III. Mankind have undoubtedly other sources of temp- 
 tation. " Our animal passions and bodily 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 man- 
 kind. If Mr. G. grant that, in the dispensations of Divino 
 providence, we meet with many trials, and that unless it 
 be our own fault, those trials are salutary, he will find it 
 difficult to prove that temptations from Satan may not be 
 in general equally beneficial. The effects which the 
 Scriptures attribute to diabolical agency he attributes to 
 other causes. What then ha3 he gained ? If the effects, 
 viz. the number and weight of our trials, be the same, 
 what difference will it make in our views of either the 
 justice or the mercy of God that the causes are many or 
 few, that they are great or diminutive ? Where is the in- 
 justice of calling a moral agent to a combat, in which ho 
 
THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVIL. 57 
 
 may be u 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 destruc- 
 tive as its shot. He has just been complaining of the 
 injustice and cruelty of the Divine dispensations in expos- 
 ing 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 indifference 
 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 bis 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 (tw ffovrjpw) 
 the wicked one," 1 John v, L9. Only the existence, 
 operations; and success of the devil, can properly account 
 
b& THE EXISTENCE OP THE DEVIL. 
 
 for the incarnation and death of the Son of God, who 
 came to bruise the serpent's head. " 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 him 
 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 (rou tfovyjpou) the wicked, 
 or evil one," Matt, vi, 13. The preachers of the Gospel 
 do not execute their commission unless they turn men 
 44 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 over- 
 come (tov tfov^pov) 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- 
 cludes the duties of " believing" the truths and warnings 
 #f 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 breast-plate of righteousness, in having our feet 
 shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace ; above 
 nil, in taking the shield of faith, wherewith we shall be 
 able to quench all the fiery darts (<rou tfovyjpou) of the 
 wicked one, in taking the helmet of salvation, and the 
 sword of the Spirit which is the word of God ; and in pray- 
 ing 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 tenches many 
 Christian duties unknown. to those who deny it, take off 
 from man his responsibility. We, as well as Mr. G M 
 
OP THE UNITY OF GOD. 59 
 
 44 warn thee, Christian, not to ascribe thy crimes to the 
 influence of an infinitely malignant, irresistible, omnipo- 
 tent being, because we tell thee no such being exists in 
 the universe." (Vol. i, p. 102.) And we say more than 
 Mr. G. will care to say ; viz. that mankind may overcome 
 k4 that old serpent, called the devil and Satan, which de- 
 ceiveth 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 
 an 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 
 human 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 : — 
 
 44 Thou shalt have no other gods before me," Exod. 
 xx, 3. " The Lord he is God, there is none else beside 
 bim." " The Lord, he is God in heaven above, and upon 
 
60 OP THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 the earth beneath ; there is none else," Deut. iv, 35, 39. 
 M 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." " Before me there was no god formed, 
 neither shail 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. xliv, S, 10-12. * The Lord thy God is une 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 comprehends that unity, and 
 that, without the aid of revelation from which, in point of 
 fact, he has learned it, he can argue conclusively upon it, 
 he accordingly sets himself to the metaphysical task. We 
 are aware that we do not perfectly apprehend 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, we submit ourselves to 
 the direction of our infallible guide, and learn l«he doctrine 
 of the trinity from the same source from whence we have 
 learned the Divine unity. It is from thence we gather that 
 the one God is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. 
 
OF THE 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, baptizing 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 he enter into covenant with 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 
 baptize 4n 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 
 Ephesians had already been baptized " unto John's bap- 
 tism," Acts xix, 3. The commission which our Lord 
 gave to his apostles was " to all nations," i. e. to the Gen- 
 tiles, 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 
 aames, but in the one name of the Father, the Son, and 
 
 6 
 
62 THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS 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 out Christian 
 hopes are to be fixed. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Jesus Christ. 
 
 That Jesus Christ was truly and properly a man, and 
 that the doctrine of his 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 1 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 daringly 
 asserts that " we no where 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 
 show : — 
 
 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 Abraham," Heb. 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 " he came from above," John iii, 13, 31 ; " that 
 he was come from God, and went to God," John xiii, 3 ; 
 that he " 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, 
 
THE PRK-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST. 63 
 
 47. Mr. G. with all his efforts has not been able to inva- 
 lidate this evidence. (Vol. i, p. 342.) John the Baptist 
 was a man " sent from God" to men (as he observes,) 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 speaketh of the earth," John hi, 
 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 
 his 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, 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 slain from 
 the foundation 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 hi* 
 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 he 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, page 
 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 who has " a name that is above every name." Se- 
 condly : 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. Jesus 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 he, 
 and to persuade us that there is the same reason for it 
 here. But, in the 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 Abraham ? Jesus said unto them, 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was I am." 
 To render it, I am he, would only incumber the answer, 
 while the difficulty is the same, and can only be solved by 
 the supposition of his pre-existence. How could Jesus 
 have seen Abraham, if he were not cotemporary with 
 Abraham? Why does he speak in the present tense of 
 himself, and in the past, of Abraham 1 And, once more : 
 if r when Jesus said, I am, he spoke of his predetermined 
 
THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST. 65 
 
 existence, how could a mere predetermination of his ex- 
 istence render him capable of seeing Abraham 1 
 
 6. We cannot do justice to this subject without 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, however, 
 that we do not say, In the beginning the Word began, but, 
 "In the beginning was the Word." To prevent all mis- 
 chief to the Proteus, Socinianism, Mr. G. has taken care 
 to give a second interpretation of the term " beginning." 
 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 beginning 
 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 perfectly in- 
 consistent with the application of this expression to the 
 new creation. 
 
 The distinct question now to be answered is f Who, and 
 what is he, who, independent of all humanity, existed be- 
 fore 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 DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST, 
 
 " 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 (sysvsro,) 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 
 version," in which the Socinians, to exemplify the versa- 
 tility of their talents, and their expertness in the art of 
 interpolation, render the same word, in the former passage* 
 "done," and in the latter, "was," adding the word en- 
 lightened. We need not a better example of the manner 
 in which they set aside the plainest declarations of Scrip- 
 ture, by foisting in any word which will answer their pur- 
 pose ! A translation may be made, which will admit such 
 a Socinian interpolation ; but the original Greek* untrans- 
 lated, absolutely forbids it. The verb to be, when it 
 means to exist, may be a translation of ywoixou. But 
 yivoixai, like the English verb, to exist, is not the auxiliary 
 verb by which the passive verb is formed. According to 
 the proper meaning 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 " be- 
 ing the brightness of the glory (of God,) and the express 
 image of his person," Heb. i, 3 ; and attributes to him 
 the creation. " By whom also he made the world," Heb. 
 i, 2. Will Mr. G. say that the Christian world is meant I 
 Let him read the following verses. " But unto the Sort 
 he saith — Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the 
 foundation 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 ves- 
 ture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed,'* 
 Heb. i, 2 r 3, 8-12. Here are two plain proofs that the 
 literal creation is meant. (1.) The apostle declares that 
 the worlds which he created are " the earths," and " the 
 heavens." (2.) He declares that the worlds which he 
 made shall " wax old," " be changed," and " perish." — 
 All this is perfectly true of the material worlds r but the 
 new creation abkleth for ever. 
 
 3. Let us hear the apostle 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, aad that are in earth, visibk 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 67 
 
 ami 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, 13-17. 
 Mr. G. says, " A thought has been suggested by the late 
 Dr. W. Harris, that the word npororoxog, 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 
 literally, 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 rege- 
 neration of the Christian world, how are we to apply these 
 terms? Are we to understand by things in heaven and 
 on earth, the spiritualities, and the temporalities of the 
 Church ? Then he is the author of the good livings. Do the 
 things visible and 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 are the 
 thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers 1 Are they 
 metropolitans, bishops, deans, and vicars 1 Some such ex- 
 planation will follow. But why then do the Unitarians 
 set themselves as violently against the Episcopalian 
 heirarchy, as against the Divinity of him from whom they 
 suppose it to have originated 1 
 
 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 Socinians 
 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 JESUS CHRIST* 
 
 shall be burnt up — we also, according to his promise* look 
 for new heavens and a new earth, 2 Pet. iii, 10-13 ; if 
 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 T 
 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 Christian 
 Church,—" is God," Heb. iii, 4. 
 
 Taking Mr. G. for our guide to truth as far as he i& 
 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 of God," he says, 
 44 He (St. John) introduces the Messenger of the cove- 
 nant, 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.) 
 
 44 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 44 are ascribed" to him 1 
 
 1. Unbeginning existence, or proper eternity. "But 
 thou, Bethlehem Ephratah y 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," Mic. 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 the midst of them," Matt, xviii, 20. " That Christ 
 may dwell in your hearts," Eph. hi, 17. Mr. G. argues 
 concerning the devil, that if he is every where, at all times 
 present with you, he is possessed of " the Divine attribute 
 of omnipresence." (Vol. i, p. 19.) The inference is equally 
 just, with respect to Jesus Christ. 
 
 3. Omniscience. " He knew all ; and needed not that 
 any should testify of man : for he knew what was in man," 
 John ii, 24, 25. " Lord, thou knowest all things," Johns 
 xxi, 17. Mr. G., when the devil is the subject of his ar« 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 69 
 
 gument, 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]" (Yol. i r 
 p. 10.) 
 
 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 subdue 
 all things unto himself/' Phil, iii, 21. " Omnipotence 
 (Mr. G. says) is a power of controlover 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 sup- 
 pose him to possess these Divine perfections, without pos- 
 sessing the Divine nature. It may serve an hypothesis, 
 for a theologian 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 eter- 
 nal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, and 
 all-perfect, Being, but God? Remove these attributes, 
 and the word being, and the idea which it conveys, if any, 
 is applicable to realities or non-entities, 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 God- 
 head? Is he any longer God, when he has so disposed of 
 his eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, im- 
 mutability, tind all his perfections ? Thus the Socinians 
 rob the Father of his Divinity ! 
 
 3. If God 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 ab- 
 surdity 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 boundary, 
 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 the Divine perfections cannot be possessed 
 without 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 
 powerful. 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 in* 
 finite perfections of Deity, he must possess his infinite 
 nature. Can a being who began to exist be without begin- 
 ning 1 Can a being who is necessarily limited be omnipre- 
 sent ] Can any thing less than an infinite mind know alt 
 things 1 Can any but an " uncontrolled and all-control- 
 ling mind" be omnipotent ? Or can any thing but an all- 
 perfect mind be immutable'? In attributing Divine perfec- 
 tions to the Son of God, the Socinians do therefore, im- 
 plicitly, if not explicitly, attribute to him proper Divinity; 
 for there can be no Divinity more proper than that which 
 possesses Divine perfections. 
 
 7. When the Socinians are not immediately engaged in 
 impugning the Divinity of Jesus Christ, they can perceive 
 the truth of these observations. Thus Mr. G., after enu- 
 merating the supposed infinite attributes of the devil, says, 
 " These attributes are all Divine. And if there actually 
 be a being possessing these attributes, that being ought 
 to be a Deity." (Vol. i, p. 20.) 
 
 8. The sacred writers, while they attribute to the Son 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 71 
 
 of God the Divine perfections, are consistent, and confirm 
 our argument by attributing to him the Divine nature. 
 M For it pleased (the Father) that in him should all fulness 
 dwell," Col. i, 19. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness 
 of the Godhead bodily," Col. ii, 9 : (or, as Dr. Doddridge 
 says, substantially : the word being used figuratively, and 
 including all the Deity, as the word bodily implies 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 the 
 will of the Father 1 We grant it. But this does not dis- 
 prove the fact. (2.) He urges, that " whatever this fulness 
 means, it is evident that it was not peculiar to Christ, but 
 might be possessed by the disciples of Jesus ; 4 that ye 
 might be filled with all the fulness of God V " 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 « filled si£, 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 mystical 
 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 tt given him (to be) the head over 
 all (things) to the Church, which is his body, (who is) the 
 fulness of him that filleth 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 rrav to TrXjjpwfta tov Qeov : into all the fulness 
 of 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 immersed : it 
 is filled into the fulness of the sea. 
 
72 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 filleth 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-emi- 
 nence, 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 mea- 
 sure." (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 the effect 
 of Socinian bondage ! But the confession was extorted by 
 the severity of truth.) We, on the other hand, only parti- 
 cipate (so to speak) the Divine fulness, 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 substan- 
 tially." We are " filled with him :" " filled," according 
 to our capacity, not with, but sig, " 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, 4, "That by these ye might be 
 partakers of the Divine nature." With Mr. Belsham, he thinks that 
 ** this expression is stronger than any which are used of Christ, and 
 which, if it had been applied to him, would have been held forth as 
 an irrefragable proof of his proper deity." (Vol. i, p. 418.) We ask 
 their pardon. Such an expression would have proved the contrary. 
 St. Peter's words assert only that Christians partake the Divine 
 nature. If Jesus Christ merely partook the Divine nature, " the ful- 
 ness of the Godhead" would not then "dwell in him bodily." 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 73 
 
 (1.) In matrimonial union " the man is the head of the 
 woman." (2.) In the mystical body of Christ, of which 
 every believer is a member, 4 * Jesus Christ is the head.' ? 
 The head of every man is Christ. (3 ) There is an in- 
 effable union between God and his Christ : " his Son Jesus 
 whom he has anointed with the Holy Ghost above his 
 fellows." In this union, " the head of Christ is God :' ? 
 the human nature is subordinate, the Divine nature is 
 supreme. 
 
 The union of a man with his wife, and that of Christ 
 with his Church, are compared with each oiher. " The 
 husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the he:id 
 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 fc4 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: — u 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 w 7 ith 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. 
 44 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, ancj 
 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 different 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 thai 
 7 
 
74 TtlE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST?. 
 
 the Divine perfections manifested in Christ, proved hia 
 union, not merely with the abstract Divine perfections, but 
 with the Divine nature. And this last is what, in referring 
 to the proofs of his oneness with God, Jesus Christ has 
 taught us to infer. "If 1 do not the works of my Father, 
 believe me not," when I say, " I and the Father are one ;" 
 "but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the woiks ; 
 (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 Gcd- 
 hoad ; so they ascribe to his pre-existent nature, an equal- 
 ity with God. " Who, being in the form of God, thought 
 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," for 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 plun- 
 der, the circumstance of being like (equal with) God !" 
 (Vol. i, p. 333.) Permit, then, the word plunder 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 (equal with) God, a prey for his own private gratifica- 
 tion. ,J This is genuine Socinianism ! After all, however, 
 he grants that Jesus Christ was equal with God, (or like 
 God, if that word conveys the same meaning;) although, 
 according to him, the Saviour of men did not turn that cir- 
 cumstance to his own private account. 
 
THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST. 75 
 
 (2.) To mako a way for these criticisms, Mr. G. has 
 contrasted with this apostolic declaration those passages 
 which set forth the inferiority and subordination of the Son 
 to the Father. As he has in his supplements to No. VI. 
 and No. VII. several passages of similar import, which 
 he his 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 ' 4 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 ser- 
 vant, 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 which preceded, 
 we no longer wonder. To the human nature, which he 
 thus took upon him, we do not, like our opponents, ascribe 
 those Divine perfections which we attribute to his pre- 
 existent nature. His human nature had a beginning, and 
 therefore was not " from everlasting." It was not inde- 
 pendent, but dependent, and therefore " lived by the Fa- 
 ther," 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 there- 
 fore " 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. ab- 
 surdly attributes to his human nature, should still be attri- 
 buted 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 
 acknowledged " the Father is greater than I;" for the 
 Divine nature is superior to the human. Hence he spoke 
 of himself as sent by the Father, taught by the Father* 
 
76 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST,, 
 
 commanded 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." But 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 Word was with 
 God, and the Word was God," John i, 1. This passage, 
 Mr. G. observes, " was written in opposition to the 
 Gnostic doctrine of oeons, 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." (Yol. 
 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 he asserts, " that even 
 John does not tell us plainly and positively, that there 
 were two natures in Jesus Christ, a Divine and a human V 9 
 (Vol. i, p. 433.) 
 
 2. Hence, after his incarnation, he was called " Em- 
 manuel ; which being interpreted, is, God with us," Matt. 
 i, 23, i. e. " no other than God himself," dwelling among 
 us in human flesh. 
 
 * Mr. G. objects to the Divinty of our Lord, that "Jesus Christ 
 roust be dependent upon God, pnd inferior to him, because he de- 
 clares that he had not the disposal of the highest places in his own 
 kin.dnm," Ma t. xx, 23 (Vol. i, p. 355.) fcon e men would have 
 felt a litile uneasy in urging an objection which contradicts itself, 
 by supposing a sovereign not to be supieme " in his own kingdom." 
 If Mr. G. feels any thing of this he may soon be relieved by I eing 
 informed that the words, •' it .-hall be given to them," are supi lied by 
 the translat rs, and that the meaning of the passage is — " to tit on 
 my ri^ht hand and on my lef', is not "mine to give, except to them for 
 whom it is prepared of my Father.-' 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 77 
 
 3. Thomas, 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 human flesh, 
 this exclamation was the result of conviction. But Mr. 
 G. dexterously divides the exclamation into two, the first 
 part addressed to Jesus, " my Master ! or, O my 
 Lord !" (vol. i, p. 204,) the second, (in which, to assist 
 the reader'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 Tho- 
 mas answered and said unto him, My Lord ! and he said 
 unto the Father, My God !" But, unhappily for the ho- 
 nour of Socinianism, St. John distinctly states that the 
 whole exclamation 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 saitb,) 
 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," Hebrews i, 8. 
 The first difficulty which Mr. G. imagines, in this pas- 
 sage, is, that we suppose "Jehovah to be addressing Je- 
 hovah." 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 
 Jehovah calls him also a man who is his " fellow." — 
 " Awake, O my 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. Wo 
 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 
 the throne in the midst of which he sits. But he that sits 
 upon the throne is greater than the throne. So rather 
 than the 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 
 7* 
 
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 O^, 
 or ®g, who, or God. As Mr. G. appeals to the " Eclec- 
 tic reviewers, who admit that ©so£, Cod, is not the genu- 
 ine 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 og, who. But we 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 Newcome, 
 in supposing that og may be put elliptically for cures og. 
 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, o£ is undoubtedly a relative ; and its 
 natural and proper antecedent has been pointed out by the 
 learned Professor Cramer, distinguished thus : — rp\g etfnv 
 sxxkri&ia, ©EOT £wv<ro£ (tfruXos xa\ sdpaiu^oc <rr\g ctkri^siug, 
 xoli opoXoyovixsvug \isya, saVi <ro r^g sv<re(3siag |mu(JV'y;picv) os 
 epavspw^, x. r. X. " Which is the Church of the living 
 God (the pillar and support of the truth, and confessedly 
 great is the mystery of godliness) who was manifested," 
 &c. {Eel. Rev. vol. v, part i, p. 248.) Leaving out the 
 parenthesis, we have the proposition " God, who was ma* 
 nifest in the flesh." 
 
 44 But do you mean that the invisible God was actually 
 visible to mortal eyes 1" 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 
 Christ aright. He that thus " saw the Son, saw the Fa- 
 ther also," even as Moses " saw him that is invisible ;" 
 for " the Father was in him, and he was in the Father." 
 " O," says Mr. G., u then I firmly believe the passage. 
 I believe that God was manifest in the flesh, in the man 
 Jesus Christ." (Vol. i, p. 216.) 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 79 
 
 • non immemor artis, 
 
 Omnia transfoimat sese in miracula rerum. 
 6. Our Saviour is repeatedly called God. For example : 
 14 The doctrine of God our Saviour," Titus 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 ;" M for there is none other name under hea- 
 ven, given among men whereby we must be saved," Acts 
 iv, 10, 12, 13. Again: ^ixaiotfuv?] TOT ®sou r^wv xou 
 <jW*ipos rjjuuwv, Irtfov Xpitf-rou , " the righteousness of our God 
 and Saviour, (viz.) Jesus Christ," 2 Pet. 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 : Ka<ra TOT 
 Kupiou, xai xara TOT Xpjtfrou aurou ; " against the Lord, 
 and against his Christ, Acts iv, 26. O Qsog xai TO apvjov ; 
 " God and the Lamb," R,ev. xxi, 22. Ex toj fyovou TOT 
 dsou, xai TOT apviou ; " 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 : — BatfiXsiav TOT Kupiou rjawv xai (f&rripog, Ir^ou 
 Xpii'rou ; w the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ," 2 Pet. i, 11. Tvuxfsi TOT Kupiou qp&w xai tfurr^og, 
 Irjo'ou Xpjfrou ; " the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, " 2 Pet. iii, IS. TO. Ss Qsu xai tfarpi t^uwv ; 
 " to God and our Father," Phil, iv, 20. TQ Bs<p xai carpi ; 
 • to God, even the Father," I Cor. xv, 24. Mr. W r ords* 
 worth avers, " I have observed more, I am persuaded, 
 than a thousand instances of the form O XpioVo^ xai Gscc y 
 (Eph. v, 5,) some hundreds of instances of o psyag Qsog xai 
 <JW?]p, (Tit. ii, 13,) and not fewer than several thousands 
 of the form o Geog xai (Twr'/jp, (2 Pet. i, 1.) W r hile in no 
 single case have I seen, where the sense could be deter- 
 mined, any one of them used, but only of one person.' 1 
 (JWiddleton 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 person, 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, sv <nj B<x<fi\sia, 
 
80 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST* 
 
 TOT XpioVou xai ©sou, 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 the charge." (Vol. i, p. 220.) 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 argumentum 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, 
 44 Worship him" (viz. the Son of God) " all ye gods," 
 Psa. xcvii, 7. M God standeth in the congregation of the 
 mighty ; he judgeih among the gods. — I have said ye are 
 gods; but ye shall die like men," Psa. lxxxii, 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 properly 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 wheu 
 the same appellation is given to angels or to men. But to 
 
 * Mr. G. says, Jesus Christ expressly denies that he was God 
 when he exclaims, " Why call st thou me good ? There is none good 
 but one, that is God," Mitt, xix, 17. (Vol. i, p. 356 ) This passage 
 is cited repeuedly by Mr. G. and his c adjutor-, and generally with 
 an air of triumph. Do they know that Griesbach has the words, 
 51 Why as'<est thou me concerning good ? One only is good ;" and 
 thu this is the translation given by their great supporters, the authors 
 of the " new and improved version ?" If these critics be in the rights 
 Mr. G. must be very much in the wrong. 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 81 
 
 place it beyond all reasonable doubt that the name of God 
 is not applied to Jesus Christ in a subordinate sense, the 
 sacred writers frequently apply it in connection with such 
 epithets as confine their meaning to the one, supreme, 
 and eternal God. He is styled the true, the great, the 
 only wise, the mighty, the supreme, and ever-blessed 
 God. 
 
 1. He is denominated the true God. This is an epi- 
 thet which, when joined with the word God, Mr. G. con- 
 tends is descriptive of the proper Divinily of God the 
 Father. (Vol. i, p. 274.) Yet the very passage which he 
 quotes is written in reference to Jesus Christ. " And we 
 know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an 
 understanding that we may know the true one. And we 
 are in the true one, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This 
 is the true God, and eternal life," 1 John v, 20. Mr. G. 
 renders it, " by his Son Jesus Christ." The word, how- 
 ever, is the same which is translated " in the true one:" 
 they must therefore both be translated in. This unwar- 
 ranted alteration being withdrawn, the passage asserts as 
 clearly and decisively as possible, first, that Jesus Christ 
 is the true one ; and, secondly, that he is the true God. 
 
 2. He is denominated the great God. " Looking," 
 says St. Paul, " for that blessed hope, and the glorious 
 appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," 
 Tit. ii, 13. 
 
 This passage obviously speaks of Jesus Christ. But 
 Mr. G. has attempted to prove the contrary, by prefixing 
 the sign of the genitive case before the words " our Sa- 
 viour." This, however, is one of those passages in which 
 the article is not repeated. See p. 79. The words are, 
 TOT i^eyctkov Asov xai (furripog ^jjlwv, and might be trans- 
 lated, with the utmost precision, " of our great God and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ." 
 
 3. He is denominated the only wise God. " Now 
 unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to pre- 
 sent you faultless before the presence of his glory with 
 exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory 
 and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever," 
 Jude 24, 25. The reasons to be assigned for applying 
 this doxology to Jesus Christ, are the following: (1.) 
 Jesus Christ is our only Saviour, " There is none otbe? 
 
82 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must 
 be saved." But if Jesus Christ be our only Saviour, he 
 must be " the only wise God, our Saviour." (2.) It is he 
 " that is able to present us faultless before the presence 
 of his glory." " Christ also loved the Church, and gave 
 himself for it ; — that he might present it to himself a 
 glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such 
 thing ; but that it should be holy, and without blemish." 
 He, therefore, is " the only wise God our Saviour." 
 
 4. He is denominated the mighty God. Isaiah predicts 
 the coming of the Messiah, and says, " His name shall be 
 called the mighty God," Isa. ix, 6. In this verse the pro- 
 phet speaks of both the human and the Divine nature of 
 Jesus Christ. " Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son 
 is given." These words unquestionably refer to the hu- 
 man nature which he should " take on himself." But the 
 following words, " his name shall be called the mighty 
 God," evidently refer to the Divine nature. " The Word 
 of God," which Mr. G. says is " no other than God him- 
 self," was to be " made flesh," or to take upon him the 
 human nature ; and on account of that union of the Di- 
 vine n iture with the human, the " child born," the M Son 
 given," should be called " the mighty God." 
 
 It is curious to attend to the palpable inconsistency of 
 Mr. G.'s efforts to attach to the original words some other 
 interpretation than that given by our translators. After 
 a variety of contradictory criticisms, he candidly avows 
 that he " feels no anxiety as to which of the interpreta- 
 tions be adopted." (Vol. i, p. 501.) We £ive him full 
 credit for his perfect indifference, as we know that the 
 work of a Socinian is not to explain, but to confound. — 
 6i The phrase," he says, " might be translated 'a mighty 
 Lord,' or 'counsellor of God, mighty.' " (Yol. i, p. 394.) 
 Th.it is : (1.) The word (el) should not be translated 
 God, but Lord. (2.) It may be translated God, if you 
 will permit him to derange the whole passage. In ano- 
 ther pa^e the terms " Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty 
 God," are all permitted to stand as a just translation, and 
 are applied by him " to the great Jehovah." (Vol. i, p. 
 499.) To use Mr. G.'s own words, "Is not this saying 
 ^ thing, and then unsaying it again, which is saying nothing 
 %i all I If the last clause is to be believed, the first can- 
 
THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST. 83 
 
 ftot, because the hist la a negation of the first ; and if the 
 first is to be believed, for that very reason the last cannot." 
 (Vol. i, p. 360.) It would have been well if this had been 
 the only proof which Mr. G. has given* that his business 
 is not to attend to the voice of Scripture, but to invalidate 
 its testimony. 
 
 The reader will now be prepared to inquire, Why these 
 laborious efforts to set aside the common translation, by a 
 variety of contradictory criticisms? The answer is ready. 
 Net because thj common translation, which has the au- 
 thority of Bishop Lowth, is not as proper as any other 
 which has been given ; but because the Socinians meet 
 with many difficulties in the application of it. Those dif- 
 ficulties we shall now examine. 
 
 u With what propriety can the great Jehovah be the sub- 
 ject of a prophecy, as about to become something which 
 he is not? Can an immutable being be subject to change ? 
 Can the omnipotent Creator become a creature ? Can the 
 self-existent Jehovah become a child, an infant born? — 
 What is to be understood when it is said that Jehovah is 
 a son given ?" (Vol. i, p. 495.) 
 
 These are enow for a specimen of Mr. G.'s difficulties. 
 They are mere repetitions of the same idea, couched in 
 different terms. We cannot have a more clear demon- 
 stration than this, that the Socinians, when they call for 
 proof of the proper Divinity of Christ, expect us to attempt, 
 at least, to prove that the Divine nature was changed into 
 human, and that that human was still Divine. This is 
 precisely what they would insinuate to be our opinion. — 
 From hence they draw all the supposed absurdities of our 
 system, and on this hypothesis they ground their principal 
 objections. These queries may serve to convict of error 
 any who have formed such an opinion ; but they are 
 not pointed at the doctrine of judicious trinitarians. We 
 do not believe that Jehovah became what he was not be- 
 fore : or that he underwent any change contrary to his 
 essential immutability. W T e do not be ieve that the Cre- 
 ator became a creature : or that the Self-existent became 
 a child. If Mr. G. ask us what we do believe, we 
 answer in his own words, W r e believe that " the Word, 
 which was no other than God himself, was made flesh," 
 (vol. i, pp. 197, 2G0,) or took upon him the human nature* 
 
84 THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 What can he object to this ? This human nature was the 
 subject of prophecy ; was the child born ; was the Son 
 given by Jehovah ; was advanced to power and domi- 
 nion : and his union with the Divine nature rendered ap- 
 propriate that appellation, " the mighty God," which be- 
 longed to the Divine nature before that union* 
 
 Mr. G. is so sensible that he has not fixed any impro- 
 priety upon our translation, that he adopts one additional 
 measure to get rid of it. " After all," says he, » 4 they 
 are only names, as Elihu, Gabriel," &c. So, at length, 
 we find that Jesus Christ is called the mighty God. If 
 Mr. G. can find the place where this is made the proper 
 name of Christ, he will not have proved what he aims at, 
 ti 1 he has proved that our Lord was not in character all 
 that he was called by name : that he was not a Saviour 
 who was called Jesus, and that he was not anointed, who 
 was called Christ. 
 
 One more objection, of a different cast, deserves atten- 
 tion. "Can the almighty Father of all, with any propriety, 
 be called a Son V 9 That is, how can Jesus Christ be a 
 Son, and be his own Father 1 Not at all. But let Mr. G. 
 rather ask, whether Jesus Christ may not be a Son in one 
 sense, and a Father in another : " the Son of God," and 
 44 the Father of the everlasting age?" 
 
 5. He is denominated the supreme and ever-blessed 
 God. " Christ, who is over all, God, blessed for ever," 
 Rom. ix, 5. These words always did, and ever will, stand 
 in the way of the Socinians. But their motto is, Nil des- 
 perandum. The first thing to be done is, to bring this 
 doctrine under suspicion by contrasting with it a passage, 
 which appears to them to contradict it. The elect pas- 
 sage is this : " When all things shall be subdued unto him, 
 then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put 
 all things under him, that God may be all in all." Here is 
 the apparent contradiction. The difficulty, however, is 
 easily solved by applying the doctrine of the two-fold na- 
 ture of Christ. Here is a human nature which was " of 
 the Israelites," which, after being " obedient unto death, 
 even the death of the cross, was highly exalted, and re- 
 ceived a name which is above every name, that at the 
 name of Jesus every knee should bow, of (things) in hea- 
 ven, and in earth, and under the earth ; and that every 
 
THE DIVINITY OP JESUS CHRIST. 85 
 
 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the 
 •glory of God, the Father." When all these things shall 
 be subdued, this human nature shall also become subject 
 to the Divine. On the other hand, here is, in the same per- 
 son, a Divine nature which existed before the incarnation, 
 which had glory with the Father before the world was, and 
 which shall be " all in all," when all shall have been sub- 
 dued. The next thing to be done is to supply the word 
 soVcj, be. The passage then becomes a pious ejaculation : 
 44 God, who is over all, be blessed for ever !" But who 
 ^ave to the Socinians this authority to add words of their 
 own, whereby to pervert entirely the meaning of the words 
 of God ] The interpolation of a word is not, however, all 
 that is necessary for the perversion of the meaning of this 
 passage : the construction of it must also be altered. *' In 
 an ejaculatory sentence, the participle is always put be- 
 fore the substantive." 'E\)Xoyy\rog o Bsog, is then the form, 
 as in 1 Peter i, 3 ; Eph. i, 3 ; Luke xix, 38. But in a 
 declarative sentence the substantive or pronoun is put 
 first. The form then is, og saViv suXo/rjros, as in Rom. i, 
 25 ; o ©so£, o wv suXoyrjro^, as in 2 Cor. xi, 31 ; or, o wv 
 @so£ suXoyqros, as in the passage under examination. — 
 Jesus Christ, therefore, is not only the blessed God, but 
 ^lso the supreme God : 44 who is over all for evermore." 
 
 As Mr. G. has generously assisted us by several im- 
 portant concessions, he will now afford us farther assist- 
 ance by a large collection of passages which we shall 
 ^quote from his supplement. Having arranged them under 
 different heads, he has thereby stamped them with a pecu- 
 liar character which will spare us a great deal of argu- 
 mentation. The reader will please to observe, that the 
 tfrst passage of each of the following sections is cited by 
 Mr. G. in the place referred to as properly descriptive of 
 the Divine glory of God the Father. 
 
 I. 44 Jehovah the one or only God." 
 
 44 Jude 4 : Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord 
 Jesus Christ." (Vol. i, p. 227.) This is one of those 
 passages in which the article is not repeated, and which 
 we have already shown (p. 79) speak only of one person. 
 Our (8s<firoTY\v) governor, God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 are therefore the same. But beside this, it is to bo ob- 
 served, that in a parallel passage Jesus Christ is spoken 
 8 
 
86 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 of as our (<fojVo<ry)v) governor. Tov a^opatfavra avrovg &$<f* 
 ffoTTjv apvou/xsvoi ; " denying the governor that bought 
 them," 2 Pet. ii, 1. This passage Mr. G. has placed 
 among those which distinguish the supreme God by pecu- 
 liarly high titles and epithets. (Vol. i, p. 275.) But Jesus 
 Christ is he that bought them : " Thou wast slain and 
 (riyopottfag) hast bought us to God by thy blood," Rev. v, 
 9. Now, if he that bought us is our governor, and there 
 is but one governor, God ; it follows that Jesus Christ, 
 who bought us with his blood, is our one governor, God. 
 
 * 1 Tim. vi, 15: Who is the blessed and only Poten- 
 tate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords." (Vol. i, 
 p. 227.) The same titles are given to Jesus Christ. 
 44 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb 
 shall overcome them ; for he is Lord of lords, and King 
 of kings," Rev. xvii, 14. " His name is called the Word 
 of God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a 
 name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords," Rev. 
 xix, 13-16. If therefore the King of kings, and Lord of 
 lords, is " the blessed and only Potentate," Jesus Christ is 
 that blessed and only Potentate. 
 
 II. " God absolutely and by way of eminence." 
 
 44 Luke xxii, 69 : Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on 
 the"*right hand of the power of God." (Vol. i, p. 229.) 
 44 Christ, the power of God," 1 Cor. i, 24. 
 
 44 Mark ii, 7 : Who can forgive sins, but God only?" 
 (Vol. i, p. 229.) So Mr. G. quotes, as good authority for 
 a Socinian, the enemies of our Lord. 44 When Jesus per- 
 ceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, 
 he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your 
 hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the 
 palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to say, Arise, and 
 take up thy bed, and walk ? But that ye may know that 
 the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he 
 aaith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and 
 take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house," Mark 
 ii, 7-11. 
 
 44 Heb. xii, 23 : God, the judge of all." (Vol. i, p. 263.) 
 44 The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all 
 judgment unto the Son," John v, 22. 
 
 III. 44 God with peculiarly high titles and epithets." 
 
 44 Matt, xxvi, 63: The living God." (Vol. i, p. 269.) 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 87 
 
 tf The Word was God. In him was life," John i, 1,4. 
 And Mr. G. grants that " wisdom, and life, and light are 
 all one and the same being, all God himself." (Yol. i, p. 
 274.) 
 
 " 1 John ii, 20 : Ye have an unction from the Holy 
 One." (Yol. i, p. 275.) " Ye denied the Holy One," Jesus 
 Christ, Acts iii, 14. 
 
 " Rev. i, 8 : I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
 the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and 
 which is to come, the Almighty." (Yol. i, p. 275.) This 
 passage, which Mr. G. has cited as speaking like the rest, 
 of God with peculiarly high titles and epithets, refers to 
 Jesus Christ. It is the Lord that speaks of himself, and 
 we are to remember that " to us there is but one Lord* 
 Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," 1 Cor. viii, 6. 
 The same " peculiarly high titles and epithets" are given to 
 him in other places. " I am Alpha and Omega, the be- 
 ginning and the end, the first and the last : I, Jesus, have 
 sent mine angel to testify unto you these things," Rev. 
 xxii, 13, 16. "I am the first and the last : I am he that 
 liveth and was dead; and behold I am alive for ever- 
 more," Rev. i, 17, 18. " These things saith the first and 
 the last, which was dead and is alive," Rev. ii, S. 
 
 "Rev. iv, 11: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive 
 glory, and honour, and power ; for thou hast created all 
 things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." 
 (Yol. i, p. 276.) We repeat, that " there is one Lord, 
 Jesus Christ, by whom are all things ;" to whom there- 
 fore these words are addressed. " All things were created 
 by him, and for him," Col. i, 16. 
 
 " Matt, xi, 25 : I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven 
 and earth." (Yol. i, p. 269.) " Preaching peace by Jesus 
 Christ: he is Lord of all," Acts x, 35. 
 
 " James v, 4 : The Lord of Sabaoth ; i. e. of hosts." 
 (Vol. i, p. 274.) This very title is given to Jesus Christ. 
 " These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory and 
 spake of him," John xii, 41. Now, in the account which 
 Esaias gives of his vision, and from which the evangelist 
 made his quotation, the prophet calls him, whose glory he 
 had seen, the Lord of hosts : " Mine eyes have seen the 
 King, the Lord of hosts," Isa. vi, 5. 
 
 " 1 Thess, ii, 4 : God which trieth our hearts." (Yol. i, 
 
88 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 p. 273.) And " Rom/ viii, 27: He that searcheth the 
 hearts." (Vol. i, p. 274.) "These things saith the Son 
 of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire : alt 
 the Churches shall know that I am he that searcheth trie- 
 reins and hearts," Rev. ii, 18, 23. 
 
 " Acts iii r 13 : God, which knoweth the hearts." (VoL 
 i, p. 271.) " But Jesus did not commit himself unto 
 them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any 
 should testify of man ; for he knew what was in man," 
 John ii,, 24^25. 
 
 " 1 Tim. iv y 10 : God, who quickeneth all things. ,r 
 (Vol. i, p. 274.) "For as the Father raiseth up the 
 dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth 
 whom he will," John v, 21. 
 
 " Rom. xv, 33 : The God of peace be with you all." 
 (Vol. i, p. 272.) " My peace I give unto you," said Je- 
 sus Christ, John xiv, 27. "The Lord of peace (the 
 4 one LortP) himself give you peace always by all 
 means," 2 Thess. iii, 16. 
 
 IV. " God Jehovah the sole object of religious adoration" 
 
 It is not said in any part of the sacred Scriptures, that 
 the Father only is the object of worship ; but rather " that 
 all men should honour the Son even as they honour the 
 Father ; and he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not 
 the Father," John v, 23. But let us hear. 
 
 " John iv, 23 : The true worshippers shall worship the 
 Father in spirit and in truth ; for the Father seeketh such 
 to worship him." (Vol. i, p. 231.) "When he bringeth 
 in the first-begotten into the world r he saith* And let all 
 the angels of God worship him," Heb. i r 6. So the true 
 worshippers worship the Son as well as the Father ! The 
 wise men, a leper, a ruler, the woman of Canaan, the 
 men in the ship, the disciples, the man out of the tombs* 
 and the blind men, all, in their turns, " worshipped" Jesus 
 Christ. See Matt, ii, 11 ; viii, 2 ; ix, 18 ; xv, 25; xiv,. 
 33 ; xxviii, 9 ; Mark v, 6 ; Luke xxiv, 52 ; John ix, 38. 
 In all these places we have the same word (tfpotfxuvsw), 
 which is used by our Lord in the passage Mr. G. has 
 quoted as definitive of that worship which the true wor- 
 shippers render to the Father. It is the word which Luke 
 uses in speaking of the worship which Peter, " because- 
 he also- was a (mere) man," refused to accept from Cor- 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 89 
 
 nelius, Acts x, 25. It is the same word which St. John 
 uses when he speaks of the worship he was about to offer 
 at the feet of the angel ; and which the angel uses, when 
 he forbids it, and says, Worship God. So Scriptural it is 
 44 that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour 
 the Father," John v, 23. 
 
 44 Matt, vi, 6 : When thou prayest, pray to thy Father 
 which is in secret." (Vol. i, p. 279.) u And they stoned 
 Stephen, invoking, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my 
 spirit : and he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, 
 Lord, lay not this sin to their charge," Acts viii, 59, 60. 
 What can be an act of higher adoration from the lips of a 
 man, than this in which the proto-martyr at once committed 
 to Christ his departing spirit, and prayed to him for the 
 forgiveness of his enemies 1 44 Who (say Mr. G. and the 
 perverse Jews) can forgive sins, but God only ?" We pro- 
 ceed : — 44 The same Lord is rich unto all that call upon 
 him. For whosoever shall call on the name of the 
 Lord, shall be saved," Rom. x, 12, 13. 44 And the apos- 
 tles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith !" Luke xvii, 
 5. Mr. G. has cited a passage in which St. Paul prays 
 to both the Father and the Son : 44 Now God himself, and 
 our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way 
 unto you!" (Vol. i, p. 285.) In these three passages, 
 Jesus Christ is invoked as the God of providence, grace, 
 and salvation ; and that salvation is absolutely promised 
 to them that call upon him. Again : " When Jesus de- 
 parted, two blind men followed him, saying, Thou Son 
 of David, have mercy on us ! " Matt, ix, 27. This prayer 
 Jesus graciously heard and answered. But Mr. G. and 
 his coadjutors, having found these words in the litany, 
 and not recognizing them as a quotation from Scripture, 
 but supposing them to be the words of some " creed- 
 maker," have condemned them as idolatrous, and " exhort 
 all Christian people to abstain from such worship." (Vol. 
 i, p. 397.) From hence we learn, (1.) That such a 
 prayer is an act of worship. (2.) That offered to a mere 
 creature it would be idolatrous. (3.) That Jesus Christ 
 is not a mere creature, since the Scriptures speak of 
 such worship with approbation. This is an undesigned, 
 but striking proof, that the sentiments of a Christian agree 
 very ill with a Socinian. 
 
 8* 
 
90 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST* 
 
 To all this Mr. G. objects, that " we are not justified in? 
 paying adoration to any other being, than that Being to* 
 whom our Saviour prayed, and whom he styles the only 
 true G^d." (Vol. i, p. 21 E.) This may be very just r 
 when rightly applied. But in answer to it, they who 
 "know what they worship," "no longer know Jesus Christ 
 after the flesh." As "in him dwells all the fulness of the 
 Godhead," or " the only true God ;" to that fulness of the 
 Godhead their prayer is addressed* through him in whom 
 he resides* 
 
 " We warship. t r ward that holy place, 
 In. which he does his name record ; 
 Does make his gracious nature known,. 
 That living temple of his Son." 
 
 " Col. i, 12 : Giving thanks to the Father." (Vol. i, p., 
 285.) The very next passage which Mr. G. gives is, " Sing- 
 ing with grace in your hearts to the Lord," Col. iii, 16 : 
 viz. to Jesus Christ the "one Lord." "I thank Christ 
 Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted 
 me faithful, putting me into the ministry," 1 Tim. i, 12. 
 
 " 2 Thess. i, 2 : Grace unto you, and peace from God 
 our Father." (Vol. i, p. 287.) This text is to prove that 
 Jehovah is the sole object of religious worship. Then 
 Jesus Christ is Jehovah ; for among many other passages 
 which might be quoted, mirabile dictu, Mr. G. has himself 
 quoted, for the same purpose,, the felk>wing : " Grace* 
 mercy, and peace from God the Father, and Christ Jesus 
 our Lord." (Vol. i, p. 285.) 
 
 Mr. G. grants, that the term, " Jehovah," "is the 
 term exclusively applied to the one God." (Vol. i, p^ 
 191.) "I am Jehovah,, that is my name; and my glory 
 will I not give to another," Isa. xlii r 8. If therefore the 
 Son be denominated Jehovah, he is the one supreme 
 God. 
 
 1. In the following passages, the name Jehovah is 
 given to the Son. 
 
 (1.) "The voice of him that erieth in the wilderness* 
 Prepare ye the way of Jehovah," Isa. xl, 3, 5. 
 
 (2.) "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall 
 prepare the way before me ; and the Lord, whom ye seek* 
 shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger o£ 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST* 91 
 
 the covenant, whom ye delight in, behold he shall come^ 
 saith Jehovah of hosts," Mai. iii, 4. 
 
 These passages, according to the evangelists, refer to? 
 John the Baptist, who was the harbinger of Christ, " the 
 messenger of the covenant," and prepared the way before 
 him. But the prophet predicts his crying, Prepare the 
 way of Jehovah. And " Jehovah of hosts" says, " He 
 shall prepare the way before me." Jesus Christ is there- 
 fore Jehovah, who was preceded in his visit to mankind* 
 by John the Baptist. 
 
 (3.) "I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and 
 a King shall reign and prosper. In his days Judah 
 shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this i& 
 his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our right- 
 eousness," Jer. xxiii, 5, 6. 
 
 To the common application of this passage Mr. G* 
 has objected, that in Jer. xxxiii, 14, 16, the same appella- 
 tion is given to Jerusalem. (See vol. i, p. 508.) That it 
 is so in our translation is granted ; and if that be correct 
 the objection has some strength in it. Whoever com- 
 pares the two passages, will observe at once the utmost 
 probability that the writer intended them to be parallels. 
 [1.] In both of them, the Branch of righteousness, or the 
 righteous Branch, is the subject. [2.} In both passages* 
 the predicates are all the same. This is presumptive 
 evidence that they ought to be parallel throughout. When 
 we consider Jer. xxxiii, 15, 16, alone, we observe, [1.] 
 That the Branch is the subject, and therefore the name 
 ought to be predicated of it. [2.] As a person, the name 
 is more properly attributed to him, than to a place, 
 Jerusalem. [3.] As a branch of righteousness, it is 
 natural to suppose that it is he^ko must be called the 
 Lord our righteousness. ^.] ^rd lastly, as he " shall 
 execute judgment and righteousness in the land" of 
 Israel, and in those days Judah shall be saved, and Israel 
 shall dwell safely, it is natural that the inhabitants should 
 regard him as the Author of righteousness to them, and 
 call him " our righteousness." 
 
 This presumptive evidence is corroborated by facts : a 
 few manuscripts have the masculine iS /o, fornS>/a/i; and 
 in this way most of the versions have understood it. Th© 
 Chaldee, the Syriac, and the vulgar Latin read, " This is 
 
92 THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 the name whereby they shall call him." Thus the objec- 
 tion falls to the ground, and both passages prove the 
 Divinity of the " Branch of righteousness." 
 
 2. By comparing the following passages, it will farther 
 appear that Jesus Christ is Jehovah incarnate. 
 
 (1.) " The burden of the word of Jehovah — they shall 
 look upon me whom they have pierced," Zech. xii, 1, 10. 
 This passage is applied to Jesus Christ : " They shall 
 look on him whom they have pierced," John xix, 37. 
 
 (2.) Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, There 
 is no God else beside me ; a just God and a Saviour : 
 there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye 
 saved, all the ends of the earth : for I am God, and there 
 is none else. I have sworn by myself, That unto me 
 every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear," Isa. 
 xlv, 18, 21-25. " We shall all stand before the judgment 
 seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord* 
 every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall con- 
 fess to God," Rom. xiv, 10, 11. 
 
 (3.) " Thy Maker is thine husband : Jehovah of hosts 
 is his name ; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel," 
 Isa. liv, 6. u The bride, the Lamb's wife," Rev. xxi, 9. 
 Beside this, according to St. John, when Isaiah saw the 
 glory of Jehovah of hosts, he saw the glory of Jesus Christ 
 and spake of him. 
 
 (4.) " Sanctify Jehovah of hosts himself; and he shall 
 be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbling, and for 
 a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel," Isa. 
 viii, 13, 14. " Unto you, there ore, which believe, he 
 (Christ) is precious : but unto them which be disobedient* 
 the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made 
 rn^^and a 
 PeWii, X8 
 
 merely the Jehovah of the Old Testament ; but Jehovah 
 of hosts. 
 
 Mr. G. has exhibited a large number of scriptures, to 
 prove that the " Son of God is subordinate to God the 
 Father." (Vol. i, p. 291.) With all these we might con- 
 trast those passages which we have already examined. 
 But it is not our method to destroy one passage of Scrip- 
 ture by another. We attempt, at least, to reconcile them. 
 The passages which Mr. G. has quoted* are intended to 
 
 the head of the corn^^and a stone of stumbling, and a 
 rock of offence," 1 Pl^ii, X8. Christ, therefore, is not 
 
THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST, 93 
 
 show that Jesus Christ was man. Either they prove this r 
 or they do not. If any of them do not prove it, they do- 
 not answer his purpose. If they do prove it, we are right 
 in applying them to his human nature. To all this Mr„ 
 G. has consented. " You agree with us," says he, " as 
 far as we go, only you go much farther. You acknow- 
 ledge that Jesus Christ possessed a human nature. This 
 we believe. If, then, in addition to this, you also assert 
 that he was a Deity, the whole of the proof rests with 
 you." (Vol. i, p. 327.) Thus Mr. G. has granted that 
 the proof of his human nature is no proof that he is not 
 also Divine ; and that we acknowledge all he can positively 
 assert. But he calls for " proof" that Jesus Christ has 
 a nature which is not human. (Vol. i, p. 356.) We have 
 already produced it from his own Lectures, (1.) where he 
 has granted that the Divine perfections were given to 
 Christ. These were not human: (2.) where he has said 
 that " the Word" which was made flesh, " was no other 
 than God himself:" (3.) where he asserts that St. John 
 wrote his Gospel to maintain that the wisdom, and life^ 
 and light, attributed to the " Word made flesh," were all 
 one and the same being, all God himself: (4.) where he 
 says, that " in Jesus Christ as a man the fulness of the 
 Deity did reside:" (vol. i, p. 344:) (5.) where he says* 
 that " God was manifest in the flesh :" (vol. i, p. 216 :) 
 (6.) where he has cited many passages which relate to- 
 absolute Deity, some of which relate to Jesus Christ ; and 
 others of which have their parallel passages which relate 
 to Jesus Christ. We have produced it also, from the 
 language of both the Old and the New Testament, in 
 which the Divine perfections, nature, and name, are as- 
 cribed to Jesus Christ ; and on the result we rest the 
 question. Mr. G. and his brethren may affect to overlook 
 these proofs, or pretend they have overturned them ; but 
 the candid reader will perceive that they are neither so 
 few, nor so trivial, as our opponents represent them. The 
 state of the controversy then is simply this : Jesus Christ 
 is represented to us as God and man. Mr. G. denies the 
 former, because he acknowledges the latter. We acknow* 
 ledge the former, but by no means deny the latter. The 
 Scriptures speak of him as " the Prince of life," who was 
 "killed," Acts iii, 15; "the Lord of glory," who was ia- 
 
94 THE PERSONALITY OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 famously " crucified," 1 Cor. ii, 8; "the root of Jesse/ 7 
 44 and a rod out of the stem of Jesse," Isa. xi, 1, 10 ; " the 
 Lord," and the " Son," the " root and the offspring of 
 David," Matt, xxii, 45 ; Rev. xxii, 16 ; the " Lord of all," 
 and the servant of men, Acts x, 36 ; Matt, xx, 28 ; " the 
 Word, which was God, and was made flesh," John i, 1, 
 14 ; " who was in the form of God, and was made in the 
 likeness of men," Phil, ii, 6, 7 ; the Son of God, and the 
 Son of man ; the fellow of Jehovah and of men, Zech. xiii v 
 7 ; Heb. ii, 9 ; eternal, and yet beginning, Mic. v, 2 ; 
 44 having life in himself," John i, 4, and yet being depend- 
 ent ; " filling all in all," and lying in a manger, Eph. i, 23 ; 
 44 knowing all things," and yet ignorant of some, John xxi, 
 17 ; 44 almighty," and yet 44 crucified through weakness," 
 Rev. i, 8 ; 2 Cor. xiii, 4 ; always " the same," and yet 
 undergoing many changes, Heb. i, 12; * 4 reigning for 
 ever," and yet resigning the kingdom, Isa. ix, 7 ; 1 Cor. 
 xv, 24 ; 44 equal with God," and yet subordinate, Phil, ii, 
 6, &c ; 44 one" with God, and yet a Mediator between 
 God and men, John x, 30 ; 1 Tim. ii, 5. Such sayings 
 are apparent contradictions, and can be reconciled only 
 on the Scripture hypothesis which ascribes to him the 
 44 fulness of Godhead," and 44 the likeness of sinful flesh." 
 If the Socinians cannot see the two-fold truth, the cause 
 of their blindness is not to be sought in the ambiguity of 
 revelation, but in the pride of reason, and some fatal per* 
 verseness of human nature. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Of the Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 When the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is considered in 
 its connection with the doctrine of the trinity, there are two 
 points nearly related to each other, which claim our atten- 
 tion : viz. I. Whether the Holy Spirit be a mere energy, 
 or a real person? II. Whether he be a creature, or 
 God? 
 
 I. In entering upon the first of these inquiries, it is 
 necessary to state distinctly, that we are not at present 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 95 
 
 inquiring whether the Holy Spirit be a third person in the 
 Godhead. With that question we have here nothing to do. 
 Our object is, to ascertain whether the Holy Spirit be, on 
 the one hand, the mere operation of God, or, on the other 
 hand, an intelligent and voluntary agent, i. e. a person. 
 
 We are not about to deny that the Holy Spirit is that by 
 which, however distinguished, the Father, through the Son, 
 operates on all created beings, whether material or imma- 
 terial. We grant, that the power of the Holy Spirit is 
 " the power of the highest" — " the finger of God ;" but 
 not that the Holy Spirit is merely an attribute of the 
 Divine nature.* That it is something more, is what is 
 now to be proved. 
 
 Mr. G. has generously conceded that the sacred writers 
 did personify the Holy Spirit. (Vol. i, p. 152.) He even 
 says "that it would have been next to an impossibility not 
 to have repeatedly personified" him. (Vol. i, p. 173.) 
 This is a concession which truth has forced from him, 
 when he was attempting to prove the contrary. That the 
 sacred writers did speak of the Holy Spirit as a person, 
 is granted by our opponent, and therefore need not be 
 proved. But then, according to Mr. G., personality is 
 ascribed to the Holy Spirit, not because he is a proper 
 person, but according to a common rhetorical figure, by 
 which " other accidents, qualities, or affections, " are per- 
 sonified. (Vol. i, p. 152.) Here then Mr. G. and we 
 are at issue. He avers that the Holy Spirit is only a 
 figurative person ; we say that he is a proper person. 
 
 That the unlearned reader may not be deceived by Mr. 
 G.'s nourish about figures of speech, it is necessary 
 briefly to state the nature of those which are likely to 
 come under our notice. When a writer attributes to body 
 properties which belong only to spirit, or attributes to 
 spirit properties which belong only to body; he then 
 speaks, not properly, but figuratively. When a writer 
 attributes the properties of a real being to mere abstract 
 qualities, and speaks of those qualities as persons, while 
 they have no real personality ; then, also, he speaks, not 
 
 * With the utmost propriety, Mr. G. has adopted the words of 
 Simon the sorcerer for a motto to his lecture on this subject. The 
 agreement between them is admirable ; but it belonged to Mr. G. 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 when he speaks of qualities, not 
 as of real beings, but as of qualities, and of real beings, as 
 of real beings — then he speaks, not figuratively, but pro- 
 perly. 
 
 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 tfvsufjLa, 
 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 which the lan- 
 guage afforded them, by which to convey the idea of im- 
 material substance. IINETMA tfapxa xai o£sa oux r^si : 
 44 A spirit hath not flesh and bones," Luke xxiv, 39. 
 But does Mr. G. mean to insinuate that breath 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, tfvsufxa, a Spirit. Is God then a breath ? 
 Must not breath, if attributed to God, be attributed to him 
 figuratively ? And if figuratively, what is the meaning of the 
 word ? Can it be any thing corporeal 1 Or is it not rather 
 
THE PERSONALITY 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 ? 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 
 figuratively 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 suggested by the Scriptures. Mr. G. says, 
 u 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." (Yol. i, p. 125.) If in this con- 
 fession 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. acknowledges 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 person, 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 exten- 
 sion, and extension necessarily implies limits, matter can- 
 not 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 the alarm when Mr. G.'s trumpet gives no " uncertain 
 sound," their case is hopeless. We appeal from the spe- 
 culative atheism of Mr. G. to the better understanding of 
 9 
 
98 THE PERSONALITY OP THE HOLY SPIRIT*. 
 
 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 is it from 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 
 peculiarly characteristic of him, and is not so often attri- 
 buted 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 attri- 
 buted to the Spirit of God. St. Paul speaks of u 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 I 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 things, yea, the deep things of God. For what 
 man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man 
 which is in him 1 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 searcheth and knoweth all things, even the deep 
 things of God." How then will Mr. G. get over it? No- 
 thing is more easy. He will raise a dust, and escape in 
 the cloud. Let us hear him v and examine his comment at 
 full length. " Here are," says he, " the following posi- 
 tive assertions, that the knowledge they (the apostles) 
 " possessed was revealed to them by the Spirit of God him- 
 self, (Query, himself!) or by Divine inspiration." Very 
 
THE PERSONALITY 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." 
 IVot so. This " assertion" is not St. Paul's, but Mr. G.'s. 
 St. Paul asserts that " the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, 
 the de^p things of God :" and Mr. G., to get rid of this 
 troublesome " assertion," substitutes one of bis 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. hi, 10, 19. 
 ** And then," Mr. G. adds, " as if for fear he should not 
 be understood, 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, wfiich knoweth the things of God. 
 Q. E. D. Thus has Mr. G. led us, undesignedly and 
 unexpectedly, to the yery conclusion which w r e wished. 
 Fas est, et ah hoslt doceru 
 
 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 Spirit, 
 because he maketh intercession for the saints according to 
 (the will of) God," Rom. viii, 27. But Mr. G. is disposed 
 to controvert the meaning of this last passage, and to deny 
 that it is of the Spirit of God the apostle is speaking. 
 We will examine his paraphrase. " Our spiritual desires," 
 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 differ- 
 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 language." 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 advan- 
 tage of its dull companion. " And then," says Mr. G., 
 44 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 occasion 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 our infirmities are those 
 of ignorance, which is an infirmity of our spirit ; it cannot 
 be our own spirit that helpeth itself. The apostle's 
 words are not tfvsvpa o^awv, our spirit ; but to tfvsujwa, the 
 Spirit. The question then is, What Spirit is that by which 
 we are thus assisted ? (1.) We know of no Spirit by which 
 we can be thus " helped," but the Spirit of him " that 
 searcheth the hearts," 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 God." 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 101 
 
 (2.) To suppose any other spirit which maketh interces- 
 sion for the saints, is to vindicate the idolatries against 
 which we have all protested. (3.) The apostle is speak- 
 ing of those " who have the first fruits of the Spirit, (viz. 
 of the Spirit of God,) and who groan within themselves, 
 waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of their 
 body." (4 ) This is what the apostles teach as being 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 be will," 1 Cor. xii, 11. 
 To evade the force of this clear and positive declaration, 
 Mr. G. compares it with the following passage : u 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 
 applied 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 improperly 
 attributed to a Spirit, is equivalent to an attempt to 
 prove that volition is improperly attributed to man, to an- 
 gels, 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 of hearing and speech, — and the personal offices 
 of a teacher, a guide, a monitor, a witness, an ambassa- 
 dor, and a comforter. In attempting to set aside these 
 9* 
 
102 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 Scriptural proofs of the doctrine in question, Mr. G., on 
 one occasion, shows that similar affections are attributed 
 to other beings which 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 fac- 
 ulties 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, attri- 
 buted to beings which manifestly have no personality, and 
 therefore they are figuratively attributed to the Spirit of 
 God. But here, again, his proof is at once confused and 
 defective. Sense and speech are properly ascribed only 
 to animated bodies. To inanimate bodies, or to incorpo- 
 real 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 those spirits be corporeal or incorporeal, 
 such functions are ascribed with the utmost propriety ; 
 because they, and only they, are capable of the perform- 
 ance of them. Mr. G. cannot therefore fairly take from 
 us the proof arising from hence, without proving that the 
 Holy Spirit is not a spiiit, and that he is incapable of un- 
 derstanding and will. Nor can we, on the other hand, 
 support those proofs against his objections, without a re- 
 ference to the spirituality of the Spirit of God, and to that 
 Spirit's understanding and will. On the latter, therefore, 
 the personality of the Holy Spirit does and must depend. 
 But when that spirituality is once proved, our possession 
 of all the proofs arising from the personal offices ascribed 
 by the 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." 
 
THE PERSONALITY OP 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 Ssiov, the word 
 used in Acts xvii, 29, and translated the Godhead, is 
 neuter, and has a neuter article. The word tfvsufxoc 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. O rfapaxkr\ro$i 
 he, the Comforter, is in the masculine gender. In this 
 case, therefore, our Lord uses the masculine pronoun : — - 
 " If I go, I will send aurov, him ;" — " and when sxsivog, he, 
 is come," John xvi, 7, 8. But this is not all. Even 
 when the noun tfvsu/juot 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 sxeivog, he, to tfvsufjux, the 
 Spirit is come," John xvi, 13. Again: sxsjvo^, " He shall 
 glorify me," John xvi, 14. Here, again, Mr. G. has led us 
 to a strong argument in favour of the personality 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. O 5s xvpiog TO tfvsu/xa, 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 ; and that, according to his mode of reasoning, 
 they both are at once persons and " things, without life or 
 sense l Ji 
 
104 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 2. " Notwithstanding the promises of our Saviour io 
 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 had 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. M John to the seven Churches 
 in Asia : Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which 
 is, and which was, and which is to come ; and from the 
 seven Spirits which are before 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 the 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 tj xojvwvioc *& ctyi* irvevpaTog, " the 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, 
 by whom ye are called sig xoivwvjav rx uts aura, to the fel- 
 
 * The number seven is used in the Apocalypse as a number indi- 
 cating perfection. 
 
THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 105 
 
 lowship of his Son," 1 Cor. i, 9. St. Peter says, " You 
 might be §£ia$ xoivwvoi (putfsw?, partakers of the Divine 
 nature," 2 Pet. i, 4. And once more : " We are made 
 fjLsroxo' ™ u Xpisou, 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 translate 
 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 
 supposed fact, on which his argument is founded, may be 
 set aside by comparing other passages of Scripture with 
 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 ouv 
 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 use 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," Actsviii, 
 29. " They 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 th§ 
 
106 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 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, 18. 
 " To be strengthened with might by his Spirit," Eph. iii, 
 16. " The Holy Gho t said, Separate me Barnabas and 
 Saul for the work whereunto I have called them," Acts 
 xiii, 2. Thus we fmd 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 conception, 
 when they can be converted into a battery against the 
 doctrine of the trinity, are not spurious! When the mira- 
 culous conception is to be disproved, the Socinians cannot 
 allow them to be genuine. 
 
 7. Mr. G.'s argument, in page 165, 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 bapt zed 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.) 
 
 This 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 Scriptural expressions literally, did he not 
 seize the long-sought opportunity to prove that the Spirit 
 is not spirit, but matter? What but matter, which is an 
 extended substance, can be measured, divided, poured 
 out ? What but fire, which 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 brealh or wind, 
 that is air, which is also material? Thus the demonstra- 
 tion is complete, and the favourite system of" materialism 
 is triumphant. But a man, who is compos mends, will at 
 once see that all these are figurative expressions, by which 
 the properties of matter are predicated of spirit ; and there- 
 fore that every argument founded upon the literal interpre- 
 tation of them must fall to the ground. Unless Mr. G. 
 seriously intend to deny all spirituality to the Spiiit, 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 
 44 the Holy Spirit cannot possibly he 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, 44 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, ovdeig, knoweth the things of God, but 
 the Spirit of God, and he to whom the Spirit of God shall 
 reveal thern." Will Mr. G. now draw the same inference 
 concerning the Father and the Son 1 
 
108 THE DIVINITY 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 per- 
 sonality. 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 or uncreated. It is not consistent 
 with Mr. G.'s hypothesis to assert that he is created ; 
 nor could such an assertion find any support from the au- 
 thority 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 evading 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 Gods ; 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." 
 (Vol. i, p. 152.) Whether Mr. G. agrees with the doctor 
 or not, it is difficult to judge; for, in the present instance, 
 
THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 109 
 
 the question cannot be decided by the contradiction which 
 that agreement would involve. Be that as it may, we shall 
 find that lie cannot fairly interpret many parts of Scrip- 
 ture without implicitly sliding into the doctor's position. 
 
 When, therefore, Mr. G. finds himself hemmed in by 
 such scriptures as denominate the Holy Ghost the 
 Spirit of God, he is obliged to grant that " by the Spirit 
 of God is meant the same thing, in reference to God, as 
 the spirit of man in relation to man." (Vol. i, p. 162.) 
 " Now, I think, for consistency's sake," says he, " you 
 must allow that if by the Spirit of God is meant a distinct 
 being, by the spirit of man must also be meant a being 
 distinct from the man." (Vol. i, p. 122.) " Only," he 
 adds, " do not say that in one instance the words must be 
 figurative, and in another they must be literal, just as best 
 suits the system you have adopted. (Saul among 
 the prophets !) Upon fair reasoning then on Scripture 
 grounds, if your arguments prove the Spirit of God to be a 
 being distinct from God, from precisely similar premises 
 we may draw the following inferences, that the Spirit of 
 Jesus was a being distinct from Jesus, the spirit of Paul 
 a being distinct from Paul, and the spirit of every man 
 distinct from the man himself." (Vol. i, p. 123.) 
 
 " How forcible are right words !" Who could have 
 argued more conclusively that the Spirit of God is God, 
 than in these few lines Mr. G. has done ! W T e believe 
 that the spirit of man, though distinct from the body of 
 man, is man, and not a being distinct from man. With 
 Dr. Lardner, and Mr. G. who quotes (query, believes 1) 
 him, we say that it is the incorruptible part of man, 
 which survives after (the) death (of the body.) And we 
 join with them in their judicious appeal to Solomon, who 
 says, " And the spirit shall return to God who gave it/' 
 Eccles. xii, 7. God, however, has no body, but is all 
 incorruptible spirit. We are, therefore, violently driven, 
 by Mr. G.'s most conclusive argumentation, to confess 
 that " the Spirit of God is not a being distinct from God, 
 but God himself." 
 
 We may now, without fear of contradiction, and in 
 hope of farther occasional assistance from Mr. G. % pro- 
 ceed to adduce some additional proofs of what he has so 
 liberally granted. 
 
 10 
 
110 THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 1. The Spirit of God is frequently called God. No! 
 that the sacred writers formally announce the Divinity of 
 the Holy Spirit, as when they say " the Word was God," 
 they announce the Divinity of the Son. In the latter case f 
 the truth was, and must be unknown, until it were reveal- 
 ed. But in the former case, treating the subject as al- 
 ready known where the Holy Spirit was understood to be 
 the Spirit of God, and supposing his proper Divinity to be 
 as obvious to all men as it is to Mr. G., they only men* 
 tion it incidentally, and, as it were, without design.™ 
 This method, however, rather strengthens than weakens 
 their testimony. In this way St. Peter, having charged 
 Ananias with " lying to the Holy Ghost," immediately 
 subjoins, " Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God," 
 Acts v, 3, 4. " So that," to use the words of Athanasius, 
 approved by Dr. Lardner, and cited by Mr. G., in con- 
 firmation of his own argument, " he who lied to the Holy 
 Spirit lied unto God, who dwells in men by his Spirit." 
 (Vol. i, p. 162.) St. Paul speaks in the same manner; 
 for having made that appeal to the Corinthians, " What! 
 know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy 
 Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God," 1 Cor. vi t 
 19, he, in another place, tells them, " Ye are the temple 
 of the living Gad ; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, 
 and walk in them," 2 Cor. vi, 16. To the Ephesians 
 the same apostle writes, " You are builded together, for an 
 habitation of Go J through the Spirit," Eph. ii, 22. And 
 lastly : St. John says, " He that keepeth his command- 
 ments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we 
 know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath 
 given us," 1 John iii, 24. 
 
 2. As the name of God is thus applied to the Holy 
 Spirit, the argument adduced from thence is much con- 
 firmed by the application to him, which we find the sacred 
 writers make, of those perfections which are exclusively 
 Divine. 
 
 (1.) He is represented as eternal. " Christ, through 
 the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God," 
 Heb. ix, 14. 
 
 (2.) He is represented as omnipresent. " Whither shall 
 I go from thy Spirit ] or whither shall I flee from thy pre- 
 sence 1 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if I 
 
THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Ill 
 
 make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take 
 the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts 
 of the sea ; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy 
 right hand shall hold me," Psalm exxxix, 7-10. In this 
 passage the psalmist speaks of the presence, and of the 
 Spirit of God, as synonymous, and attributes to the Spirit 
 of God the proper omnipresence of God. 
 
 (3.) He is represented as omniscient. " Who hath di- 
 rected the Spirit of the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath 
 taught him ? With whom took he counsel, and who in- 
 structed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and 
 taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of un- 
 derstanding," Isa. xl, 13, 14. It is remarkable that in this 
 passage, compared with the context, the prophet speaks 
 indifferently of Jehovah, and of the Spirit of Jehovah : 
 and that the Apostle Paul applies it to God himself, when, 
 speaking of the infinite knowledge and wisdom of God, 
 he exclaims, " O the depth of the riches both of the wis- 
 dom and knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are his 
 judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath 
 known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been his coun- 
 sellor 1" Rom. xi, 33, 34. The drift of the passage is 
 to assert that peculiar attrihute of the Holy Spirit, original, 
 underived knowledge. Of the extent of that knowledge 
 we have already seen the strongest testimony*in those 
 words : " The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep 
 things of God. The things of God knoweth ovdsig, no 
 one, but the Spirit of God," 1 Cor. ii, 10, 11. 
 
 (4.) He is represented as omnipotent. In the passage 
 just cited, without changing the person, the prophet pro- 
 ceeds, " Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, 
 and are counted as the small dust of the balance : behold, 
 he taketh up the isles as a very little thing," Isa. xl, 15. 
 44 All these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit." 
 Should it be asked, What are all these 1 The answer is, 
 " Wisdom," " knowledge," " faith," " gifts of healing," 
 11 working of miracles," " prophecy," " discerning of spi- 
 rits," * divers kinds of tongues," and " the interpretation 
 of tongues," 1 Cor. xii, 8—11, — gifts which imply omnis- 
 cience, prescience, and omnipotence in the donor. So 
 the angel declared to Mary, the mother of Jesus : " The 
 Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 
112 THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 Highest shall overshadow thee," Luke i, 35 — thus declar- 
 ing the power of the Holy Spirit to be the power of the 
 Highest. 
 
 (5.) He is represented as supreme. The gifts just 
 now mentioned, the donation of which requires the exer- 
 tion of prescience, omniscience, and omnipotence, are said 
 to be by the Spirit " divided to every man severally as he 
 will," 1 Cor. xi, 11. Even Mr. G. acknowledges his 
 supremacy : " That its (the Holy Spirit's) commands are 
 to be obeyed, we know, because they are the commands of 
 God." (Vol. i, p. 131.) 
 
 3. The word of God is said to be the word of the Holy 
 Spirit. u God," says the writer to the Hebrews, " at 
 sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past 
 unfo the fathers by the prophets," Heb. i, 1. They said, 
 u Thus saith Jehovah," Isa. xlii, 5. " All Scripture is. 
 given by inspiration of God," 2 Tim. iii, 16. On the other 
 hand, " No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private 
 interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by 
 the will of man ; but holy men of God spake as they were 
 moved by the Holy Ghost," 2 Pet. i, 20, 21. " For Da- 
 vid himself said by the Holy Ghost," &c, Mark xii, 36* 
 44 The Holy Ghost also is a witness unto us: for after 
 that he had said before, This is the covenant that I wil> 
 make with them," &c, Heb. x, 15. It would be easy to 
 multiply passages to the same purpose. But these are 
 enow. It is an important observation, that in the latter 
 passage the Holy Ghost is represented as the God who 
 had made a covenant with Israel. Let the reader com- 
 pare with it the following : — " Behold the days come, saith 
 Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house 
 of Israel," &c, Heb. viii, 8. 
 
 4. The works of God are ascribed to the Spirit of God* 
 44 He that built all things is God," Heb. iii, 4. " Thus 
 saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee 
 from the womb, I am Jehovah that maketh all things ; 
 that stretcheth forth the heavens alone ; that spreadeth 
 abroad the earth by myself," Isa. xliv, 24. Yet these 
 works, which Jehovah hath wrought alone, and by him- 
 self, were wrought by the Spirit of God. " The Spirit of 
 God moved upon the face of the waters," Gen. i, 2. " By 
 his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens," Job xxvi, 13* 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 113 
 
 Such are the testimonies of the sacred writers to the 
 proper Divinity of the Holy Spirit. If any addition to 
 them be wanting, it is the testimony of Mr. G., whose 
 arguments will clear up whatever remains of difficulty, 
 thus : — 
 
 " Omnipresence is exclusively a Divine attribute. Yet 
 I appeal to you to say, what are the representations you 
 have commonly received from" Christ and his apostles 
 concerning the H >ly Spirit? " Are they not, that he is 
 every where, at all times present with you ? What is this 
 but the Divine attribute of omnipresence ?" 
 
 "Is he not also represented to you as omniscient? 
 Does he not dive into your most secret thoughts ? Has 
 he not access to your hearts? Does he not suggest to 
 you motives of action ? What is this but the Divine attri- 
 bute of omniscience?" 
 
 44 Does he not possess the power of changing the laws 
 of nature, by the operation of a miracle V s " Has he not 
 also the power of prescience ? This Being is represented 
 as foreknowing the counsels of God." 
 
 44 These attributes are all Divine. And if there actu- 
 ally be a being possessing these attributes, that being 
 ought to be a deity. If he be a deity, he ought to be wor- 
 shipped." (Vol. i, pp. 19, 20.) 
 
 Thanks to Mr. G. for thus saving us the trouble of 
 proving that Divine worship ought to be rendered to the 
 Holy Spirit. 44 He which persecuted us in times past* 
 now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed !" 
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 Of the Scriptural Doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 To a being like man, who knows nothing of the essence 
 of any of the creatures of God, it is absolutely impossible 
 to entertain precise and adequate ideas of the Most High. 
 God has therefore been pleased to make himself known to 
 us by analogy. This method is to be distinguished from 
 that which the Socinians call metaphorical. Metaphor in 
 their hands is a mere figure of rhetoric : a form of speech 
 in which, for the sake of either beauty or force, any qua-. 
 10* 
 
114 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 lity not proper to the subject is attributed to it ; and in the 
 explication of which, that the subject may be viewed in its 
 own light, the borrowed idea is to be exchanged for the 
 proper one which it represents. In this case the subject 
 is supposed, when stripped of its ornament, to be well 
 understood. It is only an artificial method of dressing up 
 an idea of which we have already some conception. The 
 analogical method of teaching is very different. It is 
 founded in a certain resemblance in circumstances, be- 
 tween two things, which are in their nature different. 
 That resemblance is supposed to be distinctly perceived 
 by the teacher, though not by the learner. In this case 
 ideas are borrowed from such things as are known to the 
 learner, and applied to the thing unknown to him ; and 
 these borrowed ideas, which are sufficiently plain and in- 
 telligible, are made to stand for the precise idea which the 
 learner is incapable of entertaining. To receive instruc- 
 tion in this manner, the figure is not to be withdrawn that 
 the subject may be understood ; for the subject can be 
 understood only by retaining it. The idea thus communi- 
 cated is not, however, to be entertained as the precise 
 idea (i. e. the altogether proper and perfect picture) of the 
 thing in question* (for it is " a shadow, and not the very 
 image of the thing ;") but as the best idea of it of which 
 we are capable. 
 
 It is by this analogical method, God has been pleased 
 to make to mankind the brightest discoveries of himself. 
 a We know only in part." u We see, Si 9 stfoffrpou ev 
 aivi^fjwn, through a mirror, in an enigma,'' 1 Cor. xiii* 
 12. For instance : — 
 
 " God is light." The idea suggested by this assertion 
 is, that there is a certain analogy between God and light. 
 What light is to the natural world, God is to the spirituals 
 But light is matter, and is divisible, and movable. Is 
 God then divisible and movable naatter ? No : God is 
 spiritual light. But what consistency is there between 
 spirituality and matter ! None at all. The idea is " not 
 the very image ;" it is but* as it were* " a shadow" of 
 God. But we must not lay it aside, for it is one of the 
 best we can have. We speak as the oracles of God, 
 when we say, "God is light," though the idea is not 
 strictly compatible with the spirituality which we attribute 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 115 
 
 to him. The spirituality of God is not, however, contra- 
 dictory to his real nature, but to our imperfect idea of him. 
 If our idea of him were perfect, there would not be even 
 the appearance of inconsistency. Again : — 
 
 " God is a Spirit." That is, God is something analo- 
 gous to the human spirit. Of the nature of our own 
 spirit we have no precise idea ; although we have some 
 idea of its properties. But if we had the most definite 
 idea of our own spirit, that idea would be infinitely short 
 of him, who is a Spirit very different from ourselves. 
 The idea then conveyed by these words is not the pre- 
 cise and perfect idea of God. Must we then relinquish 
 it] No: for we have no substitute for it. It is the idea 
 which God himself has suggested. Yet the same diffi- 
 culty occurs here which we meet in the doctrine of the 
 trinity : to this imperfect and finite idea we attribute in- 
 finite perfections. There is something in the idea con- 
 tradictory to what we ascribe to him whom it is supposed 
 to represent. But all the apparent contradiction arises 
 from the imperfection of our idea. We have no alterna- 
 tive, however, but imperfect knowledge, or perfect igno- 
 rance. 
 
 As by analogy God has discovered to us his nature in 
 general, so, by analogy, he has discovered to us that great 
 mystery of his nature, the distinction between the Father* 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the respective relation 
 of each of them to the other. 
 
 1. The first analogy which we trace is that of matter, 
 form, and motion. It is not asserted that God is any 
 where said to be a material being. The passage to 
 which we refer is that in which, speaking of Jesus Christ, 
 the apostle says, he u was sv ixop<pri Ssou, in the form of 
 God," Phil, ii, 6. Now it is granted that " God is a 
 Spirit." He is not an extended, solid, substance ; and, 
 properly speaking, he has no external form. Moses, 
 therefore, reminded the children of Israel, " Ye saw no 
 similitude," Deut. iv, 12. Form is predicated of God 
 improperly, and under the borrowed idea of matter. Here 
 then we have the idea of matter and its form. The Holy 
 Spirit is spoken of as of matter in motion. " The Spirit 
 of God moved upon the face of the waters," Gen. i, 2^ 
 It is spoken of as " descending," M coming," and " go- 
 
116 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 ing," Luke iii, 22 ; John i, 32, &c ; 1 Chron. xii, 18; 
 1 Kings xxii, 24 ; 2 Cliron. xviii, 23. Motion, however, 
 does not properly belong to spirit, especially to the 
 omnipresent Spirit. It is therefore attributed to imma- 
 terial substance, under the borrowed idea of matter in 
 motion. We have then the ideas of matter, of the form 
 of matter, and of matter in motion. What the internal, 
 unknown essence of matter is to material substance, 
 that the unknown Father is in the Divine nature. What 
 the form of matter is to the internal, unknown essence 
 of matter, that the Son is to the Father. As the un- 
 known essence of matter is perceived and distinguished 
 only by its external form, so the Father is perceived and 
 known, only through the Son. As matter operates upon 
 matter only by motion, so God operates on his creatures 
 only by the Spirit. 
 
 2. The next analogy on which we shall remark is, that 
 of the sun, its light, and its vital influence. The sacred 
 writers in speaking of God, often allude to the sun, which is 
 
 Of this great world both eye and soul. 
 
 " Unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of right- 
 eousness arise," Mai. iv, 2. What the internal, unknown 
 substance is in the sun, that the Father is in the God- 
 head. As from the former all natural light proceeds, the 
 latter is " the Father of lights." What perceptible light 
 is to the internal, unknown substance of the sun, that the 
 Son is to the Father : the o^ccvyac'^a <rr\c; (Softer, " bright- 
 ness of his glory." The Son is therefore " the light of 
 the world." As the sun is seen only by the light of his 
 beams, and his beams impress on all nature an image of 
 the sun ; so the Father is seen only in the Son, and in the 
 Son all who have eyes to see behold the Father. In like 
 manner, what the vital influence of the sun and of its 
 beams, is to the sun and to its beams, that the Holy Spirit 
 is to the Father and to the Son. As the vital influence 
 flows from the sun through its beams, so the Spirit pro- 
 ceeds from the Father through the Son. And as the in- 
 fluence of the sun is the material origin and support of 
 vegetable and animal life, so the Spirit of God is the 
 spiritual cause of life to animals and to spirits. " With 
 thee is the fountain of life ; and in thy light shall we see 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 117 
 
 light," Psalm 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 the 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 a P 0iXT ^S <rr\g wjrcsutfsug, 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." (YoL 
 i, p. 13.) This Mind has its \oyog, word, discourse, or 
 reason ; " His word is called o Xoyo^, 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 that dis- 
 course ; so the Word of God — as 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 : dis- 
 course is both internal and external. It is ratio vel 
 oratio : reason 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, brealh 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 hatb 
 known, sent the W r ord 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 Split. 
 
 Let any one read without prejudice the following pas- 
 sages, and make up his mind as to the nature of the dis- 
 tinction which is there made between the three. ■* I will 
 pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter." 
 41 But the Comfortor, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the 
 Father will send in my name, sxeivog, 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, 
 miwst he shall testify of me." " I have yet many things 
 to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit 
 when sx?ivo£, he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guido 
 you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but 
 whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak ; and he shall 
 show you things to come. lExeivog, he shall glorify me ; 
 for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." 
 
 Every one who reads these verses will acknowledge 
 that the distinction here made is the distinction of three 
 persons. Mr. G. himself has granted it. While he uni- 
 formly acknosvledges a personal distinction between the 
 Father and the Son, — of the Spirit he even says, " It would 
 have been next to an impossibility not to have repeatedly 
 personified this Divine influence." (Vol. i, p. 173.) This 
 is all that at present we ask. It is enough that 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 w T e make use of the word person, and its derivatives: 
 viz. to fix 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 
 which 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 beiags. 
 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. Matter 
 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. 
 The generation of him " whose goings forth have been 
 from of 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 TRINITY. 
 
 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 abideth for ever." In all 
 these points the analogy is lost. But here the Scriptures 
 afford us another source of ideas : an analogy which takes 
 Up the subject where the preceding seems only to contra- 
 dict what the Scriptures have clearly revealed. When the 
 ideas of a Father 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 ordet 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 his 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 "Koyog, 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, under the Christian 
 economy, is best illustrated by the personal distinction of 
 Father, Son, and Comforter. In prosecuting the allusion 
 to human paternity and fi iation, the sacred writers have 
 taken a scope that could not have been allowed by any 
 other of those comparisons 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 iii, 16, &c. As a father conveys to his son perfect 
 humanity, " it pleased the Father that in him (his dear 
 Son) should all fulness dwell ;" even " all the fulness 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 father 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 entrusts 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 hi3 
 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 
 propriety be said under any other of those heads of dis- 
 tinction by which the sacred writers have on other occasions 
 illustrated the subject. In like manner, no other than the 
 personal 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, willing, call- 
 ing men to the ministry, commanding, and interceding. 
 And farther : we comld 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 resorb- 
 ed 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 returned to the 
 bosom from whence it came, and which has left its breath 
 behind to execute its commands, and to comfort mankind 
 during its absence. These Scriptural distinctions, 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 distinction 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 
 explain 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 are likely to be most advantageous 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 elucidation whiGh 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 imperfection of his own con- 
 ceptions. 
 
 Si quid novisti rectius istis, 
 
 Candidus imperti: si non, his utere mecum. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 123 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 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 al- 
 ternative, 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 doc- 
 trines 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 alarmed by 
 £he lofty tone which Mr. G. has assumed. He wHl perceive. 
 
124 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY* 
 
 that to give some degree of plausibility to the supposition 
 that the doctrines in question have no support from Scrip- 
 ture, this Socinian herald has adopted the contrivance of 
 his predecessors, by substituting the peculiar phrases of 
 human invention for the doctrines taught by Divine reve- 
 lation. 
 
 Without any implied censure on those who deem it their 
 duty to vindicate the phrases to which Mr. G. has objected, 
 and who think themselves adequate to the task, throughout 
 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 
 being identified with the inventions of men, it has been 
 designed 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 spi- 
 ritual words," and to leave the judicious reader at liberty 
 to make choice of what he deems the most appropriate 
 terms. The contest is not, on our part, about words, but 
 things. When, therefore, Mr. G. speaks of" this phrase- 
 ology," as being thought " so essential to salvation," whom 
 does his arguing reprove ? (Vol. ii, p. 9.) When he tri- 
 umphantly asks, " Should one of your missionaries, whe- 
 ther to the east or the west, preach one single year, make 
 one single convert, publish one single book upon the doc- 
 trines he was sent to teach, and not once mention his 
 important subject, (in the phraseology so strongly objected 
 to,) how would you think he had executed his commis- 
 sion ?" (vol. ii, p. 8,) we are under no difficulty ; for 
 we readily and sincerely answer, that we should not, on 
 this account, as Mr. G. supposes, "designate him a faith- 
 less servant* who had neglected his duty, and had con- 
 cealed 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 shunned to declare all the counsel of 
 God," but had " fully preached" the " unadulterated" 
 Gospel : if he had been successful in making converts 
 (not Socinian converts, converts to a mere opinion, but) 
 such as St. Paul was sent to make : if he had " turned 
 men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan 
 to God, that they might receive remission of sins, and an 
 inheritance among all them that are sanctified through faith 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 125 
 
 in Christ Jesus ;" we should approve his labours and re- 
 joice 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 round about her ;" let 
 him " tell her towers, mark well her bulwarks, and con- 
 sider her palaces." 
 
 Having, in the four preceding chapters, stated our opi- 
 nion of the doctrines under discussion, and having exhi- 
 
 * " I dare not," says the Rev. John Wesley, " insist upon any 
 one's using the word trinity or person. I use them myself without 
 any scruple, because I know of none better. Bat if any man has 
 any scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them? 
 I cannot ; much less would I burn a man alive, and that with, moist, 
 green wood, for saying, ' Though T believe the Father is God, the 
 Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet I scruple using the 
 words trinity 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 contended 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 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 bited 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. G. 
 holds, the invention of latter ages, have been gradually 
 discovered from the dawn of Divine revelation to the per- 
 fect 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. fc4 The original word DTI^K, Elohim, 
 God, is certainly the plural form of *7X, e/, or n 1 ?^, cloah." 
 (Dr. A. Clarke, in he.) And therefore indicates, to a 
 Hebrew reader, a plurality. 
 
 " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after 
 our likeness," Gen, i, 26. The use of the plural pro- 
 nouns in this passage is a confirmation of the inference 
 deduced from the preceding ; and the pronouns, being per- 
 gonal, 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 Elohim, M God created man in his (own) 
 image," Gen. i, 27. 
 
 When man was fallen from his original rectitude, M the 
 Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one cf us," 
 Gen. iii, 22. This distributive manner of speaking indi- 
 cates that the distinction already made is not merely verbal 
 but real. 
 
 When the Lord God cursed the author of the sin of our 
 first parents, and promised them deliverance, he promised 
 that deliverance by one who should be their seed. " I will 
 put enmity between thee and the woman, and between 
 thy seed and her seed : he shall 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 chiefs. This person at 
 first appeared under the human form ; but before his de- 
 parture, his Divinity was generally known and acknow- 
 ledged by those to whom he appeared, and with whom he 
 conversed. By being denominated the Word, or the An- 
 gel of Jehovah, or the Captain of Jehovah's host, the 
 distinction already discovered is exhibited ; but by being 
 also styled Jehovah, his Divinity is maintained. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 127 
 
 44 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, IS. 
 
 " Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. 
 As Abraham sat in the tent door in the heat of the day, 
 he lift up his eyes and looked, and lo three men stood by 
 him," Gen. xviii, 1, 2. One of these is called Jehovah : 
 44 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 : 44 And Jehovah said, Shall I hide from 
 Abrahom 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, &c, 
 In the next chapter, still keeping up the distinction which 
 we have observed, and yet maintaining the proper Divi- 
 nity of him who destroyed the devoted cities, it is said, 
 44 Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah 
 brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven," Gen. 
 xix, 24. 
 
 44 And it came to pass after these things, that Gcd did 
 tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Take now thy son, 
 thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into 
 the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offer- 
 ing upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of," 
 Gen. xxii, 1, 2. W r hen Abraham had perfectly manifested 
 his faith and obedience, 4< the Angel of Jehovah, (or the 
 Angel Jehovah,) called unto him out of heaven, and said, 
 Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not 
 withheld thy son, thine only son from me," Gen. xxii, 12. 
 Here we see that the Angel Jehovah was the " God" who 
 44 did tempt Abraham." 
 
 It is still more remarkable, that, on this occasion, the 
 
 , 44 Angel Jehovah," who had required Abraham to offer up 
 
 his son, and to offer him up to himself, as to God, 44 called 
 
 unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, 
 
 By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah ; (he could swear 
 
I2S ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINlTF. 
 
 hy no greater ;) for because thou hast done this thing, 
 and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son : that in 
 blessing I will bless thee, because thou hast obeyed my 
 voice," Gen. xxii, 15-18. Here we see that the Angel 
 who appeared to Abraham was the God who commanded 
 this sacrifice ; to whom it was in purpose offered ; who 
 accepted it as offered to himself; who made the great pro- 
 mise to Abraham ; and who sware by himself: in a word, 
 Jehovah. 
 
 " The Angel of God spake unto Jacob in a dream, 
 saying, Jacob. And he said,. I am the God of Bethel, 
 where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst 
 a vow unto me," Gen. xxxi, 11, 13. Now the God of Be- 
 thel is he of whom it is said, " And behold Jehovah stood 
 above it (the mysterious ladder) and said, I am Jehovah, 
 the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac," 
 Gen. xxviii, 13. And the vow which Jacob vowed to him 
 was this : " If God will be with me, and will keep me in this 
 way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment 
 to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in 
 peace : then shall Jehovah be my God. And this stone 
 which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house : and 
 of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth 
 unto thee," Gen. xxviii, 20, 22. To Jacob, therefore, it 
 was obvious that " the Angel of God" was Jehovah, God 
 himself. 
 
 When Jacob was returning to his father's house, he 
 t; was left alone ; and there wrestled a man with him until 
 the breaking of the day." When this man had put forth 
 his power, and by a touch had disjointed Jacob's thigh, 
 Jacob discerned his Divine visitant, and said, *' I will not 
 let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said, Thy 
 name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel ; for as a 
 prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast 
 prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I 
 pray thee, thy name : and he said, Wherefore is it that thou 
 dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. 
 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel : for I 
 have seen God face to face, (said he,) and my life is pre- 
 served," Gen. xxxii, 24-30. Whatever others may think, 
 it was obvious to Jacob that this man was no other than 
 God himself. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 129 
 
 " The angel of Jehovah appeared to Moses, in Horeb, 
 in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush." This angel 
 is called Jehovah, God, the God of Abraham, the God of 
 Isaac, and the God of Jacob, — Jehovah, God of the He- 
 brews, — I am, — and I am that I am, — throughout the 
 chapter. Exod. iii ; see also chap, iv, et seq. 
 
 When Jehovah sent Moses to lead his people Israel to 
 the land of Canaan, he was pleased to promise, " Behold, 
 I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and 
 to bring thee into the place which I have prepared," Exod. 
 xxiii, 20. But of this angel Jehovah said, " Beware of 
 him, and obey his voice : provoke him not ; for he will not 
 pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him," Exod. 
 xxiii, 21. This angel then had the power, authority, and 
 name of Jehovah. 
 
 " When Joshua was by Jericho, behold there stood a 
 man over against him, with his sword drawn in his hand : 
 and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou 
 for us, or for our adversaries ? And he said, Nay, but as 
 captain (or prince) of the host of Jehovah am I now come. 
 And Joshua, (well understanding this language,) fell on 
 his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, 
 WTiat saith my Lord unto his servant ? And the captain 
 of Jehovah's host (approving this) said unto Joshua, (in 
 the language of Jehovah to Moses,) Loose thy shoe from 
 off thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy,' 5 
 Josh, v, 13-15. This captain of Jehovah's host is imme- 
 diately called Jehovah : " And Jehovah said unto Joshua," 
 &c, Josh, vi, 2. 
 
 " The angel of Jehovah appeared unto Gideon, and 
 said unto him, Jehovah is with thee, thou mighty man of 
 valour," Judg. vi, 12. Here also the angel is styled Je- 
 hovah : " And Jehovah looked upon him, and said, Go in 
 this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand 
 of the Midianites : have not I sent thee V See Judges vi, 
 14, 16, 23. 
 
 * ; The angel of Jehovah appeared to Manoah and his 
 wife. And Manoah said unto his wife, W 7 e shall surely 
 die, because we have seen God." See Judg. xiii. 
 
 Such were the manifestations which God gave to his 
 people till the time of the judges of Israel. 
 
 We may now perceive on what authority Job was 
 
130 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 enabled to say, "I know that my Redeemer (now) liveth, 
 and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth," 
 Job xix, 26. 
 
 The knowledge of the Redeemer of mankind was still 
 farther imparted to David, who spake of him as the Son 
 and the (Messiah) anointed of Jehovah : " Jehovah hath 
 said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
 thee," Psa. ii, 7. What were David's views of his person 
 we may understand from his subjoining, " Kiss the Son 
 lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his 
 wrath is kindled but a little : blessed are all they that put 
 their trust in him," Psa. ii, 12. For the saints of the Old 
 Testament were not ignorant that " cursed is the man 
 that trusteth in (mere) man ;" and that " blessed is the 
 man that trusteth in Jehovah," Jer. xvii, 5, 7. 
 
 That David wrote the forty-fifth psalm with reference 
 to the expected Messiah, and not to Solomon, is abun- 
 dantly proved from the psalm itself. The language of the 
 psalm is not at all applicable to Solomon. He was not 
 the man of war, who " girded his sword upon his thigh," 
 ver. 3 — whose " right hand taught him terrible things," 
 ver. 4 — whose " arrows were sharp in the hearts of the 
 king's enemies ;" or " under whom the people fell," ver. 5, 
 He was not remarkable for " loving righteousness," or 
 " hating iniquity," ver. 7. His M throne is (not) for ever 
 and ever," ver. 6. His children were not "made princes 
 in all the earth," ver. 16. Nor do "the people praise" 
 him or his spouse " for ever and ever," ver. 17. Yet 
 these are the terms in which David speaks of the subject 
 of this psalm. On the other hand, these terms are appli- 
 cable to the Messiah. He is the " King," ver. 1, set 
 upon the holy hill of Zion : compare Psa. ii, 6. He is 
 '« fairer than the children of men, grace is poured into his 
 lips," ver. 2. He is " anointed with the oil of gladness 
 above his fellows." Him M God hath blessed for ever and 
 ever," ver. 2. Now in this psalm, of which the Messiah 
 is so clearly the subject, the writer, who had called the 
 M King" the Son of God, in his address to this " King," 
 says, " Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever."* 
 
 * Our argument does not admit of our quoting in this place the 
 testimony of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who however 
 r 'ie words of this psalm as the words of God to the Sag, 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 131 
 
 The Messiah was now known as the Son of God, 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? W^ho 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. Ha- 
 ving spoken thus of the humiliation and exaltation, the 
 humanity and the Divinity of the Messiah, he returns to 
 the same subject, in different 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 
 shait 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, without 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. 
 
112 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITf* 
 
 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 toge- 
 ther," 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 Prophet Ezekiel 
 would inform them, " I 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," Ezek. 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 afford 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 Je- 
 hovah and Jehovah are therefore one and the same 
 Being. 
 
 To the Spirit of God, the writers of the Old Testa* 
 ment, therefore, 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. 
 44 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the wa- 
 ters," Gen. i, 2. " By his Spirit he hath garnished the 
 heavens," Job xx, 30. 44 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," Psalm 
 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," 
 Psalm xxxiii, 6. 
 
 This great subject is still farther illustrated in the pur- 
 posed work of redemption, as in the following passages : — 
 44 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 
 would perceive, not only the Divine character of the 
 speaker, but 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 : * 4 The Spirit 
 of the Lord God is upon me, (the Messiah, the anointed,) 
 12 
 
134 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 because the Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings 
 unto the meek," &c, Isa. lxi, 1. Once more : " Seek ye 
 out of the book of the Lord, and read — for my mouth it 
 hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered them," 
 Isa. xxxiv, 16. " In these words (says Mr. Jones) there 
 is one person speaking of the Spirit of another person. n 
 
 Such are some of the many passages contained in the 
 Old 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 little notice of them. And it is 
 equally true that we also have much to say in confirma- 
 tion of our own comments on these passages. Much 
 useful light might have been cast on the subject of this 
 chapter by 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 been made by 
 way of appeal to the candour of the unprejudiced reader, 
 in proof that the doctrine, though not the phrase of the tri- 
 nity, originated with Moses and the prophets, and that the 
 very doctrine of the preceding chapters is nearly, if not 
 fully maintained by a dispensation preceding the Christian. 
 The question now to be examined is, not what will a pre- 
 judiced Socinian object to the language of the Old Testa- 
 ment, 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 unprejudiced Jew? 
 
 " The Hebrew doctors supposed the first verse of Ge- 
 nesis to contain some latent mystery. The Rabbi Ibba 
 indeed expressly says it does, and adds, This mystery is 
 not to be revealed till the coming of the Messiah." 
 (Simpso7i on the Deity of Jesus, p. 352.) 
 
 " An eminent Jewish rabbi, Simeon ben Joachi, in his 
 comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these re- 
 markable words : 4 Come and see the mystery of the word 
 Elohim : there are three degrees, and each degree by 
 itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, 
 and joined together in one, and are not divided from each 
 other.' " (Dr. A. Clarke, in loc.) 
 
 " The Jewish rabbi, Limborch, tells us that in the word 
 Elohim there are three degrees, each distinct by itself, yet 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 135 
 
 all one, joined in one, and not divided from one another." 
 {Leslie's Short Method with the Deists.) 
 
 44 R. Bechai, a celebrated author among the Jews, dis- 
 coursing of the word Elohim, has these words : 4 According 
 to the cabalistical way, this name Elohim is two woids, 
 namely, El him, that is, they are God. But the explana- 
 tion of the Jod is to be fetched from Eccles. xii, 1. Re- 
 member thy Creators. He that is prudent will understand 
 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 interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture. What we find 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 himself, and 
 that especially with relation to the creation of the world. 
 As Isa. xlv, 12, 4 1 made the earth,' the Chaldee trans- 
 lated, * I by my Word made the earth.' And Genesis 
 i, 27, we read, * Et crcavit Deus hominemS And God 
 created man ; k the Jerusalem Targum, Verbum Domini 
 creavit hominemS The Word of God created man. 
 4 And most clearly, Gen. iii, 8 : Audierunt vocem Domini 
 Dei ;' they heard the voice of the Lord God ; 4 the 
 Chaldee paraphrase, Et audierunt vocem Verbi 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 : 4t 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, " MsyaXrig /3ov\rig ayys'kos: 
 the angel of the great counsel." This is a comment 
 rather than a translation. There are, however, several 
 
136 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 reasons for supposing that the Seventy originally translated 
 this verse. " Eusebius, (D. E. p. 336,) gives the Greek 
 version uncorrupted, fr Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty 
 God.' " (Simpson on the Deity of Jesus , p. 9S.) 
 
 The Jews attribute also the name Jehovah to the Mes- 
 siah. "In the Sepher Ikkarim, I. ii, c. 8 : 4 The Scrip- 
 ture calieth the name of the Messias, Jehovah our right- 
 eousness.' a And Midrasch Tillim on Psalm xxi : 4 God 
 calieth 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, Jehovah our righteousness.' Thus Echa Ra- 
 bati, Lam. i, 6, fc What is the name of the Messias] R. 
 Abba said, Jehovah is his name, as it is said, Jer. xxiii, 
 6 : And this is the name which they shall call him, Jeho- 
 vah our righteousness.' The same he reports of Rabbi 
 Levi." (Pearson on the Creed, p. 149.) 
 
 Such were the opinions of the Jews. Whether they 
 were founded in truth 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 had been baptized by John, in Jordan, he 
 14 went up straightway out of the water : and lo, the hea- 
 vens were opened unto him, and lie saw the Spirit of God 
 descending like a dove, and lighting 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 God, the 
 Baptist " bare witness of him and proclaimed, saying, 
 This is he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is 
 preferred before me, for he was before me. And of his 
 fulness have all we (already) received, and grace for 
 grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and 
 truth came (always) by Jesus Christ. No man hath seea 
 God at any time ; the only-begotten Son, which is in the 
 bosom of the Father, he hath (always hitherto) declared 
 him. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit de- 
 scending 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 whom thou shall 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 137 
 
 see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same 
 is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, 
 and bare record that this is the Son of God," John i, 15— 
 18, 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, however, 
 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, rou ioiou uiou, 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 oaly-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 wrfe shall bear thee a son indeed : and I will establish 
 my c venant with him for an everlasting covenant, and 
 with his seed after him," Gen. xvii, 15-19. In the apos- 
 tle's sense, therefore, Isaac was Abraham's only-begotten 
 son ; the only one in whom the promises could be fulfilled ; 
 the only son of his mother. And just so the " only-be- 
 gotten Son of God" is a Son sui generis ; the only one of 
 that kind. 
 
 12* 
 
138 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 4. This truth our^Lord has illustrated, and this inter- 
 pretation he has confirmed, when in al.usion to himself he 
 says, " Having yet therefore one Son, his well beloved* 
 he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reve- 
 rence 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 faith- 
 ful in all his house as a servant ; but Christ as a Son over 
 his own house," 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," Rorn. 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 him, and 
 he in God," 1 John iv, 15. Is it probable that such pri- 
 vileges should be attached to an acknowledgment that 
 Jesus Christ was, in the common sense of the word, a 
 child of the Most High? 
 
 8. Something 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 r the Son of the living 
 God, Jesus answered and said, Blessed art thou Simon? 
 Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto 
 thee, but my Father which is in heaven," Matt, xvi, 17. 
 
 These observations may at least authorize us to insti- 
 tute an inquiry into the particular meaning of this phrase. 
 
 The Socinians uniformly take advant ge of this apel- 
 lation r and of many things w 7 hich are affirmed concerning 
 Jesus Christ as u 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. 70-76.) This reply is not an evasion r 
 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 Di- 
 vine 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 followeis. Thus made ac- 
 quainted 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 NathanaePs 
 prejudice was vanquished, and he was coming " to see," 
 Jesus confirmed the testimony of Philip, by demonstrating 
 his omniscience. And Nathanael " believing," because 
 Jesus said unto him, I saw thee under the fig tree, " an- 
 swered 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 confirmed, not by the testimony of 
 Jesus, but by the evidence of his omniscience. 
 
 The next day he confirmed their faith, by a manifesta- 
 tion of his omnipotence, when I e turned the water into 
 wine. " This beginning of miracles," says the evangelist, 
 u did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his 
 glory, (the glory of his omnipotence, and of his Divine na~ 
 tare,) and his disciples believed on him," John ii 4 11 k 
 
140 ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 that is, they believed more firmly the testimony of John 
 concerning him. 
 
 The man who was born blind, 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 hearing 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 : u He said, 
 Lord, I believe, and worshipped him," John ix, 38. 
 
 The same inference was drawn from the same premises, 
 and in the same manner, by the men who witnessed ano- 
 ther of his miracles. " When they (Jesus and 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 omni- 
 potence, Mary inferred his omnipotence from his being the 
 Son of God. 
 
 The numberless miracles which Jesus wrought a % e re- 
 corded in confirmation of this truth. M 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 obvious in what sense 
 this phrase was understood in the days of our Lord's mi- 
 nistry. No one thought of his being the Son of God, 
 until it was revealed. W r hen his disciples witnessed his 
 Divine perfections of omniscience or omnipotence, they 
 accepted them as proofs of his Divinity, and consequently 
 believed and acknowledged him to be the Son of God. 
 And when they acknowledged him to be the Son of God, 
 as a proof that in so doing they acknowledged his Divinity, 
 they worshipped him. 
 
 If farther proof, that this 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, whjo 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," Lukeiv, 41. 
 
 2. The Jews uniformly show that this was the k'ea 
 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 i&ov, proper Father, making himself 
 equal with God,'' John v, 17, 18. It is scarcely necessary 
 to observe, (l.) that, as Father and Son are correlative 
 terms, by calling God his Father, in connection with the 
 assertion that his works were such as the w orks of the 
 Father, he led the Jews to suppose that he meant to call 
 God i&ov tfarcpa, his proper Father, and thereby mad© 
 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* 
 44 He is guilty of death," Matt, xxvi, 63-66. And lastly* 
 When he was crucified, 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 TRINITY. 
 
 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 this kind of evidence, and perpetually call for 
 clear and positive declarations of the Divinity of our 
 Lord from his own mouth. By this maneuver a thousand 
 witnesses are silenced, in the many Divine miracles 
 which he daily wrought among the people, and by which 
 he " showed forth his glory." Yet the 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 impostor may give out, like Simon Magus, that he is 
 44 the great power of God ;" but he only who manifests the 
 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 which he wit- 
 nesseth 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 which the Father hath 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, 19, 3! -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. M Say ye of him, whom the Father 
 hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphe~ 
 mest ; because I said, I am the Son of God ] If I do not 
 the works of my Father, believe me not. 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 him," 
 John x, 36-38. Here we see, that in our Lord's opinion 
 his miraculous works evinced his union with the Godhead, 
 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 Divinity, derived 
 from the miracles which, with Divine power, he wrought 
 during the years of his public ministry, are supposed by 
 the Socinians to be unsatisfactory, because the disciples 
 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 demon- 
 stration 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 adver- 
 sary to advance. We know that the faith of the disciples, 
 till the descent of the Holy Spirit, was exceedingly weak 
 and unsteady. Their cowardice on this occasion was not 
 44 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, M Now 
 we are sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not 
 that any man should ask thee : by this we believe that 
 thou earnest forth from God : Jesus answered them, Do 
 ye now believe 1 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 their 
 unbelief, and their desertion of their Master, they had pre- 
 viously' " trusted that it had been he which should have 
 redeemed Israel." 
 
 When he " who 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 resurrec- 
 tion from the dead," Rom. i, 3, 4, then their faith became 
 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, and 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 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 all truth ;" who should " take of the things" of Christ 
 and " show them unto them ;" 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 
 they 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 u 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 filleth all 
 in all," that he is " Christ and God," Eph. i, 23 ; v, 5 ; 
 to the Philippians, that " he was in the form of God, and 
 thought it not robbery to 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 
 dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," Col. ii, 9 ; 
 that M by him were all things created that are in heaven, 
 and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
 be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all 
 things were created by him and for him, and (that) he is 
 before all things, and by him all things consist," Col. i, 
 16, 17; to Timothy, that "God was manifest in the 
 flesh," 1 Tim. iii, 16 ; to Titus, that " the great God, and 
 oui Saviour Jesus Christ gave himself for us," Tit. ii, 13 ; 
 to the Hebrews that " by him God made the worlds," that 
 he is " upholding all things 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 ouro^, 
 "he was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inas- 
 much as he who hath builded the house hath more honour 
 than the house. For every house is builded vno tivos, by 
 some one, but he that built all things is God," Heb. iii, 
 3, 4. John asserted, that he " was God," and that " all 
 things were made by him, and without him was not any 
 thing made that was made," 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 God 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 be- 
 long to no being but the Deity. They represent him as 
 being " before all things," Col. i, 17 ; as having " all 
 power in heaven and on earth," Matt, xxxviii, 28 : and 
 therefore being 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 pardoa, 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 su- 
 preme? 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. iy, 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 every 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 TRlNITf, 
 
 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 God 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 1 
 
 Thus is the Divinity of Jesus Christ every where 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 Bishop 
 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 asserts in such plain 
 terms that Mr. G. is forced to concede, pro tempore, that 
 "the Word was no other than God himself." (Vol. i, p. 
 197.) As the pre-existence and Divinity of Jesus Christ 
 are thus asserted in the beginning of that book, the proofs 
 of those doctrines make up the substance of it. The 
 evangelist having thus asserted that the eternal and Divine 
 " Word was made flesh, 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 con- 
 cerning him, and in all his sayings and miracles, by which 
 his Divine nature or his Divine perfections were mani- 
 fested. 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 immediately 
 connected with the confession of faith which Thomas 
 made, (My Lord and my God,) our Lord's approbation 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 Gnos- 
 tics 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 confess- 
 ed 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 de- 
 nieth the Father and the Son," 1 John ii, 18-22. " Who- 
 soever 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 epis- 
 tle with these words, in which he declares the true Deity 
 of the Son of God : " We know. that the Son of God is 
 come, and hath given us an understanding that we may 
 know him that is true ; and we are in him that is true, 
 even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and 
 eternal life," 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 DOCTRINE 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 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 that 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 the 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 which the sacred writers, we find, 
 were perfect strangers. Such an unscriptural phraseology 
 a Bible Christian might easily be persuaded to relinquish, 
 if the sacrifice were to be made in favour of the 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 which trinitarians maintain. Had the apostles 
 spoken of three persons in one God, it would have been 
 represented that these words, literally understood, suggest 
 a contradiction ; that three persons are three beings ; that 
 three beings cannot subsist in one being ; and that there- 
 fore the language of the writer must be understood as 
 " highly figurative." If the sacred writers had applied 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, 
 44 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 js 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 former may 
 be generally considered in the light of an argument which 
 carries conviction to every honest mind ; but an appeal to 
 the latter is, in most cases, little better than a naked asser- 
 tion, to ascertain the truth of which the reader must de- 
 pend 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 would 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 as Athanasius 
 himself would not have rejected :* but in which he has 
 exhibited from those fathers nothing which has the most 
 distant appearance of a denial of supreme Divinity to 
 Jesus Christ. The few passages of those early writers, 
 w T hich give countenance to a doctrine on which they were 
 not professedly writing, either are torn in pieces on the 
 rack of criticism, or, because other passages of a similar 
 kind have been interpolated, are cancelled as interpola- 
 tions. Tf the Scriptures themselves do not afford satis- 
 factory evidence of the doctrines which they contain, the 
 
 * The answers already given to his citations from Scripture on 
 the humanity of Christ are equally applicable to those from the 
 Christian fathers. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 151 
 
 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 their 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 Clement 
 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, this 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 :" (Yol. ii, p. 48 :) words which, 
 without a Socinian comment, imply, that in an< ther respect 
 Jesus Christ did not spring from Jacob. This Scriptural 
 phrase (according to the flesh) indicates that Jesus Christ 
 was not merely 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 OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 in which he says, " Jesus Christ was made of the seed of 
 David, according to the flesh ; but the Sou of God, ac- 
 cording to the Spirit of holiness," 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, although he 
 had it in his power, but in humility." "More ancient 
 copies, (those which Jerome used,) instead of xaj^ap <Juva- 
 psvog, ■ although he had it in his power,' had xotjtfgp tfavra 
 5uva,asvocr, « 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 :" 
 (Horsleifs Letters, p. 131:) i. e. both his pre-existence 
 and his omnipotence. 
 
 Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was a disciple and familiar 
 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 ge- 
 nuine, 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." (.2d. 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." (Jtd. 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." (Jld. 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." 
 (Sect. 2.) The following passage, in which he prays to 
 Jesus Christ, and calls him " the Son of God," (a term 
 which, as we have shown, indicated a Divine person,) is 
 quoted by Mr. G. : " The Son of God, Jesus Christ, 
 
ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 153 
 
 build you up in faith," &c. (Epist. to Phil. sec. 12.) — 
 44 When he was at the stake, he finished his prayer with 
 these words :— 4 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 the Holy Spirit, be glory both now, 
 and to all succeeding ages. Amen." (Martyr, of Poly- 
 carp, sec. 14.) 
 
 Irenreus, 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." (JLdv. 
 Hceret. lib. iv, cap. 74.) 44 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 r to Christ Jesus, our 
 Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the 
 good pleasure of the invisible Father." (Lib. i, cap. 2.) 
 44 The Father, by his own Word and Spirit, makes, go- 
 verns, and gives being to all things." (Lib. i, cap. 22, 
 sec. 1.) 44 For his Word and his W r isdom, 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 9 
 to whom also he 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, 44 But the Son of the Father, even ho 
 
154 ORIGIN OF 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. (Jlpol.) And- 
 again : " But this Being, who was really begotten of the 
 Father, and proceeded from him, did, before all creatures 
 were made, exist with the Father, and the Father con- 
 versed with him." (Dial, cum Tryph.) Once more: — 
 " God, and his only-begotten Son, together with the Spi- 
 rit, we worship and adore." (Jlpol.) 
 
 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 
 something made. For God, being an eternal intelli- 
 gence, himself from the beginning had the Logos in him- 
 self, being eternally rational." (Horslexfs Letters, p. 59.) 
 
 Theophilus, bishop of xintioch, 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, rpiadog ; of God, and of his Word, and of his Wis- 
 dom." (Ad. Jlulolijc. 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 Holy 
 Spirit." 
 
 Clemens of Alexandria, an eminent writer of the se- 
 cond century, says, " The Son of God is always every 
 where, and contained no where : all mind, all light, all 
 eye of his Father, 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.) 
 
 Tertullian is the last writer of this century to whom we 
 appeal. The following passage is translated from his 
 treatise, de Prascriptione, by Dr. Priestley, and acknow- 
 ledged by him to contain the catholic faith. The rule of 
 faith, " by which we are taught to believe that there is but 
 one God, and this no other than the Maker of the world, 
 who produced every thing out of nothing, by his own 
 Word then first sent down : that that Word was called 
 his Son ; that he appeared variously in the name of God, 
 
USE OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY. 155 
 
 (i. e. being called Jehovah,) to the patriarchs : that he 
 was afterward conveyed, by the Spirit and power of God 
 the Father, into the Virgin Mary : that he was made flesh 
 in her womb, and from her appeared in the person of Je- 
 sus Christ." (Remarks on J\lr. Badcock's Review, p. 18.) 
 That some should be dissatisfied with the terms trinity, 
 economy, &c, which began to be invented and adopted 
 in the times of Tertullian, as Mr. G., quoting that author, 
 has specified, (vol. ii, p. 76,) is not matter of wonder. — 
 The frequent discussion of these subjects led to the adop- 
 tion of compendious terms and phrases, which, however 
 proper, might easily give offence, especially as Theodotus, 
 the tanner of Byzantium, was then preaching at Rome the 
 Unitarian doctrine of the mere humanity of Jesus Christ. 
 (Dr. Horsley to Dr. Priestley, let. xiv, sec. 6.) We 
 have not, however, undertaken to vindicate these scho- 
 lastic terms, but the Scriptural truth with which, therefore, 
 they are not to be identified. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Oj the Scriptural Use of the Doctrine of the Trinity, 
 
 However the prying curiosity of speculative minds may 
 wish to extract from the Scriptures a theory of the trinity, 
 the sacred books will afford them no satisfactory instruc- 
 tion on that mysterious subject, abstracted from its prac- 
 tical use. A careful perusal of the Old and the New 
 Testament may soon convince the reader that those books 
 are. intended to humble the pride of the human understand- 
 ing, and to amend the heart. Let no one therefore ima- 
 gine that his views of the subject are correct and Scriptural, 
 if he do not enter into the spirit and design of the sacred 
 writers, and study the mysterious relation of the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in the light of that practical 
 use, with which it is always connected, from which it can 
 never, without detriment, be disjoined, and for the sake of 
 which it is revealed. The following may serve to exem- 
 plify the use which the sacred writers make of it. 
 
 " God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten 
 Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
 
15$ THE SCRIPTURAL USE OF THE 
 
 but have everlasting life," John iii, 16. To produce and 
 44 prepare a body" for the Son, " the Holy Spirit came 
 upon the virgin, and the power of the Highest over- 
 shadowed her." The Son obediently accepted the 
 Father's commission, and said, "A body hast thou pre- 
 pared me. Lo, I come to do thy will, O God !" Heb. 
 x, 5, 7. He " came forth from the Father, and came into 
 the world," John xvi, 28. Thus, " when the fulness of 
 the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a 
 woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were 
 under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons," 
 Gal. iv, 5, 6. 
 
 The Father acknowledged the Son, and while "the 
 Holy Ghost descended upon" the latter, " a voice came 
 from heaven which said, Thou art my Son, in thee I am 
 well pleased," Luke iii, 21, 22. The attention of the 
 human race was called, by the Father, to the Son, when a 
 voice proceeded from the excellent glory, " This is my 
 beloved Son, hear ye him," Luke ix/35. " It pleased the 
 Father that in his dear Son should all fulness" of the Spirit 
 " dwell," Col. i, 19.' When therefore the Word was made 
 flesh, and dwelt among us, we beheld his glory, the glory 
 as of the only-begotten (Son) of the Father, full of grace 
 and truth," John i, 14. Anointed with all the fulness of 
 the Holy Ghost, the Son went forth, declaring to mankind 
 the Father. " He, whom God had sent, spake the words 
 of God ; for God gave not the Spirit by measure to him," 
 John iii, 34. " The Spirit of the Lord, said he, is upon 
 me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to 
 the poor : he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to 
 preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight 
 to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to 
 preach the acceptable year of the Lord," Luke iv, 18. — 
 Speaking the words of the Father, and delivering the 
 Father's commandments, the Son, John xii, 49, by the 
 Spirit of God, wrought Divine miracles, and confirmed the 
 Father's word, by doing the works of the Father ; " that 
 the Father might be glorified in the Son." " My Father 
 worketh hitherto, (said he,) and I work. The Son can do 
 nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do ; for 
 what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son 
 likewise. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, even so 
 
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 157 
 
 the Son quickeneth whom he will ; that all men should 
 honour the Son, even as they honour the Father ; for he 
 that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father," 
 John v, 17-23. 
 
 To " redeem us to God by his blood, the Son, by the 
 eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God," Heb. 
 ix, 14, thus making "himself an offering and a sacrifice to 
 God for a sweet-smelling savour," Eph. iv, 2 ; and the 
 Father by the Spirit, Rom. v, 24; viii, 11, "raised the 
 Son from the dead, for our justification." 
 
 The Father " exalted the Son to his own right hand," 
 and u glorified him with his own self, with the glory which 
 he had with him before the world was," John xvii, 5. — 
 " The Son ever liveth to make intercession, and is able to 
 save to the uttermost all that come to God by him," Heb. 
 vii, 26. He " prays the Father that he may give us an- 
 other Comforter, even the Spirit of truth," John xiv, 17. 
 He has ascended up on high, and received gifts for men, 
 that the Lord God (by the Spirit) may dwell among them, 
 Psalm lxviii, 18 ; Eph. iv, 7, 8. " Behold I (says the 
 Son) send (the Spirit) the promise of my Father upon 
 you," Luke xxiv, 49. " This Jesus hath God raised up. 
 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and 
 having received of the Father the promise of the Holy 
 Ghost, he hath shed forth this," Acts ii, 33. 
 
 11 The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all 
 judgment unto the Son. For as the Father hath life in 
 himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself, 
 and hath given him authority to execute judgment also," 
 John v, 22, 27. " God shall judge the secrets of men by 
 Jesus Christ," Rom. ii, 16. "When, therefore, the Lord 
 Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 
 in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not 
 God," 1 Thess. i, 8, and shall have pronounced the sen- 
 tence of final acquittal, " Come, ye blessed of my Father, 
 inherit the kingdom prepared for you ;" when the offering 
 up of the nations shall be accepted, being sanctified by 
 the Holy Ghost ; " when he shall have put all enemies under 
 his feet ; — he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even 
 the Father, and the Son also himself shall be subject unto 
 him that put all things under him, that God may be all in 
 all," 1 Cor. xv, 24-28. 
 
 14 
 
158 THE SCRIPTURAL USE OF THE 
 
 From the various combinations of this mysterious eco- 
 nomy, all our blessings, but especially the blessings of our 
 redemption and salvation, flow. 
 
 1. Mankind are ignorant of their Maker. "Verily he 
 is a God who hideth himself," Isa. xlv, 15. "No man 
 hath seen God at any time ; but the only-begotten Son, 
 which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared 
 him," John i, 18. " No man knoweth the Son but the 
 Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the 
 Son ; -and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," 
 John xi, 27. Again, on the other hand : " The things of 
 God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God," 1 Cor. ii, 14. 
 u No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the 
 Holy Ghost," 1 Cor. xii, 3. " But when the Comforter 
 is come," says the Son of God, " whom I will send unto 
 you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which pro- 
 ceeded from the Father, he shall testify of me," John xv, 
 26. " I will pray the Father, and he shall give you ano- 
 ther Comforter, even the Spirit of truth. At that day, ye 
 shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I 
 in you," John xiv, 16, 20. When " the God of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, gives unto them the 
 Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, 
 so that the eyes of their understanding may be enlight- 
 ened," Eph. i, 18 : then they see the Son, who is the 
 express image of the Father's person ; and " seeing the 
 Son, they see the Father," John xiv, 9 : then they u know 
 the Son, and know the Father also," John xiv, 7. Thus 
 " God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 
 shineth in their hearts, to give the light of the knowledge 
 of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. 
 iv, 6. And thus " with open face, beholding as in a glass 
 the glory of the Lord, they are changed into the same 
 image, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord," 
 2 Cor. iii, 18. 
 
 2. ** All have sinned, and come short of the glory of 
 God," Rom. iii, 23 ; and " are by nature the children of 
 wrath," Eph. ii, 3. But the Son has, " by the grace of 
 God, tasted death for every man," Heb. ii, 9. " He was 
 delivered (to death) for our offences, and raised again 
 from the dead by the glory of the Father for our justifica- 
 tion," Rom. iv, 25 ; vi,4. " God was in Christ recon- 
 
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 159 
 
 eiling the world to himself," 2 Cor. v, 19. " By him we 
 believe in God, who raised him up from the dead, that our 
 faith and hope might be in God," 1 Pet. i, 21. " There- 
 fore being justified by faith, we have peace with God 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God is 
 shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is 
 given to us," Rom. v, 1,5. They are " to the praise of 
 his (the Fathers) glory, who trust in Christ ; in whom, 
 after having believed, they are sealed with that Holy Spirit 
 of promise?' Eph. i, 12, 13. They " are all the children 
 of God by faith in Christ Jesus ; and because they are 
 sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his. Son into their 
 hearts, crying Abba, Father. Wherefore they are no 
 more servants, but sons ; and if sons, then heirs of God 
 through Christ," Gal. iii, 26 ; iv, 6, 7. " The God and 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to his abun- 
 dant mercy, hath now begotten them again unto a lively 
 hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 
 to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that 
 fadeth not away," 1 Pet. i, 3, 4. " The God of hope fills 
 them with all joy and peace in believing, that they may 
 abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost," 
 Rom. xv, 13. 
 
 3. " Without Christ," mankind are " without God in 
 the world," Eph. ii, 12. If we " draw nigh unto God, he 
 will draw nigh to us," James iv, 8. Now " no man 
 cometh unto the Father, but by the Son," John xiv, 6. 
 44 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Fa- 
 ther," 1 John ii, 23. " No man, however, can come to 
 the Son, except the Father, who hath sent him, draw him," 
 John vi, 44 ; but drawn by the Father to the Son, " through 
 him (the Son) we have an access by the Spirit unto the 
 Father," Eph. ii, 18. The Father communicates himself 
 to us through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. " By one 
 Spirit we are all baptized into one body, and have been all 
 made to drink into one Spirit," 1 Cor. xii, 13. Then are 
 we the mystical " body of Christ, and members in parti- 
 cular," 1 Cor. xii, 27. " The Father of glory hath made 
 him (the Son) the head over all to the Church, which is 
 the body of him (who is) the fulness of him that filleth 
 all in all," Eph. i, 17, 22, 23. Mystically united with this 
 glorious head, in whom as his " dear Son, it pleased the 
 
160 USE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITT. 
 
 Father that all fulness should dwell," Col. i, 10 : " Of his 
 fulness all we receive, and grace for grace," John i, 16. 
 Now therefore " There is one body, and one Spirit, even 
 as we are called in one hope of our calling. One Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who 
 is above all, and through all, and in you all," Eph. iv, 4-6. 
 44 Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which 
 is Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. iii, 11 ; " to whom coming, as 
 unto a living stone, ye also, as lively stones, are built up 
 a spiritual house," 1 Pet. i, 4, 5. "Jesus Christ himself 
 being the chief corner stone, on whom ye are builded 
 together for an habitation of God, through the Spirit," 
 Eph. ii, 20, 22. " For this cause," says St. Paul, " I bow 
 my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 he would grant you to be strengthened with might by the 
 Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your 
 hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in 
 love, may be able to comprehend with all saints, what is 
 the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to 
 know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that 
 ye might be filled with all the fulness of God," Eph. iii, 
 14-19. " Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his 
 Son Jesus Christ," 1 John i, 3, by the communion of that 
 Spirit. " I will pray the Father," says the Son, " and he 
 shall give you the Spirit of truth ; for he dwelleth with 
 you, and shall be in you. At that day, ye shall know that 
 I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you," John 
 xiv, 16-20. Thus " the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Ghost, are with us," 2 Cor. xiii, 14. 
 
 Such is the manner in which the sacred writers have 
 delivered to us the doctrine of the trinity. That doctrine 
 is never abstracted from the plan of human redemption, 
 but inextricably interwoven with it. As the foundation 
 cannot be destroyed without the ruin of the whole super- 
 structure, it is consistent enough in the Socinians to 
 attempt at once the destruction of the whole fabric. 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 161 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Death of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 To place this important subject on its proper basis, and 
 to exhibit it in that light in which it appears in the book 
 of revelation, we must consider the Old and the New 
 Testament as the history of human redemption. The 
 Old Testament was designed to suggest those ideas, and 
 to establish those principles which should prepare the 
 minds of God's people for the reception of that method of 
 salvation which was to be more perfectly developed by 
 the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this purpose its insti- 
 tutions were " a shadow of good things to come, but not 
 the very image of the things," Heb. x, 1. 
 
 That the legal institutions might answer this great and 
 necessary end, the government erected in Israel was a 
 theocracy. Jehovah was their chief magistrate. " The 
 Lord was their King ; the Lord was their Lawgiver ; the 
 Lord was their Judge." Hence, when "the elders of 
 Israel came to Samuel, and said, Make us a king to 
 judge us like all the nations, the Lord said unto Samuel, 
 They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, 
 that I should not reign over them," 1 Sam. viii, 4, 7. 
 
 As God was to them in the place of a secular king, he 
 dwelt in the midst of them. " The Lord his God was 
 with him, and the shout of a King was among them," 
 Num. xxiii, 21. The tabernacle was the place where he 
 held his court, and the holy of holies was his pavilion. 
 There the King of Israel resided, and manifested his royal 
 presence by the Shechinah. There, as their Lawgiver, 
 he was consulted ; and as their Judge, he administered 
 justice. 
 
 He not only gave them political and civil laws, but also 
 instituted a ceremonial, by which, in consideration of his 
 dwelling among them, and to habituate them to a profound 
 reverence for the presence of his truly gracious Majesty, 
 he enforced on them an extraordinary degree of external 
 purity. To preserve the honour of the Jewish ritual, and 
 to promote the reverence which was due to Israel's King, 
 14* 
 
162 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 the priests and Levites were appointed as servants in 
 waiting. Through them only the people could have access 
 to their Sovereign, and by them all their offerings were to 
 be presented to him. Those offerings were of two kinds : 
 some were eucharistical, and were offered in acknowledg- 
 ment of benefits received ; others were piacular, and were 
 offered to avert impending evil, or to regain forfeited 
 blessings. This is an important distinction which is'pre- 
 served through the whole of the Levitical law, and is 
 particularly noticed by an apostle : " For every high 
 priest taken from among men is ordained for men in 
 things (pertaining) to God, that he may offer both gifts 
 and sacrifices for sins," Heb. v, 1. 
 
 The gifts which the apostle here mentions were un- 
 doubtedly the meat offerings, the drink offerings, the offer- 
 ing of the first fruits, the thank offerings, the free-will 
 offerings, and the peace offerings. From these gifts, the 
 " sacrifices for sins" are always to be particularly distin- 
 guished, as their nature and design were essentially dif- 
 ferent. And this difference renders that comparison 
 which, for the sake of reducing the " sin offering" to the 
 standard of their own opinion, the Socinians make between 
 them, altogether inadmissible. No proof of what was, or 
 what was not, the design of the " gifts," can afford any 
 decisive evidence concerning the design of the u sacrifices 
 for sin." 
 
 " A sacrifice for sin is a sacrifice to expiate the guilt of 
 sin, in such a manner as to avert the punishment from the 
 offender." (Magee.) Such were the sin offerings insti- 
 tuted by the Levitical law. 
 
 The ceremonial enjoined by the King of Israel was 
 such that it was unavoidable in many cases that persons 
 should, on account of some impurity, or the neglect of 
 some of its ordinances, be excluded by it from the congre- 
 gation, and from all its privileges. That impurity might 
 be contracted by accident, ignorance, inattention, or natu- 
 ral or constitutional infirmity. A breach of the civil code 
 was followed by the same consequences ; for, however as 
 an offence against a brother it might be pardonable when 
 restitution was made, as it was an offence against the 
 legislator, the offender, as in the preceding case, was not 
 permitted to appear in the congregation till the perform- 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 163 
 
 ance of certain expiations and ablutions. See Lev. xvii, 
 20, 21. In such cases " all things under the law were 
 purged with blood, and without shedding of blood was no 
 remission," Heb. ix, 22. For these purposes were ap- 
 pointed the various sin offerings, by which, when the 
 impure were absolved and purified, they were admitted 
 into his courts, and their worship was accepted. 
 
 Of these sin offerings the nature, occasion, and de- 
 sign, are fully exhibited in the Levitical law of sacrifices. 
 The following passage, instead of many, will set this sub- 
 ject before the reader at one view : " If the whole con- 
 gregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing 
 be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done 
 (somewhat against) any of the commandments of the 
 Lord, (concerning things) which should not be done, and 
 are guilty ; when the sin which they have sinned against 
 it is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bul- 
 lock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the 
 congregation. And the elders of the congregation shall 
 lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the 
 Lord ; and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord. 
 And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullocks 
 blood to the tabernacle of the congregation ; and the 
 priest shall dip his finger in (some) of the blood, and 
 sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the 
 veil. And he shall put (some) of the blood upon the 
 horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the 
 blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which 
 is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation : and 
 he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the 
 altar. And he shall do with the bullock as he did with 
 the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this : 
 and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it 
 shall be forgiven them. And he shall carry forth the bul- 
 lock without the camp, and burn him as he burnt the first 
 bullock : it is a sin offering for the congregation," Lev. 
 iv, 13-21. 
 
 Here we have a full account of the nature, occasion, 
 design, and effect of a sin offering. 
 
 1. The sin of the congregation is so distinctly marked,, 
 that to write one sentence to convince the reader that thai; 
 
164 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST, 
 
 sin is the occasion of the offering, and that for which it 
 was offered, would be an insult on his understanding. 
 
 2. The Jewish lawgiver plainly says, " The life of the flesh 
 is in the blood ; and I have given it to you upon the altar, 
 to make an atonement for your souls ; for it is the blood 
 that makethan atonement for the soul," Lev. xvii,ll. Now, 
 in the preceding appointment of a sin offering, it is parti- 
 cularly required that " the blood, in which is the life of 
 the flesh," shall be sprinkled before the Lord, and put 
 on the horns of the altar within the tabernacle, — that all 
 the rest of blood shall be poured out at the foot of the 
 altar of burnt offering, and that thus an atonement shall 
 be made, that the sin may be forgiven. 
 
 All this the Socinians will grant if they may be permit- 
 ted to put their own construction on the word atonement. 
 What that construction is Mr. G. will now inform us. — 
 44 The word translated atone (he says) signifies to cover, 
 hide, conceal some blemish." (Yol. ii, p. 143.) Yery 
 true : and its application may be seen at once in those 
 words, " Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven* 
 and whose sins are covered :" by which is described " the 
 blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth right- 
 eousness without works," Rom. iv, 6, 7. An atonement 
 is, therefore, that which, as it were, hideth the sin from Him 
 who is " of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." This is its 
 ideal meaning. He proceeds : " With the meaning of 
 reconciliation, the English word atonement perfectly 
 accords. It is derived from the two words, at, one, with 
 the termination ment, atonement. It signifies to bring toge- 
 ther to terms of amity two persons that were before alien- 
 ated from each other. This is precisely the meaning of 
 to reconcile. In this reconciliation the change is never 
 said to be in God, but always in man." (Yol. ii, p. 146.) 
 We cannot, on this occasion, do justice to the subject 
 without remarking : (1.) That Mr. G. has made a transi- 
 tion from the ideal meaning of the original word to that 
 of the English, and thus has relinquished the former : and 
 (2.) That he has made pretty free with the meaning of 
 words, when, proceeding by gradations, he assumes that 
 the word atonement, as used in the Old Testament, per- 
 fectly accords with the word reconciliation. It is true 
 they are sometimes, by a figure, as cause and effect, sub- 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 165 
 
 stituted for each other. Atonement is the mean ; recon- 
 ciliation the end effected by that mean. What is the na- 
 ture of that reconciliation which is the effect of atonement, 
 we will now inquire. 
 
 We are aware that in contradicting Mr. G.'s statement 
 it would sound rather harsh to say roundly, The change 
 was in God. We acknowledge the immutability of the 
 nature and perfections of God : but dare not attribute to 
 him the immutability of a stone. Without any change in 
 what he is, God can undoubtedly change in what he does. 
 He can at one time be angry with us, and at another time 
 turn away his anger. That, as a secular governor, 
 he did thus change when atonement was made, we prove 
 thus : — 
 
 (1.) It was not because God had offended the men, 
 but because the men had offended God, that the sin offer- 
 ing was to be offered. And because God was offended, 
 God was to be conciliated. 
 
 (2.) It was not God who presented the sin offering to 
 the congregation : but the congregation who presented it 
 to God. The offering was therefore made, not to " bring 
 the men to terms of amity :" but to u bring" God "to terms 
 of amity :" or, to speak with more propriety, it was the 
 condition on which God proposed to be propitious to them. 
 
 (3.) In the case of peace offerings, which were tokens 
 of an existing, mutual friendship, the offerer was allowed* 
 to eat a part of the offering, in the presence of the Lord* 
 See Lev. vii, 11-19. But " no sin offering, whereof any 
 of the blood was brought into the tabernacle of the congre-* 
 gation, to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be 
 eaten : it shall be burnt in the fire," Lev. vi, 30. A clear 
 proof that God in the holy place was to be conciliated by 
 it ; and not the men, who were not permitted to partici- 
 pate it. 
 
 (4.) When the congregation had sinned, God permitted 
 them not to enjoy " the privileges of his peculiar people ;" 
 whereas when the sin offering had been presented, he did 
 permit them. In other words : the forgiveness was not on 
 the part of the congregation, but God (as their secular 
 governor,) forgave their sin. " He shall make an atone- 
 ment for them, and it shall be forgiven them." 
 
 To this application of the word atonement, Mr. G- 
 
166 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST* 
 
 has, however, several objections which demand our at- 
 tention. 
 
 (1.) The first to which we shall attend are those which 
 are taken from the persons or things for which atonement 
 is said to be made. 
 
 He thinks that atonement can only imply " a consecra- 
 tion or dedication to God," because atonement is said to 
 have been made " at the consecration of Aaron, and his 
 sons to the priest's office ; at the dedication of the Levites 
 to their ministry ; at the first act of worship in which the 
 people of Israel joined under the new high priest ; at 
 solemn festivals ; and as a voluntary donation." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 141.) He has quite forgotten that the Jews were not 
 so " holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners," 
 but that the " high priest needed daily to offer up sacri- 
 fice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's," Heb. 
 vii, 26, 27. Let him prove that they had no sin to expi- 
 ate, and then he may infer that these atonements were not 
 for their sins. As to the " voluntary donation," Job 
 offered burnt offerings for his sons, because, said he, " It 
 may be that my sons have sinned," Job i, 5. And why 
 might not God allow a conscientious Jew, for a similar 
 reason, to make a voluntary offering as an atonement? 
 It is not clear, however, that the passage to which Mr. 
 G. alludes, Lev. i, 3, does speak of a voluntary atone- 
 ment. The word is " uvn 1 ?, leretsono, to gain himself 
 acceptance before the Lord. In this way all the versions 
 appear to have understood the original words ; and the 
 connection in which they stand obviously requires this 
 meaning." (Dr. A. Clarke in loc.) 
 
 But " a great part of the atonements had no reference 
 to character whatever, but were appointed for things inani- 
 mate, as altars, tabernacles," &c. (Vol. ii, p. 143.) This 
 is some proof that an atonement was not made to concili- 
 ate that for which it was made. How could an altar or a 
 tabernacle be conciliated ? The truth is, that in atoning for 
 the altar and the tabernacle, the atonement was made for 
 the people who were to present themselves before the 
 door of the latter, and their offerings on the former. Thus 
 it was ordained that the high priest " shall make atone- 
 ment for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the 
 children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 167 
 
 all their sins : and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the 
 congregation that remaineth among them in the midst of 
 their uncleanness," Lev. xvi, 16. 
 
 (2.) The second class of objections are taken from the 
 nature of the sins for which atonement was made. " The 
 term atonement is used in reference to bodily diseases 
 and infirmities, the commission of sins of ignorance, and 
 only in two cases are sacrificial atonements appointed to 
 be made for wilful violations of the moral law." (Vol. ii, 
 pp. 141, 142.) 
 
 That is, in plain terms, the legal atonements were not 
 made for transgressions of the universal law of righteous- 
 ness, but for transgressions of some of the ceremonial and 
 civil laws, which God had given to them as their chief 
 magistrate. The impurities contracted by certain " dis- 
 eases and infirmities, 55 and the " sins of ignorance,' 5 were 
 transgressions of the ceremonial law. The former were 
 considered as attendants on some sin, and were in fact 
 the consequences of the fallen state of human nature. The 
 latter were sins committed in the misapplication of the 
 sacred things through avoidable ignorance. The " wilful 
 violations" for which atonements were appointed, were 
 cases of " dishonest dealing," and " the treatment of 
 slaves," which were breaches of the civil law. They all 
 referred to the Jewish* polity, and the atonement was made 
 to restore the men to the privileges of that polity, which 
 by these transgressions they forfeited. It was an atone- 
 ment suited to the nature of the sin, of the evils to be 
 averted, and of the benefits to be recovered. But still it 
 was an atonement for sin. In the case of dishonest deal- 
 ing, the dishonest person was obliged, first, to make an 
 atonement to the man whom he had injured, by restoring 
 the property embezzled, and one fifth part more ; and 
 then to make also an atonement to the legislator, whose 
 laws he had wilfully violated. 
 
 (3.) The third class of objections are taken from the 
 effect of the atonement to be made. " The atonement 
 only referred to religious privileges." (Vol. ii, p. 143.) 
 
 Mr. G. might have said civil and religious privileges ; 
 for the civil and ritual law were blended together. There 
 is some truth in this. The sins for which atonement was 
 made, were such as excluded the sinner from the congre- 
 
168 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 gation of Israel, and if not atoned when known, procured 
 a sentence of anathema. This sentence was revoked 
 when the proper atonement was made, and the person pre- 
 viously deemed " guilty," was now " forgiven," and was 
 admitted to the peculiar privileges which he had forfeited. 
 But still the atonement is always called an atonement for 
 his sin. 
 
 (4.) The fourth class of objections are taken from those 
 passages, which declare that sacrifices could not supply 
 the place of repentance, reformation, and obedience. 
 " Thou desirest not sacrifice ;" " thou delightest not in 
 burnt offerings ;" " the sacrifice of God is a broken spirit," 
 &c, &c. (Vol. ii, p. 147.) 
 
 The question is not, would the Jewish sacrifices stand 
 instead of morality and piety, or of repentance and refor- 
 mation? but were they appointed for the ceremonial 
 expiation of certain sins, of a penitent sinner, against the 
 Jewish law 1 We have found that they were. 
 
 3. In order, however, that the sin offering by which 
 atonement was made, might be effectual to procure the 
 forgiveness of the sin for which it was offered, the sinner 
 must confess his sin, and acknowledge the sacrifice as 
 his own, and that he offered it as an atonement for his sin. 
 The confession of his sin is sometimes mentioned. " He 
 shall confess that he hath sinned ih that thing ; and he 
 shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord," Lev. v, 5. 
 (See Num. v, 7.) This is also particularly enjoined 
 on the great day of atonement, and the meaning of it is 
 distinctly stated. u And Aaron (as the representative 
 of all the people,) shall lay both his hands upon the 
 head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniqui- 
 ties of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions 
 in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the 
 goat," Lev. xvi, 21. In the passage more immediately 
 under consideration, as well as in the institution of sin 
 offerings in general, the offerers were required either per- 
 sonally, or by their representatives, to " bring" the victim 
 " before the tabernacle of the congregation," and to u lay 
 their hands upon its head before the Lord." By 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 dis- 
 
PROPITIATORY 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. u 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 Gad 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 
 excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator 
 of a better covenant, 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 taber- 
 nacle was yet standing : which was a figure for the 
 time then present, in which were offered 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, 8-12. 
 
 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 SACRIFICE OF JESUS CtfRISf* 
 
 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 High Priest offered, was of the latter kind, 
 a sin offering ; as is sufficiently obvious from the follow- 
 ing passages : — " When thou shalt make his soul an 
 offering for sin," Isa. liii, 10. " He hath made him to be, 
 a/xapnav, a sin offering for us," 2 Cor. v, 21. "Who 
 needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice, first for his own 
 sins, 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. ix, 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 meaning 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 offered ; 
 so 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 beautifully represented as having given 
 his life a sacrifice for us. The resemblance between th© 
 death of Christ, according to this account of 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. (Yol. 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 confess our inability to conjecture. If the advocates 
 of proper atonement were obliged to interpret the scrip- 
 tures which relate to that subject in this vague manner, 
 and could give no more rational or Scriptural proof of the 
 justness of their opinions, than is contained in this unmean- 
 ing cant of Mr. G., 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 
 was 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 delivered unto you 
 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. 
 si, 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 OF JESUS CHRIST, 
 
 are the same which are used by the LXX, viz. the deriva- 
 tives of thau, I am propitious. Those interpreters render 
 Lev. iv, 20, 26, 35, &c, " the priest shall make atone- 
 ment," by sgiXatferai. In Ezek. xliv, 27, where it is said 
 the priest shall bring his sin offering, they use the word 
 *Xa(f/xov. 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, sgiXcurao'dai, to 
 make atonement or propitiation for iniquity, Dan. ix, 24, 
 The apostle to the Hebrews says, "It behoved" Christ as 
 our " merciful High Priest, iXatfxsa'dai, 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 
 iXa<f/xov, a propitiation or atonement for our sins," 1 John 
 iv, 10. "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the 
 Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is jXatfju-os, the 
 propitiation or atonement for our sins," 1 John ii, 2. In 
 his unguarded effort to get rid of this word, (vol. ii, page 
 151,) Mr. G. has confounded it with iXatfr'/jpiov, which 
 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 hypothesis 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. Priestley, in the conclusion of his History of the Doctrine of 
 Atonement, has explicitly granted that the Socinuns had not yet 
 been able * to explain all particular expressions in the apostolical 
 epistles, &c, in a manner perfectly consistent with (what they deem) 
 <ne general strain of their own writings." [Hist, of Cor. vol. i, p. 280.) 
 It would have been candid to have told the public which are all those 
 "particular expressions." The word (Xacr/io?, propitiation, seems to 
 be one of them, which therefore he has passed over by just observing 
 that 1 John ii, 2, and iv, 10, "are the only places in which the word 
 propitiation, i\a<rpos, occurs in the New Testament." (P. 183 ) He 
 had overlooked the prophecy of Daniel and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 This one word was too hard for him: and well it might, for it is di- 
 rectly to the point. But Mr G. is a little more hardy, and ventures, 
 since Di. Priestley could not "explain" this "particular expression in 
 the apostolic epistles without any effort or straining," to make a 
 mighty "effort," and to "strain" very much to explain it according 
 to his own hypothesis. But his "straining effort" tends only to his 
 own discomfiture. 
 
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., that " 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 reconciled to God," 
 is certainly ambiguous, and may be interpreted as meaning 
 either to be conciliated by him, or to be admitted to his 
 friendship. It becomes, therefore, an important ques- 
 tion, What is the sense in which it is used in the Scrip- 
 tures ] 
 
 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 
 reconcile 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 brother hath 
 aught against thee, first be reconciled to thy brother," 
 Matt, v, 23, 24. Here the case is that of a brother offend- 
 ed ; 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, recon- 
 ciling 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 remains. 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 : — " 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 PROPITIATORY 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 offering 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 offered 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 from 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. v, 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 difference between them consists chiefly in the superi- 
 ority of the Christian atonement, the consideration 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 offered for mere ceremonial or 
 civil purposes : this for moral guilt and pollution. Those 
 were mere animals : Christ M offered 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," Heb. x, 4 ; ix, 26. The former 
 11 could not make him that did the service perfect as per- 
 taining to the conscience," Heb. ix, 9 : but " the blood of 
 Christ, who by the eternal Spirit offered himself 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 an heifer sprinkling 
 the unclean, could only sanctify to the purifying of the 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 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 remission 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 offer themselves or 
 other gifts as sacrifices. (Yol. 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 offerings. " I beseech you by the 
 mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacri- 
 fice," Rom. xii, 1. Again : " Let us offer the sacrifice of 
 praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, 
 giving thanks to his name," Heb. xiii, 15. In offering 
 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 
 
1T6 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OP 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 priest, 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 jXatfr^piov (Rom. iii, 25,) is not 
 properly " a mercy seat," but a propitiatory. The 
 " mercy seat" was called /XaaV^piov, a propitiatory, be- 
 cause there the blood of atonement was sprinkled, in con- 
 sequence 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 jXacrr^piov, a propitiatory. " God is in 
 Christ reconciling the world to himself, net 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 
 taught our first parent to clothe themselves 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 
 offered a sacrifice to God is, however, much more clear 
 and positive ; and the respect which God had to his offer- 
 ing makes it nearly certain that it was presented according 
 to a previous Divine appointment. Abel could not know 
 that the life of an unoffending animal would be an accept- 
 able offering, so as to offer it, as it is said he did, by faith, 
 unless he had first received some intimation of it from 
 above : for " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 
 word of God," Rom. x, 17. In the days of Noah, it is 
 still more obvious from the distinction then observed be- 
 tween clean and unclean animals, the more ample provision 
 which was made of the former, the offering which 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 religious worship. (Gen. vii and viii.) The sacri- 
 fices which Abram offered were, we are assured, of Divine 
 appointment. (Gen. xv, 9.) When the wrath of God was 
 kindled against the 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, L* 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 4< 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, u 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 which 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 
 &§ of their Divine institution, 
 
17S 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 infallible 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 illustra- 
 tion 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, prudence 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 which 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 ouv 
 
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 speci- 
 fied. 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 unto 
 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," Titus ii, 14. " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed 
 
IBO PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OP JESUS CHRIST* 
 
 us to God by thy blood," Rev. v, 9. " We have redemp- 
 tion through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," Col. i, 
 14 ; Eph. i, 7. According to the doctrine of these pas- 
 sages we are redeemed, or bought back, by a price ; that 
 price is the precious blood of Christ ; and the forgiveness 
 of sins is the effect 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 Je- 
 sus ; who gave himself a ransom for all," 1 Tim. ii, 5, 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 how 
 far their actions had accorded with the laws which he had 
 given to man. The trial could not but have the most 
 unfavourable issue." (Yol. 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, ") Rom. iii, 19, 20. But the sin- 
 ner whose " mouth is stopped," and who cannot put in a 
 plea of " not guilty," " has an Advocate with the Father, 
 Jesus Christ the righteous," 1 John ii, 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 intercessor is one who pleads the cause of ano- 
 ther. Here again Mr. G. comes forward, in his usual style, 
 demanding the same uniform application 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 punishing 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 M the Almighty 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 Al- 
 mighty 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 synony- 
 mous 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 Soci- 
 nian be hardy enough to speak out, and to say that as God 
 almighty pleads for his people, by executing 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" 
 would shrink from such blasphemy. 
 
 Rut 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 fas 
 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 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST* 
 
 them that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth 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- 
 tion, 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, 5 ' 
 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 blood, 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 transgression of my people was he stricken. He 
 
 * We have not quoted here those scriptures which speak of the 
 Saviour dying for men. Such are Rom. v, 6, 8; xiv, 15 ; 1 Cor. viii, 
 11 ; 2 Cor. v, 15 j Gal. ii, 20 ; 1 Thess. v, 10. The reason for this 
 omission is, that these scriptures come under the class of the terms 
 of emancipation. He " gave himself for us, that he might redeem 
 us." " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being 
 made a curse (dying a death pronounced accursed) for us ; for it is 
 written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," Gal. iii, 13. 
 He gave "his life a ransom for many." In all these passages, 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 Jesus Christ is considered as having borne a penalty in lieu 
 of that which mankind have incurred. The ideal meaning of these 
 two classes of terms is therefore somewhat different, though their doc- 
 trinal meaning is precisely the same. 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 183 
 
 hath poured out his soul unto death : and he bare the sin 
 of many, and made intercession for the transgressors," 
 Isa. liii, 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 
 forgiven." (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 bis 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 maketh 
 intercession for us," Rom- viii, 33, 34. 
 
 Having taken a general survey of what the sacred 
 writers have 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 " (Yol. 
 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 1 If this 
 should be decided in the affirmative, we. may leave to 
 speculative men to inquire whether a propitiatory sacrifice 
 can in any sense be said to " satisfy infinite justice," or 
 to " appease the wrath of an offended God ?" But how- 
 ever this last question may be decided, the first is not at 
 all affected by the decision. To give solidity to his rea- 
 soning, 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 informed that 
 this 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 which we are justified. John 
 the Baptist, with an obvious allusion to the lamb offered 
 as a sin offering, (Lev. iv, 32,) called the attention of the 
 Jews to Jesus Christ, as " the Lamb of 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, " These are the word*; which I spake 
 unto you, that all things must be fulfilled which were 
 written in the law of Moses, and in the 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 remission 
 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 forgiveness of sins 
 through him. "Repent," said they, "and be baptized 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, (be ■ bap- 
 tized into his death,' Rom. vi, 3,) for the remission of 
 sins," Acts ii, 38. " They that dwell at Jerusalem, 
 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 believe 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 Ethiopian eu- 
 nuch, 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 doctrine of 
 the apostles, as in their epistles, from which 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?" (Yol. ii, p. 158.) 
 No : we do not. We believe only that change was 
 wrought by the atonement, which Mr. G. attributes to the 
 mere repentance 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 a suffering 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 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST* 
 
 consequence of the death of a God?" (Yol. ii, p. 158.) 
 No. We believe that " God sending his own Son in the 
 likeness of sinful flesh, and irspi ajxapTiotf, a sacrifice for 
 sin,* condemned sin in the flesh," Rom. viii, 3 : that the 
 Christian atonement was made by " the offering of the 
 body of Jesus Christ." From these " two main points, 
 upoti 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 Fa- 
 ther was not equal to the mercy of the Son, or that the 
 justice of the Son was not equal to the justice of the Fa- 
 ther." (Vol. ii, p. 188.) 
 
 Before we answer this objection, it is necessary to 
 understand an obvious and common distinction with re- 
 spect to Divine justice. 4 * 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 rights of 
 moral government, and take care that the Divine authority 
 be not impaired." (Jcrram en the Atonement^ let. iv, 
 p. 82.) 
 
 Any doctrine may be made to appear absurd by being 
 misrepresented. According to Mr. G.'s representation 
 
 * So the LXX. use that phrase in Isa. liii, 10: and so the apostle 
 
 USe^ It in rleb. X, 6. OXoKavr^^ara Kai rrcpt a p a p r i a s ovk evdoKrr 
 oas: which our translators render, "In burnt offerings and sacrifices 
 for sins thou hast had no pleasure." 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 187 
 
 of our doctrine, there are two Gods : the Father and 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, k4 in whom dwelt all the fulness of the 
 Godhead." This human person, u by the eternal Spirit,' 9 
 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 
 44 set forth a propitiatory through faith in his blood, to 
 declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
 past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare his 
 righteousness, that he might be just, as to his public cha- 
 racter, 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 
 44 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. 44 Will it be said that God himself provided the 
 atonement to be made to himself? Then it renders the 
 whole doctrine a complete nullity. If a 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 
 
ISS 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. 5 ' (Vol. ii, p. 191.) 
 
 This argument is rather specious than solid, and all its 
 apparent weight arises partly out of the confusion of the 
 various terms which 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 modification 
 of it." (Hist, of Cornvp., vol. i, p. 154.) Whatever he 
 may have to urge against the term satisfaction will, there- 
 fore, make nothing against a proper atonement or propi- 
 tiation. (2.) He uses the term satisfaction in a sense 
 which those judicious men, who think proper to make use 
 of it, will not acknowledge. And then (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 this unscriptural word has, in one argu- 
 ment, 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 ourselves. We have 
 already distinguished between the several classes of terms 
 by which the design of the death of Christ is illustrated in 
 the 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 emancipation." 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 redemption of 
 a captive who has been sold or imprisoned for his debt. 
 It is, therefore, only another way of speaking of the pay- 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OP 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 va- 
 nishes. Hence the Scriptures no where 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 1 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 reader 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 are of human invention. 
 
 After this explanation we contend that although to " sup- 
 ply 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 
 afterward pursues multitudes of those whose punishment 
 he bore, and relentlessly plunges them into the flames of 
 hell because they cannot satisfy its demands, which were 
 all satisfied by his suffering in their stead." (Vol. ii, page 
 184.) This objection is levelled, point blank, at the doc- 
 trine of Divine revelation, and therefore requires a serious 
 answer. 
 
 (I.) It is from the book of God we learn that 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 
 that " it pleased the Lord to bruise him ;" that " he was 
 wounded for our transgressions ;" that " he was bruised 
 for our iniquities ;" and that " the chastisement of our 
 peace was upon him." From the same source of instruc- 
 tion we have learned that they who " deny the Lord that 
 bought them, bring on themselves swift 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 OF 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 piopitiatory sa- 
 crifice, " confess their sins," do not require the absolution 
 of those who obstinately continue in their sin and unbe- 
 lief. " 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 left 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 under foot the Son of God," and of " count- 
 ing the blood of the covenant a common thing." In 
 other words : the end of public justice is not answered by 
 the death of Christ, in those who live and die impenitent, 
 and therefore must be answered by the exercise of distri- 
 butive 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 salva- 
 tion. From hence Mr. G. boldly infers that there is no 
 room for any other atonement. (Vol. ii, pp. 172, 178, 179, 
 187.) 
 
 (1.) Repentance is undoubtedly necessary for the for- 
 giveness of 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 SACRIFICE 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, 33. 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 a^ap<nav, 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 reconciling 
 the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses 
 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 me- 
 dium 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 propitiatory, 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 ano- 
 ther, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven 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 justi- 
 fication of a sinner on earth, and what he calls a " future 
 justification, " when " we must all stand before the judg- 
 ment seat of Christ, and give an account of ourselves to 
 God." (Vol. ii, p. 168.) Of the former he observes, 
 4i The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, says, 
 Being justified by faith, we have peace with God ;" and 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OV JESUS CHRIST* 193 
 
 of the latter, that " the sentence to be pronounced 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 little curious, however, 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 according 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 agaiust that 
 Scriptural truth, " that (in the day of grace) a man is jus- 
 tified by faith, without the deeds of the law," Romans 
 iii, 28. 
 
 Here we might quote a number of passages to show, 
 that " to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that 
 justifieth 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. 
 
 44 Whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them 
 who are under the law ; that every mouth may be 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 ? " 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 that this is the language of the moral law. Continuing 
 to speak of that, the apostle proceeds to point out the pro- 
 per mean of justification : " But now the righteousness 
 of God without the law is manifested, even the righteous- 
 ness of God wliich is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all 
 17 
 
194 PROPITIATORY 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 his blood. Therefore we conclude that a man is jus- 
 tified by faith without the deeds of the law." Hence he 
 subjoins, " Do we then make void the 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 services. Nor is 
 the doctrine of justification by the death of Christ 
 unfavourable to obedience. It is the only mean by which 
 piety and morality can be established among men. The 
 love of God and of our neighbour is the sum of the law, 
 which, therefore, he that loveth hath fulfilled. But u herein 
 is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
 sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. We love 
 him because he first loved us. And if God so loved us, 
 we ought also to love one another," 1 Johniv, 10, 11, 19. 
 u What the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
 the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of 
 sinful flesh, and a sacrifice for sin, (see p. 186,) con- 
 demned sin in the flesh : that the righteousness of the law 
 might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but 
 after the spirit," Rom. viii, 3, 4. 
 
 The sacrifice of Christ is not only an expiation ; it is 
 also an ablution. The reader will perhaps remember, that 
 under the Levitical dispensation, the red heifer was 
 appointed as a representation of both these purposes, but 
 principally of the latter. This animal was " brought forth 
 without the camp" and slain. Her blood was then sprin- 
 kled seven times before the tabernacle of the congrega- 
 tion." The whole carcass was then burned, and her 
 ashes were preserved to make " a water of separation, a 
 
PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. 195 
 
 purification for sin," Num. xix, 1, 3, 4, 9. In allusion 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. 
 Wherefore, 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 
 unclean, sanctifieth 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 
 God," (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 salvati&n 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 Father 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 our access to God r and 
 
196 PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST* 
 
 the meritorious cause of our pardon and acceptance. (3.) 
 The judicial terms are used to show how the forgiveness 
 of offending man is rendered consistent with the public 
 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 obliges us to serve and obey our 
 Redeemer. " 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 every 
 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 : 
 u 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, thiough 
 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 justifier of him 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 sacrificial ; and the terms " remission of sins through 
 the forbearance of God," are used in allusion to pa- 
 ternal kindness 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 considered that the apostles, by their 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 197 
 
 death, were to accomplish the same object as he by 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 remission 
 of sins? Were they made a sin offering for us 7 ? Did 
 they redeem any of us from the curse of the law, being 
 made a curse for us? Are we justified by their blood? 
 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 anti-Socinian song, u Thou 
 wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, 
 out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and 
 nation." 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 Of the Eternity of the future Punishment 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 not, however, been prudent 
 enough to lull our suspicions by avoiding this maneuver. 
 To prepossess the mind of the reader, he has represented 
 the God of his own system as uniting in himself every 
 thing which he deems amiable, while the God of his oppo- 
 nents is caricatured as a hideous assemblage of every 
 thing terrific. 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 impor- 
 tant, it will be well for him to review the drawings which 
 17* 
 
198 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 Mr. G. has sketched. The God whom we 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 highest 
 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, 4 shut from the common 
 air, and common use of their own limbs,' enchained in the 
 blackness of darkness, exposed to repeated and increasing 
 racks and tortures of every kind; their deep horrific 
 groans continually assail his ear, their distorted limbs and 
 writhing agonies meet his eye in every direction, 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 M 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 be- 
 heveth on him should not perish, but have everlasting 
 life," John iii t 16: "who 0sXei, wisheth all men to be 
 saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," 
 1 Tim. ii, 4 : " who is long suffering to usward, jul>] /3aXo- 
 jaevos, not willing that any should perish, but that all should 
 come to repentance," 2 Pet. iii, 9 : who " has no pleasure 
 in the death of the wicked ; but that the wicked turn from 
 his way and live," Ezek. xxxiii, 11 : and who even " be- 
 seeches the rebellious to be reconciled to him," 2 Cor. 
 v t 20. 
 
 But if we reject this hideous devil-god, whom Mr. C 
 has presented to our imagination, in order to drive us to 
 the worship of another of his own making, let us examine- 
 whether this latter be more like the true God. " 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 ^ 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 19£ 
 
 his laws are equitable and impartial ; his grand object is 
 to make all happy ; the obstinate, the wayward, the rebel* 
 lious, 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 happiness." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 200.) 
 
 This being is something more like " the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ." But, however amiable he may 
 appear, we have reason to complain that, to serve an 
 hypothesis, he is robbed of an essential part of his real 
 character. 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," why, 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 cha- 
 racter of a moral governor is thus entirely blotted out, and 
 the name only is left ; while all the unmingled affection 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 offenders for their amend- 
 ment, it is also his part " not to bear the sword (by which 
 daring rebels and incorrigible offenders are cut off) in 
 vain ; for he is a revenger to execute 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 ; but 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," Ezek. 
 xviii, 4. That penalty is not designed for the final benefit 
 of the offender. The Divine authority has indeed appointed 
 it a priori, for the benefit of the governed by the preven- 
 tion of crimes ; but it is not inflicted, a posteriori, 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 subjects, 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 on 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 wicked, 
 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 (the sinner) shall drink of the wine 
 of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture 
 into the cup of his indignation," Rev. 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 are posi- 
 tively denied of the other. Thus : " Whom the Lord 
 loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he 
 receiveth," Heb. xii, 6. But it cannot be a proof of his 
 love to the disobedient, that " he will render unto them 
 indignation and wrath,' 7 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 iniquity 1" Matt, vii, 23. " If we endure 
 chastening, God dealeth with us as with sons ; and if we 
 be without chastisement, then are we bastards and not 
 sons," Heb. xii, 7, 8. But it is not equally true that "' we 
 are 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 whom the 
 Lord chasteneth," Psa. xciv, 12 ; but they are not blessed 
 to whom the King shall say, " Depart from me, 01 xa<n?pa- 
 fjievoi, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire, prepared for the 
 devil and his angels," Matt, xxv, 41. So essential is the 
 difference 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 T p. 206.) To 
 prove this, he exhibits the usual criticism on the word 
 xoXatfis, which our translators render punishment, and 
 which he thinks decisive in favour of the opinion, that to 
 44 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. 44 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. Beside* 
 if they were quoted, and the passages should be found to- 
 prove that xokutfig is sometimes used in this sense ; how 
 is it proved that it is never used in any other sense X 
 
 2. 44 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 offended, 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 xoXa<fr£ does 
 not always mean a punishment inflicted for the benefit of 
 the offender, but sometimes for the benefit of him who is 
 injured by the offence ! 
 
 3. 44 The two passages in the New Testament in which 
 the verb xoXct^w is used, perfectly accord with, if they do 
 not require, the same construction, Acts iv, 21 ; 2 Peter 
 ii, 9." (Vol. ii, p. 208.) To make good Mr. G.'s argu- 
 ment, the word must absolutely 44 require" 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 : — > 44 When they (the Jewish rulers) had far* 
 
^02 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 ther threatened them (Peter and John) they let them go, 
 finding nothing how xoXatfwvraj, 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 1 The other pas- 
 sage runs thus : " The Lord knoweth how to reserve tho 
 unjust unto the day of judgment, xoXa£ofxsvou£, 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. " The word xoXatfis occurs in only one other place 
 in the New Testament, and there it relates to the effects 
 produced upon the body and mind by the operation of fear. 
 1 John iv, 18." (Vol. ii, p. 205.) The words are, " Fear 
 hath xoXatfjv, torment." But how does it appear that here 
 it means "corrective chastisement 1" 
 
 We do not find then that Mr, G. has made out his ease : 
 viz. that " this term so far from encouraging, directly op- 
 poses, 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 xoXatfis is a very proper word to 
 -express a vindictive punishment. 
 
 1. Andreas Cesar, in his commentary on Rev. xiv, 11, 
 observes, — u It is said that their smoke ascendeth up for 
 ever and ever, that we may learn that xoXatfiv, the punish- 
 ment of the wicked is arsXsur*)<rov, endless, as also the rest 
 of the righteous is cuwviov, everlasting. Here we have the 
 word in dispute connected with 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, ' You threaten me with a fire that burns 
 for an hour, and shall shortly be extinguished, but are 
 ignorant that there is a fire of future judgment, and ever- 
 lasting xoXatfecos, punishment, reserved for the ungodly.' 
 (Epis. Smyr. Ecclea.) The antitheses, in this passage, 
 evidently point out a punishment endless in its duration : 
 and as this venerable martyr has used thi3 word in a sense 
 entirely unlimited, we have a proof that xoXatfig- 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 xoXadv* the punishment of the 
 wicked is arsXsuTTjrov, endless and most intolerable.'— 
 (Photiuss 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 r\ xoXatfis, punishment, that my soul should thirst, as 
 though it were a body.' This punishment is called, in a 
 line or two below, xa7a5ixrj, vindictive." (Scrutators 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 punishment," Matt, xxv, 46. " Wherefore if thy hand 
 or thy foot offend thee, cut them oft*, 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 
 
304 ETERNITY OF FUTURE 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 withereth, 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 fire and brim- 
 stone in the presence 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." (Yol. ii, p. 235.) But Babylon may 
 fall on earth first, and the Babylonians may be punished 
 in hell afterward. 2. He objects that " the passage does 
 not assert that the persons should be tortured for this 
 length of time, but that the smoke thereof should ascend." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 235.) This is curious enough, 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 i3 
 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 that " the 
 phrase is taken from Isa. xiv, 10," where it is said, " And 
 
ETERNITY OP FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 205 
 
 the streams thereof shall be turned to pitch, and the dust 
 thereof to brimstone, and the land thereof shall become 
 burning pitch. 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 be relied on by a Socinian. It is there- 
 fore a matter of absolute necessity to re-examine the 
 subject. 
 
 The word aiwv is derived from two words, as* av which 
 signify, always being. This etymology points out the 
 ideal meaning of the word <euwv : 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, &a- 
 tsXsi rov oLtf&vra ouwva, they continue through all eternity. 
 And this the ancients properly expressed by the word 
 itself: for the consummation which contains the time of 
 every one's life, not supernatural, is called his ocjwv. 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 aiwv, eternity, atfo <rx atet 
 5ivai £iX'/]<pws <r7]v Stfwvufjuav, aSavaroj xai §eiog, taking its 
 name from always being, immortal, and Divine." (Jlris. 
 de ccelo, 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, 
 £t$ tov ajwva, for ever," 1 Cor. viii, 13, that is, during my 
 18 
 
206 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 natural life. But when it is applied to any beings as uri* 
 connected 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,) eg 
 rov aiwvoc, for ever," John vi, 51, 58. " We have heard 
 out of the law, that the Christ remaineth, eig rov cciwva, for 
 ever," John xii, 34. " His righteousness remaineth, eg 
 tov cuwva, 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, eig rov otiwva, for ever," 
 1 Pet. i, 23. " The truth which shall be with us, eg rov 
 aiwva, 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, eg rag aiwvocs, it does not imply " two eternities, 
 or two for evers," 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 eig rag ouw- 
 vas, 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 eig rag aiwvot£, 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, we 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 differs from 
 both these : it is, eg rag aiuvag <rwv aiwvwv, which is gene- 
 rally translated " for ever and ever," and might perhaps 
 be rendered, through the durations of durations. This 
 form of speech is very intelligible, and may be properly 
 called the superlative. W r hat is the holy of holies, but the 
 most holy ] What is the heaven of heavens, but the high- 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 207 
 
 est heaven 1 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 all, that is proper 
 eternity. This phrase is used only on the most important 
 occasions, and to indicate an unlimited duration. It is 
 used : (1.) To point out the eternity of the Most High : 
 " He that sat on the throne who liveth sig rxg aiuvag <rwv 
 ctiwvwv, 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 s\g <rxg aiwvas twv aiwvwv, 
 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, Sig rag a»wva$ 
 tgjv aiwvwv, 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 sig <rxg uiuvag rwv 
 aiwvwv, 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 sig rxg aiwvas twv ctiw- 
 vwv, 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 aiwvios derives from the substantive aiwv 
 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 aioov. Had the word aiuviog 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, 
 aad those which have no end, 
 
208 ETERNITY OF FtJTtfRE PUNISHMENT* 
 
 As the word a/wv has a definite meaning, and, when 
 applied 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 also must have a definite 
 meaning. With liberty, therefore, to make the same 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 from that which has an end. For instance : 
 11 Our light affliction which is but for a moment, worketh 
 out for us a far more exceeding and ouwvkjv eternal weight 
 of glory." Again : " For the things which are seen are 
 tpo&xaipa, temporal, but the things which are not seen are 
 aiwvia, eternal," 2 Cor. iv, 17, 18. In these two places 
 we find that aiuviog 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 (l.y It is put 
 for the endless duration of God himself. He is called 
 aiwvio£ Qsos r " the everlasting God," Rom. xvi, 26. (2.) 
 The endless life and blessedness of the righteous is there- 
 by defined. " When ye fail they may receive you sig rag 
 ouuvixg (fxyvag, into everlasting habitations," Luke xvi, 9* 
 This passage is cited rather than many others, because it 
 is obviously designed to distinguish between that which 
 fails, and that which shall not fail. Again : " The God 
 of all grace, who hath called us into his aiuviov, eternal 
 glory after that ye have suffered, oX^ov, for a short sea-> 
 son," 1 Pet. v, 10. Here also the word is used to distin- 
 guish between that which is of short duration, and that 
 which has no end. (3.) It is used to point out the dura- 
 tion of the punishment of the wicked, viz. in the passages 
 already quoted, where it is translated, of course, eternal or 
 everlasting. (See Matt, xviii, 8; xxv, 41, 46, &c.) 
 
 Mr. G. is aware that when these phrases are applied to 
 God, and to the future blessedness of his saints, they meais 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 209 
 
 an eternity. His opinion, however, is, that they " imply 
 an indefinite duration, which borrows its length from the 
 subject to which they are applied." (Vol. ii, p. 224.) If 
 this were the case, where is the sense of speaking so 
 constantly of " lasting judgment," " lasting damnation," 
 " lasting fire," and " lasting punishment ?" Here is an 
 obvious design always to attach to these important things 
 the idea of their duration. But the word, it seems, by 
 which this is done, is a word which makes no distinction 
 between a moment and eternity. " It means endless," 
 says Mr. G., " only when the subject absolutely requires, 
 and evidently demonstrates, that this undefined time has 
 not, and cannot have any limit." (Yol. ii, p. 224.) The 
 length of that duration is, according to him, to be learned 
 from the subject to which the epithet is applied. But what 
 can we learn of the duration implied in the indefinite word 
 lasting, from the subjects to which it is applied in the 
 cases just now mentioned 1 What duration is to be under- 
 stood from the subjects, judgment, damnation, fire, or 
 punishment? None at all. So Jesus Christ and his 
 apostles are to be supposed to speak frequently of the 
 duration of future punishment without giving us any idea 
 whether it continue one day, a thousand years, or through 
 eternal ages. We have, however, abundant proof that the 
 terms and phrases in question have a definite meaning ; 
 and that, without external aid, they have an intrinsic power 
 to convey the idea of proper eternity. We appeal to the 
 following passages :— 
 
 (1.) Of the phrase sis tov aiwva, for ever. " W^e have 
 heard out of the law that Christ abideth sis tov aiuvct, for 
 ever ; and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted 
 up ?" John xii, 34. " And the servant abideth not in the 
 house sig rov cuwva, for ever : but the Son abideth sis rw 
 aiwva, for ever," John viii, 35. " And the world passeth 
 away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of 
 God abideth sis tov aiwva, for ever," 1 John ii, 17. These 
 passages need no comment. In each of them the phrase 
 is used, independently of all circumstances, to decide the 
 question of the eternity of the subject, in direct opposition 
 to a limited duration. 
 
 (2.) Of the phrase sis r*s cuwva£ rwv cuwvcov, for ever and 
 ever. »• And the four and twenty elders fell down and 
 
 18* 
 
210 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISH3VIENT. 
 
 worshipped him that liveth stg Tag o.\uvag <rwv aiwvwv, for 
 ever and ever," Rev. v, 14. Here we have no mean of 
 ascertaining who it is whom they worshipped, but that he 
 liveth for ever and ever. The phrase must therefore con- 
 tain in itself a declaration of a proper eternity, independent 
 of the subject. 
 
 (3.) Of the epithet aiwvios, eternal. " The things which 
 are seen are temporal ; but the things which are not seen 
 are ouwvia, eternal," 2 Cor. iv, 18. Here again the word 
 in question is used independently to distinguish a proper 
 eternity from a limited duration. Will Mr. G. say, u But 
 the things which are not seen are naturally endless V 
 Then why all this dispute ? Are not the future punish- 
 ments of the wicked unseen, and are not they too eternal ? 
 
 The above remarks are confirmed by the authorities 
 which Mr. G. has produced for a different purpose. 
 
 " Parkhurst observes, that aeon in the Septuagint gene- 
 rally answers to the Hebrew olam, which denotes time 
 hidden from man, whether definite or indefinite, whether 
 past or future." He then quotes Leigh upon the Hebrew 
 term olam : — 1. " The Hebrew word gnolam, which inter- 
 preters sometimes render externum, sometimes perpeluum, 
 sometimes sc&culwn, designs an absolute perpetuity, eter- 
 nity, when it is affirmed of God, or other eternal things." 
 (Vol. ii, pp. 215, 216.) Here then it is granted, that when 
 these words are applied to men in the world to come, 
 where men are eternal, it implies " an absolute eternity." 
 2. " A periodical or circumscribed perpetuity for the con- 
 dition of the thing, when it is affirmed of things mutable 
 in their own nature." (Vol. ii, p. 216.) This is precisely 
 what we contend for: (1.) That when these phrases are 
 used concerning present things, they comprehend the 
 whole of their present existence : (2.) That when they are 
 used concerning things future, they comprehend the whole 
 of their future existence. 
 
 We now attend to Mr. G.'s objections : — 
 
 1. All his arguments drawn from the application of 
 these terms to present things prove nothing with respect 
 to their application to the world to come. A volume of 
 quotations therefore of this kind answer no purpose. The 
 reader will best understand this reply, if he consider that 
 the phrase " as long as you live," when applied to any 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 211 
 
 individual, is equivalent to the term cciwv. Now this phrase, 
 when applied to the present life, means a limited period ; 
 but this does not hinder that, when applied to the future 
 state of human existence, it should imply an unlimited 
 period, an eternity. 
 
 2. There is no weight in the objection taken from the 
 use of the plural. (Vol. ii, p. 220.) It is true, there can 
 only be one eternity ; but there have been, and there may 
 still be, many aeons in time. Every Divine dispensation 
 is an aeon, and every man's natural life is his aeon ; but 
 the dispensation of rewards and punishments, and the 
 future life of all men, is but one aeon — an eternity. 
 
 3. Nor is there any strength in the objection, that-" the 
 words in the original admit of a preposition : as <rpo p^povwv 
 aiwviwv :" (vol. ii, p. 221 :) because the word aiwvio^, we 
 have already granted, does not, when it is applied to 
 things in this world, properly mean eternal. Our transla- 
 tors have, therefore, very justly translated that phrase, 
 " before the world began." On this answer we rely. The 
 preposition tfpo is, however, sometimes put for tfapa, which 
 with a genitive case means, from. 
 
 4. " But the words in the original admit of a particle 
 following them, which denotes a time after that denomi- 
 nated everlasting. i The Lord shall reign for ever and 
 ever ;' literally, according to the Septuagint, ' from ozon 
 to ceon, and farther.' " (Yol. ii, p. 221.) To this we 
 answer: (1.) That the words do not need any particle 
 to add to their meaning ; as we have already shown. (2.) 
 The writers of the New Testament do not make use of 
 any such particle, even when their purpose is to speak of 
 eternity in the most absolute manner. (3.) The use of 
 such a particle does not prove that a proper eternity is not 
 expressed without it. We often say " for ever — more :" 
 but this does not prove that we mean by " for ever," a 
 limited duration. 
 
 5. Lastly. " The very strongest expressions," for ever 
 and ever, " are used to denote limited duration." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 222.) We will examine the passages which Mr. G, 
 has cited in proof of this. 
 
 (1.) "'So shall I keep thy law continually, for ever 
 and ever,' during my life, Psalm cxix, 44." 
 
 Now, how is it proved that the psalmist does not keep 
 the law of God, literally, for ever and ever 1 
 
M2 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 (2.) " ' He hath also established them (the heavens) for 
 ever and ever,' Psalm cxlviii, 6. Yet, says the Apostle 
 Peter, are the heavens * reserved unto fire, and shall pass 
 away with a great noise,' 2 Peter iii, 7, 10."* 
 
 The question is, Does the psalmist speak this of the 
 visible or of the invisible heavens ? Whichsoever way 
 this question is answered, it will not make against the 
 preceding statement. But the difficulty of answering 
 this question renders this passage a very improper one 
 for determining another question on either side. 
 
 The attentive and judicious reader will observe that 
 throughout the whole of this examination we have found 
 the words in dispute to be uniformly used according to the 
 rule at first laid down, without one exception. It remains, 
 therefore, that our translators, who were not so ignorant 
 of Greek as the Socinians insinuate, have given the pro- 
 per meaning of them, and that whenever those words are 
 applied to the invisible world, or to the world to come, 
 they uniformly express a proper eternity. 
 
 That this is equally true in respect to future punish- 
 ments, as in respect to future rewards, will be farther 
 obvious from the antithetical connection of the one with 
 the other. " Some shall awake to everlasting life, and 
 some to shame and everlasting contempt," Dan. xii, 2. 
 " These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but 
 the righteous into everlasting life," Matt, xxv, 46. These 
 antitheses would be very improper unless the word were 
 allowed to mean the same duration in both parts of the 
 sentence. 
 
 But Mr. G. translates the word aiwvioc, lasting; and main- 
 tains that in both parts of the passage this is its proper 
 meaning. The life of the righteous he believes to be 
 everlasting, not because it is termed ceonian ; but because 
 in other passages he meets with assertions, such as the 
 following : — " Neither can they die any more." " It (the 
 body) is raised in incorruption." " This mortal must put 
 on immortality." " So shall we be tfavrors, ever with the 
 
 * Thanks to Mr. G. for this concession ! So the heavens which 
 are to be destroyed and renewed, are the visible heavens. Jesus 
 Christ, then, who " maketh all things new," will " create a new hea- 
 ven and a new earth." He is therefore a proper, and not merely a 
 moral Creator. (See pp. 65-68.) 
 
ETERflmr of future punishment. 21$; 
 
 Lord." " An inheritance that fadeth not away," &c„ 
 (Vol. ii, p. 217.) We do not intend to argue precisely ir& 
 the same manner. It has been proved that the word here 
 means everlasting. We shall now show that the doctrine 
 of eternal punishment agrees with the general seope of 
 Divine revelation. This argument divides itself into seve- 
 ral parts, each of which will be found to bear on this ge- 
 neral truth. 
 
 1. According to the uniform tenor of Scripture the pre- 
 sent life is the time of probation, and the time for working 
 out our salvation. The following passages will serve to 
 prove this : — 
 
 " To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart* 
 as in the provocation, and in the day of temptation in the 
 wilderness : when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and 
 saw my works," Psa. xcv, 7-1 1 ; Heb. iii, 7-1 1 . " What- 
 soever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might ; for 
 there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, 
 in the grave whither thou goest," Eccles. ix T 10. " Seek 
 ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while 
 he is near," Isa. Iv, 6. " We then as workers together, 
 with him, beseech you also, that ye receive not the grace 
 of God in vain : for he saith, I have heard thee in a time 
 accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: 
 behold, now is the accepted time ; behold, now is the day 
 of salvation," 2 Cor. vi, 1,2. *' Come, for all things are 
 now ready," Luke xiv, 17. " Be not deceived, God is 
 not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth (here) that 
 shall he reap (hereafter.) For he that soweth to his flesh, 
 (which he can do only while he is here, in the flesh,) shall 
 of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the 
 Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let 
 us not be weary in well doing ; for in due season (in 
 the time of harvest) we shall reap, if we faint not (in seed 
 time.) As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good 
 unto all men, (before the opportunity slip,) especially unto 
 them who are of the household of faith," Gal. vi, 7-10, 
 A clear proof that this is the time to sow to the Spirit, 
 while yet we are connected, not only with the household 
 of faith, but with " all men." 
 
 2. As this is the time to work out our salvation, it isi 
 the only time ; and they who neglect it will be excluded 
 
214 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 from the kingdom of heaven. Such is the language of 
 the following passages : — 
 
 " So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into 
 my rest. And to whom sware he, that they should not 
 enter into his rest, but to them that believed not 1 So we 
 see they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us 
 therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into 
 his rest ; any of you should seem to (should actually) 
 come short of it," Heb. iii, 11, 18, 19; iv, 1. "And 
 while they went to buy the bridegroom came, and they 
 that were ready went in with him to the marriage : and 
 the door was shut. Afterward came also the other vir- 
 gins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered 
 and said, Yerily I say unto you, I know you not," Matt. 
 xxvi, 11, 12. " Then said one unto him, Are there few 
 that be saved 1 And he said unto them, Strive to enter in 
 at the strait gate : for many, I say unto you, will seek to 
 enter in, and shall not be able. When once the Master 
 of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye 
 begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, 
 Lord, Lord, open unto us ; and he shall answer and say 
 unto you, I know you not whence you are, — Depart from 
 me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping 
 and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and 
 Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of 
 God, and you yourselves thrust out," Luke xiii, 23-28. — 
 *' Looking diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God, 
 lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, 
 who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye 
 know how that afterward, when he would have inherited 
 the blessing, he was rejected : for he found no place of 
 repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears," Heb. 
 xii, 16, 17. ■* He that believeth not the Son shall not see 
 life, but the wrath of God abideth on him," John iii, 36. 
 li I say unto you, that none of those men which were bidden 
 (and refused to come) shall taste of my supper," Lukexiv, 
 24. " I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die 
 in your sins : whither I go ye cannot come," John viii, 
 21. " If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy 
 day, the things which belong unto thy peace, but now they 
 are hid from thine eyes," Luke xix, 42. " Know ye not 
 that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 215 
 
 God 1" But who are these unrighteous persons ? They 
 whose sins are such as can only be committed in this life, 
 and whom the apostle proceeds to describe thus : — " Be 
 not deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adul- 
 terers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with 
 mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor 
 revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of 
 God," 1 Cor. vi, 9, 10. " He that is unjust, let him be 
 unjust still, and he which is filthy let him be filthy still," 
 Rev. xxii, 11. 
 
 Now the Socinian doctrine with which these passages 
 are contrasted supposes that there is another season of pro- 
 bation when the present shall be at an end, and that they 
 who neglect the present, and die in their sins, shall after 
 all find place for repentance ; that they shall be able to 
 enter in ; that they shall taste of the supper ; that they shall 
 see life ; and that they shall finally inherit the kingdom of 
 God. So true it is that Christianity is one thing, and So- 
 cinianism another.* 
 
 3. The punishment of the wicked is often described in 
 such a manner as is altogether inconsistent with their 
 " final restoration to virtue and happiness." 
 
 (1.) The following passages describe their punish- 
 ment under the idea of burning. 
 
 " Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge 
 his floor, and gather his wheat into his garner ; but will 
 burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," Matt, iii, 12. 
 " Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bun- 
 dles to burn them ; but gather the wheat into my barn," 
 Matt, xiii, 30. " For it is impossible for them who were 
 once enlightened, and shall fall away, to renew them 
 again to repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the 
 Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For 
 the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon 
 it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is 
 
 * To these might properly be subjoined those passages which 
 declare that the wicked have their portion in this life. (See Psalm 
 xvii, 14 ; Luke vi, 24 ; xvi, 25.) 
 
 There are certain passages which speak of some sins which cannot 
 be forgiven ; but as these are not directly opposed to Mr. G.'s hy- 
 pothesis, they are not here quoted under that head. The following 
 are of tie number: — Heb. vi, 4; x, 26, 27 ; Luke xii, 10 j Mark iii ? 
 28, 29; Matt, xii, 31, 32. 
 
^16 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 dressed, receiveth blessing from God, but that which 
 beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto 
 cursing, whose end is to be burned," Heb. vi, 4-8. 
 
 These appropriate representations of the nature and 
 design of future punishment are very unfavourable to the 
 Socinian system. The burning of chaff or of tares is 
 the way to destroy them ; but not to convert them into 
 wheat. In like manner, the burning of barren and 
 "rejected" ground with the scorching heat of the sun, and 
 cursing it with more than the want of that " blessing from 
 God," is not the way to render it fruitful. And this is the 
 very case which the apostle has described, the giving up 
 to perpetual barrenness a tract of land which has been 
 cultivated to no purpose ; or in other words, the giving up 
 to destruction and to a curse those whom it is " impossible 
 to renew again to repentance." 
 
 (2.) The following passages describe the punishment 
 of the wicked, under the idea of destruction. 
 
 " Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth 
 to destruction," Matt, vii, 13. " The vessels of wrath 
 fitted for destruction," Rom. ix, 22. " Who shall be 
 punished with everlasting destruction," 2 Thess. i, 9. 
 
 It is easy to see that the idea of destruction is perfectly 
 irreconcilable with the idea of everlasting blessedness, and 
 that destruction is a very unlikely mean to restore man- 
 kind to virtue and bliss. Yet this is the doctrine which 
 we oppose, viz. "that the object of punishment is still to 
 guide them to reformation and happiness." (Vol ii, p. 200.) 
 Destruction is as likely to restore the sick to health, as the 
 sinner to holiness. 
 
 (3.) The following passages describethe punishment of 
 the wicked, under the idea of perdition : — 
 
 "None of them is lost, but the son of perdition," John 
 xvii, 12. "For what is a man profited if he shall gain 
 the whole world, and lose his own soul V 1 Matt, xvi, 26. 
 Ai If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them which are lost," 
 2 Cor. iv, 3. 
 
 Now if the wicked in hell endure only a fatherly chas- 
 tisement, they are no more lost than those whose diseases 
 are not incurable, and who have fallen into the hands of a 
 skilful and affectionate physician : they are rather found 
 than lost. At this rate, to fall is to rise ; ruin is reco* 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 2 17 
 
 very ; damnation is salvation ; and perdition is restoration. 
 It is true, " The Son of man came to seek and to save 
 that which was lost." " A man may be lost in a desert, 
 and yet saved in fact ; or he may suffer loss and yet him* 
 self be saved : but he cannot be lost (in fact) so as to be 
 cast away, and yet be finally saved ; for these are perfect 
 contraries." (Fuller's Fourth Letter to Vidler.) It is 
 also true, that " he that loses his life shall find it;" that is, 
 he that loses his natural life for the sake of Christ, shall 
 not, in the end, be a loser ; because an eternal life shall 
 be his reward. But is it not equally true that " whosoever 
 will save his life shall lose it ?" in other words, that who- 
 ever preserves his natural life by the neglect of his duty, 
 shall lose it, and shall find no reward in the life to come, 
 but shall lose eternal life ] 
 
 (4.) The following passages describe future punish- 
 ment under the idea of death. 
 
 " The wages of sin is death," Rom. vi, 23. " Knowing 
 the judgment of God, that they which commit such things 
 are worthy of death," Rom. i, 32. "Sin, when it is finished, 
 bringeth forth death," James i, 15. " He that converteth 
 the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul 
 from death," James v, 20. " The lake of fire. This is the 
 second death. And whosoever was not found written in 
 the book of life was cast into the lake of fire," Rev. 
 xx, 14, 15. 
 
 By what mode of argumentation is it to be proved that 
 death is the mean of life ? It is true, there is a first death, 
 which is followed by a first resurrection, and over those 
 who partake that resurrection " the second death hath no 
 power." But Mr. G. stands engaged to prove, not only 
 that death shall be followed by life ; that there will be a 
 second resurrection of those who are cast into the lake of 
 fire, which is the second death ; but that the second 
 death is the mean by which that resurrection shall be 
 accomplished. If there be any meaning in words, if 
 burning, destruction, perdition, and death, mean any 
 thing, they cannot mean a salutary and temporary chas- 
 tisment. 
 
 Upon these, and such terms as these, Mr. G. thinks 
 no enlargement necessary. " If these terms are to be 
 taken literally, (he says,) they are directly opposite to 
 19 
 
218 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 eternal duration in torture ; nor can any hyperbole or figure 
 make them accord with it." (Vol. ii, p. 210.) 
 
 (1.) Mr. G. evidently thinks that these terms involve 
 the idea of annihilation. This is a gross mistake. Com- 
 bustion may dissolve the present construction of any 
 combustible matter, but does not annihilate it. A build- 
 ing may be destroyed ; but the materials of it are not 
 thereby annihilated. The loss of any thing is not the 
 annihilation of it. A man may be lost in a wilderness, 
 in a pit, or in the country of an enemy, and be extremely 
 wretched, who does not therefore lose his existence. 
 Death is not annihilation : it may put an end to the 
 beauty, the vigour, the enjoyment of the body, but can- 
 not reduce it to nothing. 
 
 (2.) Mr. G. must either apply these terms to the 
 nature of the punishment of the wicked, or to the result 
 and conclusion of it. If he apply them to the nature of it, 
 let it be remembered that according to him it is a lasting 
 punishment ; but on whatever principles he supposes 
 the meaning of them to be reconciled with any duration, 
 on the same principles it is reconcilable with endless 
 duration. If a lasting punishment may with propriety be 
 termed a lasting burning, a lasting destruction, a lasting 
 perdition, or a lasting death ; an " everlasting punish- 
 ment," may with equal propriety be termed an " everlast- 
 ing burning," an " everlasting destruction," an everlasting 
 perdition, or an everlasting death. If, on the other hand, 
 Mr. G. apply these terms to the result and conclusion of 
 future punishment,* he cannot reconcile them with " final 
 reformation and happiness ;" because to be burned in hell 
 is not to be blessed in heaven ; destruction is not restora- 
 tion ; perdition is not salvation ; and death is not everlast- 
 ing life. 
 
 * It is not easy to say which of these opinions he adopts. Per- 
 haps he adopts either, pro 'tempore, just as serves a present purpose. 
 On one occasion he says, When "it is most peremptorily affirmed 
 that the wicked shall reap corruption, perish, be destroyed, and die 
 a second time," these expressions " fix the sense of the word lasting, 
 limiting; its meaning to ana<re." (Vol. ii, p. 228.) In another place he 
 says, "The second death is to constitute their state of suffering." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 273.) But inconsistency is the necessary result of want 
 of system, and of opposition to the doctrines of the Gospel, 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 219 
 
 4. The future punishment of the wicked is frequently 
 represented as without remedy. 
 
 44 He that being often reproved, hardenethhis neck, shall 
 suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy," Prov. 
 xxix, 1. " Because there is wrath, beware, lest he take 
 thee away with his stroke, then a great ransom cannot de- 
 liver thee," Job xxxvi, 18. " He shall have judgment 
 without mercy, that hath showed no mercy," James ii, 
 13. " Because I have called, and ye refused, I have 
 stretched out my hand, and no man regarded ; but ye 
 have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my 
 reproof; I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock 
 when your fear cometh. When your fear cometh as deso- 
 lation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind ; when 
 distress and anguish cometh upon you ; then shall they 
 call upon me, but I will not answer : they shall seek me 
 early, but they shall not find me," Prov. i, 24-28. " And 
 beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf 
 fixed : so that they which would pass from hence cannot ; 
 neither can they pass to us that would come from thence," 
 Luke xvi, 26. 
 
 The following passages of the same order will need a 
 little examination : — 
 
 u He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," 
 Matt, iii, 12. "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is 
 better for thee to enter into life maimed, than, having two 
 hands, to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be 
 quenched : where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
 quenched," Mark ix, 43, 44$ &c. The same words are 
 twice repeated. Here are two strong expressions, the one 
 asserting that the fire is unquenchable ; the other that it 
 is not quenched. Now let us hear Mr. G. 
 
 (1.) " Here it is obvious to remark, that the duration 
 is asserted not of the sufferer, but of the instruments of 
 his suffering or punishment. It is not said that the person 
 of the culprit shall never perish, but that the fire and the 
 worm died not, being ever in constant readiness to seize 
 their victim." (Yol. ii, p. 232.) 
 
 " Here it is obvious to remark:" [1.] That when Mr. 
 G. states, 4t It is not said that the person of the culprit 
 shall never perish," he speaks ambiguously. Does he 
 mean to say that M the person of the culprit shall be annihi- 
 
220 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 lated ?" Then what becomes of his " final reformation 
 and happiness V 9 [2.] That he grants, " the fire and the 
 worm died not." [3.] That he grants, "they are ever 
 in constant readiness to seize their victim :" but to what 
 purpose when they have no victim to seize ? [4.] That 
 the worm and the fire remain for no purpose, if " the cul- 
 prit" do not continue to feel them. They are no longer 
 "the instruments of punishment," when no one is punished 
 by them ; nor can they be any longer terrible than while the 
 " culprit" is likely to suffer by them. At this rate, the never- 
 dying worm, and the unquenchable fire, are but a chimera. 
 [5.} That our Lord denominated the worm their worm. 
 But it cannot be denominated their worm, any longer than 
 it preys upon them. [6.] That the analogy between the 
 representative and the thing represented is lost, unless 
 the worm die soon after it has devoured or lost its prey, 
 and unless the fire be quenched when its fuel is con- 
 sumed. Now, our Lord indubitably intended to represent 
 the culprit as the prey of the worm, and the chaff as the 
 fuel of the fire. If, therefore, the worm die not, the sin- 
 ner will continue its prey ; and if the fire be not quench- 
 ed, the chaff will continue to be its fuel. 
 
 (2.) " It should be kept in mind, (Mr. G. subjoins,) 
 that the duration even of these instruments of punishment 
 was not eternal, but only for a length of ages, for the worm 
 is dead, and the fire has actually been quenched." (Vol. 
 ii, p. 232.) 
 
 Then let the transgressors rejoice and be exceeding 
 glad ! There is now no daliger of everlasting fire ; for 
 " the length of ages" is already past. But stop ! Has not 
 Mr. G. just been saying that " the fire and the worm died 
 not, being ever in constant readiness to seize their vic- 
 tim ?" What wonder, then, that he should boldly contra- 
 dict Jesus Christ, when he does not even reverence him- 
 self? Our Lord has said, " When the Son of man shall 
 come in his glory, he shall sit upon the throne of his glo- 
 ry, and shall say unto them on his left hand, Depart from 
 me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." That fire, therefore, 
 is not yet quenched. 
 
 (3.) " But hell fire, (yssvva ra rfupos, the hell of fire,) is 
 the fire in the valley of Hinnom." (Vol. ii, p. 214.) 
 
 No, it is not. The phrase may be used in allusion to 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 221 
 
 that fire, but hell fire is " the lake of fire which is the 
 second death :" " the fire prepared for the devil and his 
 angels." The fire of that valley is long ago quenched ; 
 but our Lord threatens the wicked with another hell of fire. 
 " Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of 
 <T7)v yeswav tx tfupos, the hell of fire," Matt, v, 22. See 
 also Matt, v, 29 ; x, 28 ; Luke xii, 5 ; Luke xxiii, 33. 
 And that is the fire which our Lord declares shall not be 
 quenched. 
 
 (4.) " But the expression is taken from the last verse 
 of the prophecy of Isaiah, where the prophet predicts the 
 dispersion of the Jews, and the new era, or Christian dis«* 
 pensation, into which the Gentiles were to be admitted." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 233.) 
 
 That the words of Isaiah have no deeper meaning than 
 the temporal destruction of the unbelieving Jews, wants 
 some proof. It is generally more proper to interpret the 
 language of the prophets by that of our Lord, than to in- 
 terpret the words of our Lord by those of the prophets— 
 But whatever the prophet meant, the meaning of our Lord 
 is obvious. The latter, when he speaks of the never^ 
 dying worm, and the unquenchable fire, makes a contrast 
 between " entering into life," or, as he afterward speaks, 
 44 entering into the kingdom of God," and being " cast into 
 hell fire : where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
 quenched." We need not add that the " unquenchable 
 fire," in which the chaff shall be burned, is not a temporal 
 but a future punishment. We proceed to the considera- 
 tion of the next : — 
 
 44 The Son of man goeth, as it is written of him : but 
 wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! 
 It had been good for that man if he had not been born," 
 Matt, xxvi, 24. 
 
 The argument commonly founded on these words is 
 plain and conclusive. If Judas should, at any future pe- 
 riod, be restored to " virtue and eternal happiness," as there 
 is no assignable proportion between time and eternity, it 
 would be good for him that he was born. The words of 
 our Lord are, therefore, perfectly inconsistent with such a 
 restoration. 
 
 Mr. G. is aware of this, and therefore does not deny 
 that the argument is conclusive, but attempts to remove 
 19* 
 
222 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 the foundation of it by a new translation of the passage. 
 The literal translation, he says, is, " Good were it for 
 him, if that man had not been born." He then applies 
 the expression, " that man," not to Judas, but "to Jesus." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 231.) Ifthisbejust,the argument falls of course. 
 But it falls alone. We beg leave, however, to demur. 
 
 (1.) Our Lord begins with speaking of himself, as 
 u the Son of man ;" but of Judas he speaks in the first 
 instance, as "that man." "When he speaks of himself a se- 
 cond time, he still styles himself" the Son of man." When 
 therefore he speaks of "that man" a second time, he 
 means not himself whom throughout he styles " the Son 
 of man," but of Judas, of whom he had begun to speak 
 as " that man." 
 
 (2.) When Mr. G. began to translate the passage liter- 
 ally, he ought to have done so altogether. It would then 
 stand thus : — " Good it were aura, for himself, if that man 
 had not been born." The sense is then precisely what 
 our translators have given. They have changed only 
 the idiom. So true it is that those men once understood 
 Greek. 
 
 5. Lastly. The state of punishment is represented as 
 the final state of impenitent sinners. 
 
 " Ye have obeyed from the heart (says St. Paul to the 
 Romans,) that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 
 Now, being made free from sin, and become servants to 
 God, ye have your fruit unto holiness ; and the end, ever- 
 lasting life," Rom. vi, 17, 22. But " what shall the 
 end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God?" 
 1 Peter iv, IT. The answers are ready : their end shall 
 "be according to their works," 2 Cor. xi, 15. "Whose 
 end is to be burned," Heb. vi, 8. " Whose end is de- 
 struction," Phil, iii, 19. " For the end of these things is 
 death," Rom. vi, 21. No argument is necessary here 
 but that of Mr. G., who says, "We are absolutely 
 obliged, if the next state is final, as we would not set the 
 Scripture at odds with itself, to understand the word 
 ceonian, everlasting, when joined with the life of the right- 
 eous, (or the death of the wicked,) in the endless sense." 
 (Yol. ii, p. 22T.) 
 
 The result of all this reasoning is, that the future pun* 
 ishment of the wicked, according to the uniform language- 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 223 
 
 of Scripture, will be eternal. To this result, though not 
 only fairly deduced from Scripture, but directly and re- 
 peatedly affirmed by Jesus Christ and his apostles, Mr. 
 G. and the Socinians have many objections. However 
 we may be persuaded that it is founded in truth, we must 
 examine how far it is affected by his assault. His objec- 
 tions are of two kinds : the first are philosophical, the 
 second are Scriptural. As we do not allow to abstract 
 reasonings on Divine subjects that importance which Mr. 
 G. attaches to them, we shall consider, 
 I. His Scriptural objections. 
 
 1. In examining what the Scriptures teach concerning 
 a future state, Mr. G. pursues the subject much at length, 
 and with considerable propriety, until he finds the wicked 
 finally separated from the righteous, and " cast into a lake 
 of fire, which is the second death." (Vol. ii, pp. 272, 273.) 
 He then with vast, but fruitless labour endeavours to prove, 
 that as the first death is followed by a resurrection, there 
 will also be a second resurrection of those who are " hurt 
 by the second death." Now for the proof, which must 
 be clear and cogent. We follow him step by step. 
 
 " The terms used relating to this second death are pre- 
 cisely the same (as are used concerning the death of the 
 body) and many of them imply another resurrection." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 273.) The proof! — " The principal term used 
 is ' fire.' Now the effect of fire, as generally used in 
 comparison, is to purify." (Vol. ii, p. 274.) Sometimes 
 it is ; but not always. It depends upon the nature of the 
 subject to be burned. " Gold, silver, and precious stones" 
 are purified in the fire ; but " wood, hay, and stubble" are 
 consumed by it. The question therefore is, Do the Scrip- 
 tures ever borrow their ideas of the punishments of hell 
 from the purification of any thing by fire? Mr. G. will 
 find the passage if possible. " When therefore the wicked 
 are compared to 'fuel for fire,' to chaff, tares, withered 
 branches, &c, it should be kept in mind that such fuel 
 neither continues burning without end, nor is annihilated. 
 Its state is changed by the action of the fire." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 274.) Sensible men know that a proof derived from a 
 Scriptural metaphor, pursued beyond the line to which the 
 Scriptures pursue it, is always at best but of a dubious 
 kind. It is a universal rule that the metaphor, however 
 
224 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 far pursued, must not be changed. For this reason we 
 ask, Did any man ever think of making worthless wood 
 "fuel for fire," to render it fit for building a temple? of 
 burning chaff, or tares, to convert them into wheat ? or of 
 casting 4 * withered branches" into the fire, to make them 
 fruitful 1 Yet, on such a distortion of Scriptural metaphors, 
 hangs all the hope which Mr. G. administers to the 
 damned ! 
 
 But he proceeds : " The very expression of a first re- 
 surrection implies a second resurrection of those over 
 whom the second death hath power." (Vol. ii, p. 274.) 
 The book of Revelation does speak of a second resurrec- 
 tion ; but not of a resurrection of the damned from hell. 
 In Rev. xx, 6, it is said, " Blessed and holy is he that hath 
 part in the first resurrection, they shall be priests of God 
 and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." 
 After these thousand years are expired comes the second 
 resurrection: verses 13-15. "And the sea gave up the 
 dead which were in it ; and death and hades delivered up 
 the dead which* were in them : and they were judged every 
 man according to their works. And whosoever was not 
 written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 
 This is the second death." So the second death follows 
 the second resurrection, — the resurrection of all the dead. 
 Where now is the resurrection from the second death to 
 be found ? But " the state also in which they are placed 
 is to undergo a similar change." (Vol. ii, p. 275.) Not 
 so. The state from which they are brought to judgment 
 — u death and hades" which deliver up the dead, " are cast 
 into the lake of fire, which is the second death." But 
 when is the lake of fire to be cast into the lake of fire ? 
 When is the second death to die ? Rev. xx, 13-15. " This 
 will constitute the supreme and last victory of Jesus Christ." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 276.) Not the destruction of the lake of fire, 
 but of the first death, and of hades. Mr. G. alludes to 
 1 Cor. xv. Now the whole of that chapter speaks of the 
 resurrection of the bodies of " those who are Christ's at 
 his coming." " When this mortal (body) shall have put 
 on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying 
 that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O 
 death, where is thy sting? O ao?], hades, where is thy 
 victory," 1 Cor. xv, 54-57. This chapter therefore shuts 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 225 
 
 up the damned in despair, for " the last enemy that shall 
 be destroyed is (the first) death." But the lake of fire 
 into which that is cast, the second death, still remains. — 
 Now Mr. G. may " know how these positive assurances 
 are parried, and the argument evaded ;" (vol. ii, p. 278 ;) 
 and that this defeat decides the fate of Socinianism. 
 
 2. He does not think it necessary to argue much from 
 Scripture authority, on the Divine attributes of wisdom, 
 justice, and goodness, because he is so much more at 
 home in arguing philosophically on such topics. He con- 
 descends, however, to remind us that it is an eminent 
 Christian duty to " imitate the unconfined benevolence of 
 Deity." (Vof. ii, pp. 279, 280.) We will take for granted 
 that by " unconfined benevolence" he means benevolence 
 to all men. But why no mention of the imitation of his 
 justice ? We acknowledge that Jesus Christ has said, " Be 
 ye therefore merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge 
 not, and ye shall not be judged." Mr. G. certainly does 
 not suppose that all judgment of each other is to be avoid- 
 ed, any more than that God promises that we shall in no 
 sense be judged. We are forbidden to judge and condemn 
 each other, (1.) because we cannot always judge aright, 
 and may possibly condemn the innocent : (2.) because we 
 have not authority to judge and condemn, but ought to 
 refer many things to the Judge of all. " Dearly beloved* 
 avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, 
 for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay," Rom. 
 xii, 19. Our being forbidden to take vengeance, does not 
 imply that God will not, but rather that he will, take ven- 
 geance. There are, however, proper persons, who ought 
 to imitate, in their sphere, even the justice of God : " the 
 ministers of God, who bear not the sword in vain ; re- 
 vengers to (execute) wrath upon him that doeth evil," 
 Rom. xiii, 4. These are taught to administer retributive 
 justice, in distant imitation of " the Judge of all the earth." 
 
 3. Mr. G. next " considers some of the parables of our 
 Saviour." "The person who is not reconciled to his 
 brother, shall not be discharged till he has paid the last 
 farthing." (Vol. ii, p. 280.) Certainly a debtor cannot in 
 justice be imprisoned any longer than while his debt is 
 unpaid. When therefore our sins are spoken of under the 
 idea of debts, such language must be held. But then tha 
 
226 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 imprisonment of a debtor, however long it may continue, 
 does nothing toward the payment of his debt. It therefore 
 lies upon Mr. G., if he argue thus, to show by what means 
 a debtor in the prison of hell is to pay the debt of sin. — 
 The truth is, that his inference is only the abuse of a me- 
 taphor. Our Lord has no where spoken of the actual 
 payment of the debt of sinners, nor of their release from 
 punishment ; but has in this metaphorical language assured 
 us that a sinner shall receive the punishment due to his 
 crimes. Of the duration or end of that punishment, he 
 has here said nothing. 
 
 " Dives is represented as immediately beginning to 
 improve as soon as his punishment commences. " (Vol. 
 ii, p. 281.) Is this perfectly clear from his wishing "his 
 brethren to be warned?" Not unless it can be made to 
 appear, that before that time he wished them to go to that 
 place of torment. Might not this wish proceed, as is 
 generally supposed, from an apprehension that the perdi- 
 tion of his brethren would increase his misery? But if Mr. 
 G.'s hypothesis be just, Dives must by this time be so 
 much improved as to have passed the impassable gulf. 
 The truth is, that the conclusion is perfectly arbitrary, and 
 that Mr. G. administers to Dives a consolation, which 
 father Abraham refused. That which Mr. G. administers 
 would have been more than a drop of water to cool his 
 tongue. 
 
 4. Again : " The punishments of the Jews are repre- 
 sented as evils, tending to produce greater good in them- 
 selves." (Vol. ii, p. 281.) One example, at least, might 
 have been given, that we might judge whether they were 
 punishments or chastisements. We give one of an oppo- 
 site kind : " And men were scorched with great heat, and 
 blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over 
 these plagues ; and repented not to give him glory," Rev. 
 xvi, 9. Nay, we can find such an example among the 
 Jews: "Why should ye be stricken any more? Ye will 
 revolt more and more," Isa. i, 5. But if, on the other 
 hand, a thousand instances could be given, of the benefits 
 accruing from the chastisement of those who are in a 
 state of probation, they would prove just nothing with re- 
 spect to the effects of the punishment of those who are 
 gone to the place of retribution. 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 227 
 
 5. Mr. G. has quoted Rom. v, 12-21, the sum of which 
 is, " Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound : 
 that as sin reigned unto death, so might grace reign through 
 righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ." He has 
 deduced no argument from it, but undoubtedly expects the 
 reader to infer from it, that every soul must be finally 
 restored. The reader will draw his inference just accord- 
 ing to his previous opinion. We observe, however : (1.) 
 That as all the blessings mentioned in this passage de- 
 pend upon " Jesus Christ," they cannot belong to those 
 who " deny the Lord that bought them, and bring on 
 themselves swift destruction." (2.) That the blessings 
 here described belong to those who " receive abundance 
 of grace, and of the gift of righteousness," verse 17. But 
 what does this prove concerning those who " receive the 
 grace of God in vain," 2 Cor. vi, 1 ; and who " have not 
 submitted to the righteousness (which is the gift) of God 1" 
 Rom. x, 3. (3.) That one of the blessings here men- 
 tioned is, " of many offences unto justification," verse 16, 
 or " justification of life," verse 18. But what does that 
 prove concerning those who die in their sins, and are final- 
 ly condemned to the second death 1 who " shall not see 
 life," John iii, 36 ; in a word, whom Mr. G. supposes not 
 to be justified, but to be finally condemned? (4.) That 
 one of the blessings here mentioned is, that certain per- 
 sons " shall much more reign in life by one, Jesus Christ," 
 verse 17, whereas Mr. G. himself grants that the wicked, 
 at the best, shall much less reign in life : that they will 
 be u for ever excluded from the society of the righteous." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 278.) So much easier it was for Mr. G. to 
 quote this passage, than to extract from it his doctrine ! 
 
 6. Mr. G. next attempts to establish the doctrine of 
 universal restoration. For this purpose he quotes the 
 following scriptures : — 
 
 (1.) Rom. viii, 12-23. St. Paul says that " the crea- 
 ture itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, 
 into the glorious liberty of the children of God." These 
 are the words which Mr. G. marks as emphatical. Now 
 he says that " the wicked will be for ever excluded from 
 the society of the righteous, the Christian society." (Vol. 
 ii, p. 278.) If so, they cannot be restored to "the glori- 
 ous liberty of the children of God." The passage does 
 
223 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 not, therefore, and cannot refer to them. Nor can it by 
 any fair means be made to support any scheme of uni- 
 versal salvation or restoration. The apostle speaks of the 
 accomplishment of this deliverance, as taking place on 
 "the manifestation of the sons of God," verse 19. This 
 " manifestation" he calls '« the adoption, to wit, the re- 
 demption of our body," verse 23. Now the time of the 
 redemption of the bodies of the saints is previous to the 
 universal judgment ; and therefore cannot be justly 
 supposed to be the time of universal restoration. Per- 
 haps the passage is best explained by the words of St. 
 Peter, where he speaks of " the production of new heavens, 
 and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness," 2 Pet. 
 iii, 13. 
 
 (2.) " That all things might be gathered in one Christ." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 284.) For the reason just mentioned, this 
 passage cannot answer Mr. G.'s purpose. The wicked 
 are not to be made one society (body) with the righteous. 
 Beside this, St. Paul's words are, " That in the fulness 
 q{ times avaxsajaXaiajrfa^ai, he may bring all things again 
 under a head, or sum up all things, in Christ, whether 
 things in heaven, or things on earth," Eph. i, 10. Now 
 the fulness of times are the times of the Gospel dispen- 
 sation. " When the fulness of time was come, God sent 
 forth his Son," Gal. iv, 4. Again : the apostle makes no 
 mention of things in hell ; but only of things in heaven, 
 and on earth. 
 
 (3.) " I saw every creature in heaven, in earth, under 
 the earth, and in the sea, and all that were in them praising 
 God." (Vol. ii, p. 285.) Is this to prove that instead of 
 " weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth," both men 
 and devils will praise God in hell ? This would be an in- 
 novation in the kingdom of darkness ! But creatures in 
 hell are not mentioned. If this be not the design with 
 which it is cited, it cannot answer Mr. G.'s purpose. 
 
 Before we proceed, the reader will remark that the ad- 
 vocates for the limitation of future punishment generally 
 distinguish between universal restoration and universal 
 salvation. Mr. G. has now declared himself for re- 
 storation. We must not, however, look for consistency. 
 He endeavours to take every advantage of those scrip- 
 tures which speak of the salvation of mankind. The 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 229 
 
 Scriptural term, salvation, has a meaning very different 
 from that which Mr. G. wishes to attach to it. To be 
 saved, in Scripture, is the reverse of being condemned.— 
 " He that believeth shall be saved ; but he that believeth 
 not shall be damned," Mark xvi, 16. But our opponent 
 means by it a perfectly different thing, — a restoration to 
 virtue and happiness, subsequent to the execution of a 
 sentence of righteous condemnation. After this observa- 
 tion we proceed : 
 
 (4.) " God our Saviour who will have all men to be 
 saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Vol. 
 ii, p. 282.) How does it appear that this passage relates to 
 the damned in hell ? Are they saved, or damned ? Does 
 not St. Paul explain himself, when, in the context, he calls 
 on his brethren to " pray for all men (on earth) that they 
 may be saved," and declares that " for this purpose he 
 was appointed a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of the 
 Gentiles, in faith and truth ;" viz. that they might be 
 brought to the knowledge of the truth? But if Mr. G.'s 
 works correspond with his faith, he has undoubtedly re- 
 vived the prayers for the dea-d, and labours incessantly 
 to obtain for his departed friends a deliverance from 
 purgatory. 
 
 (5.) " The glad tidings are proclaimed to every crea- 
 ture which is under heaven." (Vol. ii, p. 284.) True: 
 and "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, 
 and he that believeth not shall be damned," Mark xvi, 16. 
 
 (6.) " To make all men see the fellowship of the mys- 
 tery, which had been hidden." (Vol. ii, p. 2S5.) For 
 this purpose, Paul says, " This grace was given to him, 
 to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of 
 Christ," Eph. ii, 8 : but certainly not in hell. Where is 
 that written ? 
 
 (7.) "To reconcile all things to himself," (Vol. ii, p. 
 285.) The apostle continues, " whether they be things 
 in earth, or things in heaven," Col. i, 28 ; but of things 
 in hell, he says nothing. 
 
 (8.) " The grace of God, which bringeth salvation, 
 hath appeared to all men." (Vol. ii, p. 285.) This pas- 
 sage would much better prove that all men will be saved on 
 earth, than that they will be restored from hell ; for on 
 earth the apostle's words have their accomplishment. — 
 20 
 
230 ETEfcNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT* 
 
 Witness those which follow : " Teaching that denying 
 worldly lusts, we should live soberly." And again :— 
 41 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appear- 
 ing of the great God," &c. In a word, the apostle says, 
 " The grace of God (not shall appear, but) hath appeared 
 to all men," Titus ii, 11-13. 
 
 (9.) " Christ is declared able to subdue all things to 
 himself." (Vol. ii, p. 285.) He is. But where is the 
 proof, [1.] that the apostle speaks of willing subjection? 
 and [2.] that he will do all that he is able to do? When 
 God hath judged the great whore, and hath avenged the 
 blood of his servants at her hand, — " a great multitude, as 
 the voice of many waters, say, Alleluia ; for the Lord 
 God, omnipotent reigneth," Rev. xix, 2, 6. 
 
 (10.) " It is not the will of your Father that one of 
 these little ones perish." (Vol. ii, p. 285.) To this it is 
 enough to answer : " Except ye repent, ye shall all like- 
 wise perish," Luke xiii, 3. 
 
 (11.) " Who gave himself a ransom for all." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 285.) We have a little curiosity to know how a So- 
 cinian will argue from these words. But lest it should 
 not be gratified, we prevent his argument by reminding 
 him of those who " deny the Lord that bought them, 
 and bring on themselves swift destruction," 2 Pet. ii, 1. 
 
 (12.) " The living God, who is the Saviour of all men." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 285.) Whatever be the meaning of this pas- 
 sage, it relates to the present time, rather than to the fu- 
 ture. He is the Saviour of all men. Beside, the unbe- 
 lieving are not saved, but damned. 
 
 (13.) "His tender mercies are over all his works." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 285.) " But he shall have judgment without 
 mercy, who hath showed no mercy," James ii, 13. Mr. 
 G. is very apt to forget himself. He grants that no mer- 
 cy will be shown to the finally impenitent, and contends 
 that they must " pay the last farthing." He may speak 
 of goodness if he please, but mercy, as appears from 
 his own concession, is out of the question. Such, how- 
 ever, are the superficial arguments on which Socinianism 
 is founded. 
 
 II. His philosophical objections. 
 
 When an advocate of natural religion, and of the suffi- 
 ciency of the power of human reason in Divine things. 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 231 
 
 undertakes to inquire what are " the fair conclusions of 
 reason," " from the perfections of the Deity," (vol. ii, p. 
 239,) the reader will perhaps expect a fine specimen of 
 clear, close, and cogent metaphysical argumentation. He 
 supposes that Mr. G. has precisely defined, and distinctly 
 proved, those Divine perfections which are the basis of 
 his arguments ; and that, without any reference to other 
 sources of knowledge, and without any appeal to the pas- 
 sions of his readers, he argues as coolly, and almost as 
 demonstratively, as a mathematician. An examination of 
 Mr. G.'s arguments, founded on each of the Divine per- 
 fections, will at least prove to the reader that he is to be 
 disappointed. 
 
 1. *« Let us begin with the justice of God." (Vol. ii, p. 
 239.) But what is the justice of God? Mr. G. has not 
 been pleased to inform us. He leaves us to adopt any 
 idea of it which we think proper, and to change the idea 
 as circumstances require. How then shall we ascertain 
 what is to be expected from Divine justice, when we do 
 not know what that justice is? Thus all Mr. G.'s argu- 
 ment is a castle in the air. Divine justice is that attri- 
 bute by which God renders to every one that which is due. 
 But how does this discover to us in every case what is 
 due. Not at all. How then are we to ascertain what is 
 due to a transgressor of the Divine law ? From that law 
 itself, by which God has at once prohibited the sin, and 
 pointed out its demerit : that is, from Divine revelation, 
 " It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribula- 
 tion to them that trouble you, — when the Lord Jesus shall 
 be revealed from heaven — taking vengeance on them that 
 know not God, and obey not the Gospel : who shall be 
 punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of 
 the Lord," 2 Thess. i, 6-9. Here we rest the question : 
 and whoever professes to believe the Scripture, must meet 
 us only on Scriptural ground. If a thousand objections be 
 adduced to which we can give no other answer, we have 
 always this reply at hand, " Thus saith the Lord :" and 
 the cause of truth will suffer nothing from our inability to 
 give any other. But we will try. 
 
 (1.) Mr. G. urges " the infirmity of human nature, and 
 the temptations to which it is exposed, in extenuation of 
 the crimes of mankind." (Vol. ii, p. 241.) We do not 
 
232 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT, 
 
 hesitate to say, that, in judgment, God will undoubtedly 
 make just allowance for every disadvantage of our condi- 
 tion. But will he not also take into the account the light, 
 the succour, and the encouragement, which have been 
 provided, offered, and afforded, and by a proper use of 
 which the disorder of our nature might have been cured, 
 and every temptation might have been overcome ? And 
 who can calculate the result, in contradiction to him who 
 has predicted it? 
 
 (2.) He urges that the advocates of eternal punishment, 
 " contend that every sin is liable to it." (Vol. ii, p. 241.) 
 We contend that " whosoever shall keep the whole law, 
 and yet offend in one (point,) is guilty of all," James ii, 
 10. But we do not suppose that when " God shall judge 
 the world in righteousness," the judgment will turn upon 
 this or that particular action, considered singly and exclu- 
 sively, but upon a review of the whole state of probation 
 of each individual. When any man shall stand before the 
 judgment seat of Christ, his whole time of probation 
 will be completed, and his character will be perfectly 
 formed. On that character will turn his acquittal or con- 
 demnation. 
 
 (3.) He urges the shortness of the time spent in sin, 
 which " compared with eternity, is as a drop of water to 
 the ocean." (Vol. ii, p. 242.) And will any man in his 
 senses contend that the malignity of sin is to be calculated 
 from the space of time in which it is committed ? Whence 
 has that man derived his ideas of justice, who contends 
 that it is unjust to inflict a seven years' punishment on 
 one who has robbed his neighbour in seven minutes; or to 
 cut off for ever from human society, one who, in a mo* 
 ment, has stabbed his neighbour to the heart? Is any man 
 fit to write on the jurisprudence of heaven, who does not 
 take into his account the dignity and authority of the 
 Lawgiver ; the reasonableness, justness, and goodness of 
 his laws ; the adaptation of those laws to the prosperity 
 and happiness of the individual subject, and of the whole 
 community ; the nature and value of the benefits which 
 the governed derive from the governor and from his gov- 
 ernment ; the extent of the obligation to be obedient ; 
 the necessity which there is for every government, for its 
 own preservation, to maintain its dignity, and to keep up 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 233 
 
 the tone of its authority, (especially when that government 
 is supreme, and there is no appeal from its decisions ;) 
 the nature and effect of different crimes ; the degree of in- 
 jury, dishonour, and displeasure done to the lawgiver by 
 the transgressions of his subjects ; and both the near and 
 the remote consequences of a breach of social order? We 
 do not pretend to make a calculation of such vast extent ; 
 but we venture to assert that no man can, independently 
 of Scripture, pronounce a just verdict until he has made it. 
 
 (4.) He urges that " some shall be beaten with many 
 stripes, and some with fewer." (Vol. ii, p. 243.) Mr. G.'s 
 argument should be founded merely in reason. That 
 punishment will be exactly proportioned to the sins of the 
 criminal we do not deny. But it is equally possible for a 
 light or a heavier punishment to be eternal. On this sup- 
 position, therefore, " the least crime will (not) be upon an 
 equality with the greatest." (Vol. ii, p. 244.) 
 
 (5.) He urges that " the actions of a finite being can 
 never merit infinite punishment." (Vol. ii, p. 244.) If by 
 infinite be meant eternal, this is the thing not to be assert- 
 ed, but to be proved. 
 
 (6.) He adds, *• But a just God must have some end 
 in view, in eternally punishing his creatures." (Vol. ii, p. 
 244.) Undoubtedly. But it is not wisdom to pretend to 
 enter into the counsels of the Almighty. "Who hath 
 known the mind of the Lord ?" We could follow some 
 of our predecessors in their ingenious conjectures con- 
 cerning the ends to be answered by the unlimited punish- 
 ment of the wicked ; but " who hath required this at our 
 hands J" It is enough, that though " clouds and darkness 
 are round about him, righteousness and judgment are the 
 habitation of his throne," Psalm xcvii, 2 ; and that the 
 ends of infinite justice will thereby be answered. 
 
 (7.) He proceeds : " To suppose that God will ever- 
 lastingly torture (punish) his creatures, merely because his 
 own majesty is offended, makes him a mere God of ven- 
 geance." (Vol. ii, pp. 244, 245.) By supposing him to 
 punish his rebellious and incorrigible creatures for ever, 
 we suppose that " to him belongeth vengeance." But we 
 do not M make him a mere God of vengeance," while we 
 suppose him first to have tendered to them his infinite 
 mercy, and " the riches of his grace :" and while we sup- 
 20* 
 
234 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 po.se that he may have other reasons for it beside that 
 44 his majesty is offended." 
 
 Of Mr. G.'s impassioned comparison (vol. ii, pp. 246- 
 248) we take no notice. He must reason and not de- 
 claim ; not play the orator but the philosopher. 
 
 2. Mr. G.'s attention is engaged next by 44 the wisdom 
 of the Deity." (Vol. ii, p. 248.) His argument on this 
 topic is very brief. You maintain that mankind were 
 44 destined to be forever happy." " Eternal torture (pun- 
 ishment) was not at first intended." " Is not (then) the 
 original design of God defeated ?" (Vol. ii, pp. 248, 249.) 
 Mr. G. forms but an awkward guess at what we main- 
 tain ; and therefore we must inform him. We maintain 
 that God made man to be a probationer, intending to 44 set 
 before him life and death, blessing and cursing," but to 
 enjoin him to " choose life that he might live," Deut. xxx, 
 19, and to reward his voluntary obedience with eternal 
 life ; or to punish his final disobedience with eternal fire. 
 With such purposes, how could God's original design be 
 defeated ? 
 
 3. Mr. G. makes an awkward transition from the wis- 
 dom to 44 the goodness, benevolence, and mercy of God. 
 Of this glorious attribute of the Deity, finite beings (he 
 thinks) can never form an adequate conception." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 249.) No, nor of his justice. Why then did he 
 presume to argue from premises which he did not com- 
 prehend, and that even in the face of him who does com- 
 prehend them? Why did he presume to argue that God 
 cannot do that which as a just God he declares that he will, 
 and that he must do that, as a merciful God, which he has 
 not promised ? Or rather, Why does he not relinquish this 
 inconclusive mode of argumentation ; and, on a question 
 which only the Scriptures can determine, appeal only to 
 the Scriptures ? 
 
 As Mr. G. cannot comprehend infinite goodness, he 
 argues from human goodness. Thus Moses, Paul, and 
 (goodly associate !) Mr. White the Universalist, are cited, 
 as men of such benevolence that they could willingly 
 have suffered for their fellow creatures. Is it necessary 
 to remind the reader that such is the benevolence of God 
 to man, that "he gave his only-begotten Son?" That 
 such is the benevolence of Christ, that he was "made a 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 235 
 
 curse for us ?" Whatever of benevolence may be found 
 in Moses, Paul, or Mr. White, the Saviour of men has 
 done more for their salvation than any of these men 
 thought of doing. The argument drawn from the bene- 
 volence of man to man can therefore conclude nothing 
 farther. What these men wished or proposed to do, 
 Jesus Christ has actually done. Again : God is more 
 wise and just than either Moses or Paul. When, there- 
 fore, the former said, " Yet now if thou wilt, forgive their 
 sin, and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book," 
 the Lord said unto him, w Whosoever hath sinned against 
 me, him will I blot out of my book." And when the 
 latter " could have wished himself accursed for his bre- 
 thren's sake," it was not permitted. 
 
 " What ! shall benevolence itself pursue a course of 
 conduct, at which imperfect human goodness would abso- 
 lutely shudder?" God will do that at which Mr. G. 
 affects to shudder ; and has often done that, " the hearing 
 of which would make a man's ears to tingle," 1 Sam. 
 iii, 1; 2 Kings xxi, 12; Jer. xix, 3. Yes: and many 
 who really shudder at the thought of it now, will hereafter 
 approve it. W T hen " the smoke" of them that are judged 
 "shall rise up for ever and ever," they will imitate the 
 heavenly host and sing, " Alleluia ; salvation, and glory, 
 and honour, and power unto the Lord our God : for true 
 and righteous are his judgments," Rev. xix, 1-3. 
 
 " But God does not look upon mankind as enemies." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 252.) So says Mr. G. And what say the 
 Scriptures ? " But these mine enemies, which would not 
 that 1 should reign over them, bring hither and slay them 
 before me," Luke xix, 27. 
 
 4. He argues from the Divine prescience ; — u He 
 that before the beginning of time foresaw every thing 
 that would come to pass, would he have created such 
 beings'? created to destroy]" The Divine prescience is 
 a subject a little too difficult for a human mind to scan : 
 especially as there is nothing in nature by which it can 
 be illustrated. All the arguments founded upon it 
 are therefore founded on what we do not understand. 
 It is not impossible, however, to give them a rational 
 answer. 
 
 (1.) The Scriptures declare that "known unto God 
 
236 ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 are all his works, from the beginning of the world," Acts 
 xv,18 ; and yet thesame Scriptures declare that the wicked 
 " shall go away into everlasting fire," Matt, xxv, 41. 
 But the Scriptures cannot be inconsistent with themselves. 
 (2.) If there be no impropriety in the manner in which 
 God treats mankind as known, no man can fix upon it 
 any impropriety as foreknown. (3.) We have already 
 shown that, in our opinion, the design with which man 
 was created was, that he might be placed in a state of pro- 
 bation. In that case, God created mankind with a posi- 
 tive design, neither that they should be eternally happy, nor 
 that they should be eternally miserable. That man should 
 choose death rather than life, is not therefore the fault of 
 him that made him, but his own. It is not God's, because 
 he affectionately forewarned him of the danger, earnestly 
 entreated him to be happy, and amply provided for him 
 all the means requisite to his happiness. (4.) If there 
 were any weight in the argument from the Divine pre- 
 science, it would disprove the possibility of any measure 
 of human misery, as well as of eternal misery. 
 
 5. His last philosophical argument is deduced from the 
 Divine immutability. " All the natural evils which are 
 suffered to befall us (here) tend to the production of 
 good." Mr. G. therefore presumes that " unless the 
 nature of the immutable Jehovah should change," — "the 
 punishment of a future world will be of a similar nature," 
 (Vol. ii, pp. 255, 256.) 
 
 Just so, we might presume that because good men are 
 afflicted here, they will also be afflicted hereafter. But 
 M presumptions" are not arguments. It must be proved 
 that such is the design of future punishment ; for the im» 
 mutability of the Divine nature will not change his pur- 
 pose or his word. The truth is, it is one of Mr. G.'s 
 first presumptions, that to make all his creatures finally 
 happy is God's absolute design. Setting out on this un- 
 founded theory, he proceeds from one error to another, 
 and fills his book with " presumptions." That the pre- 
 sent is the time of probation, and the future the time of 
 retribution, he cannot see, or will not acknowledge. 
 Hence he supposes earth and hell to be much alike, and 
 the end of suffering in both states to be the same. Even 
 while he describes the present state of human existence, 
 
ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 237 
 
 as " chequered with pleasure and pain," (vol. ii, p. 255,) 
 he cannot advert to the fact, that in hell the damned have 
 not " a drop of water to cool their tongue ;" nor, while he 
 argues that " love is strongest, and in its own nature most 
 powerful to attract and to persuade,'' (vol. ii, p. 294,) can 
 he infer that if that infinite goodness which here pierces 
 the clouds of affliction, do not win the hearts of rebels, 
 there is but little probability that all the weight of 
 Divine wrath will teach them to love their Maker. He 
 has not as yet proved the salutary nature of " the dam- 
 nation of hell," and he cannot prove it from the Divine 
 immutability, unless he can first prove, that from the begin- 
 ning it was the absolute purpose of God that every man 
 shall be finally happy. 
 
 There is one species of Socinian argumentation which 
 Mr. G. has not brought formally before us, though 
 his Lecture abounds with it. We have one specimen of 
 it where he says, " Vindictive passions cannot exist in 
 God." (Vol. ii, p. 246.) This remark contains a funda- 
 mental principle of Socinianism ; and yet it is itself a 
 mere assumption ; a dogma by which an important part 
 of Divine revelation is contradicted. In revealing himself 
 to mankind, God has often used a figure called anthropo- 
 pathy, by which human passions are attributed to the 
 Divine Mind. The ideas conveyed by those allusions, 
 certainly are not the precise and proper ideas of the 
 Divine attributes ; but rightly understood, and divested of 
 every thing which is weak and sinful in man, they sug- 
 gest the most appropriate ideas of the ways of God which 
 we can conceive. The ways and the thoughts of God 
 are high above ours, as the heaven is above the earth. 
 But if we do not imitate himself, in imputing to him 
 something like human passions, we exchange revealed 
 knowledge for philosophical ignorance. How often does 
 God speak of his desire, compassion, pity, mercy, and 
 love ] The Socinians seldom dream that these are human 
 passions, and that as human passions they " cannot exist 
 in God." Whatever can be fairly, or even speciously in- 
 ferred from these passions in men, they presume that they 
 may equally infer from them in God. No pains are then 
 taken even to show, that all idea of human weakness must 
 be removed from them, But when God speaks of his 
 
238 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 anger, wrath, indignation, fury, and vengeance, then we 
 are not only taught that these passions are not such in God 
 as they are in man, but are barefacedly told that they 
 " cannot exist in God," and that in such unqualified terms 
 as leave us no substitute for those ideas of the ways of 
 God which he himself has suggested. To remedy this, 
 we demand in the name of Scripture and common sense, 
 that the Socinians either desist from reasoning according 
 to their present practice, on the former class of passions, 
 or that they do us the justice to reason in the same manner 
 on the latter, in which they now reason on the former. 
 
 One word on Mr. G.'s concluding reflections. " The 
 first is, that the system of universal restitution contains no 
 tenets which present the slightest drawback to the practice 
 of any Christian duty." " The second is, that the doctrine 
 of universal restitution presents the strongest incentive to 
 the practice of any Christian duty, by giving a double 
 efficacy to the motives of gratitude and love." We think 
 otherwise. Humble fear, and holy love, give life to all 
 genuine piety. He that believes the eternal punishment 
 of the wicked, and embraces the Christian salvation, will 
 have the greatest reason to fear and love. We do not, 
 however, found our doctrine on a mere opinion concerning 
 what is most conducive to virtue and piety, but on the 
 express declarations of the word of God. 
 
 CHAPTER XII.* 
 
 Of the Divine Inspiration of the Sacred Writings. 
 
 The Divine inspiration of the sacred writings is of the 
 utmost importance to their establishment as the faithful 
 records of religion, and the standard of the principles and 
 practice of piety. This may not be the opinion of those 
 who, with unlimited confidence in the powers of their own 
 reason, profess to demonstrate a priori, the existence, the 
 nature, the attributes, and the will of God ; but it may be 
 easily and consistently granted by those who believe that 
 
 * The author has not been able to insert this chapter and the three 
 following in what he judges to be their proper place, in consequence 
 of being necessaiily governed, partly by the order which Mr. G, has 
 observed. 
 
SACRED WRITINGS* 23$ 
 
 M the things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of God." 
 If all knowledge of Divine things is from Divine revela- 
 tion, and if there is no Divine revelation but from the 
 Spirit of God, the Bible can be established as a Divine 
 revelation of God, his perfections, and his will, only on 
 the supposition that the writers of it have been divinely 
 inspired : — and to ascertain that they were so inspired is 
 necessary before their writings can be received with that 
 entire acquiescence of our understanding, and that perfect 
 submission of our will, which a Divine revelation demands. 
 
 When once a man has got rid of the inspiration of the 
 Old and the New Testament, he feels himself perfectly 
 at liberty to adapt his Bible to his creed, and to reject as 
 false, if not absurd, whatever in the former contradicts the 
 latter. It is thus the Socinians, to keep themselves in 
 countenance under an entire opposition to " the principal 
 doctrines of Christianity," undermine the Divine authority 
 of every Christian document. 
 
 However easy it may be to surmount the difficulties of 
 Scriptural doctrine, after disposing of the inspiration of 
 Scripture, the latter required some management. But 
 Mr. G. knows how to take an advantage. He is not so 
 little versed in the polemic art, as not to know by frequent 
 experience that every doctrine has some votaries who have 
 not formed habits of nice distinction, and who therefore 
 state their opinions in such general terms as to expose 
 them unnecessarily to the attacks of an opponent : nor is 
 he incapable of making choice of such a statement as is 
 most exceptionable. In the present instance, though not 
 in this only, he has given proof of his discretion, by taking 
 the utmost advantage, as will appear from the two inqui- 
 ries which contain the opinion which he supposes it his 
 business to controvert:—!. "Whether the facts they (the 
 sacred writers) recorded, the sentiments they occasionally 
 expressed, the reasonings they adduced, the particular 
 directions given, requests made, and intentions specified, 
 all took place under the immediate superintendence, com- 
 munication, direction, and control of the Spirit of God. 
 2. Whether their very words were dictated by inspiration." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 320.) Such are the opinions which Mr. G. 
 controverts, from which he derives all his advantages, and 
 through the sides of which he attempts to wound the in- 
 
240 DtVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 spiration of the Scriptures. We shall not meet him on 
 this ground. 
 
 Before we proceed to mark the ground which we pro- 
 pose to defend, a few words may be necessary on the use 
 of the phrase, "the inspiration of the Scriptures. " Mr. 
 G. is of opinion that " an excessive and blind attachment 
 to this phrase has been the cause of indefinite mischief in 
 the Christian world :" he therefore recommends that " in- 
 stead of the term ■ inspired writings,' the expressions ' hea- 
 venly doctrines,' 6 Divine precepts,' 4 sacred principles,' 
 &c, of Christianity be substituted." (Vol. ii, p. 314.) — 
 This is the opponent of scholastic phrases, the advocate 
 of Scriptural terms ! Asking pardon for our presumption, 
 we prefer the word inspiration, as applied to the Scriptures, 
 because it is Scriptural, and is equally determinate with 
 any of those which he has recommended. It is as difficult 
 to define in what degree the doctrines of Scripture are 
 heavenly, Divine, or sacred, as to define in what way the 
 Scriptures were inspired. 
 
 The truth of the inspiration of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment does not depend on our stating with perfect precision 
 the manner and the measure in which the immediate au- 
 thors of those books were inspired at the time of writing 
 them. We should not deny that we are the workmanship 
 of God, because we cannot exactly point out the difference 
 between the creation of Adam out of the dust of the ground, 
 and the production of a man by the ordinary process of 
 generation. Without distinguishing the manner of the 
 Divine operations, we know the simple fact, that it is "he 
 that made us, and not we ourselves :" and we piously 
 adore him as our Creator. Just so, without knowing 
 distinctly the manner of the Divine communication, we 
 may know and acknowledge the Divine wisdom and au- 
 thority with which the Bible teaches and commands us, 
 and with equal piety we may believe and obey. If there- 
 fore we now attempt to trace the footsteps of the Deity in 
 the revelation of himself, with which he has favoured us, 
 it will not be done under a presumption that we shall point 
 out the precise method and measure in which each of the 
 sacred writers received the Divine inspiration ; but merely 
 to show how it was possible for them to have written under 
 a Divine influence, without their inspiration being liable to 
 Mr. G.'s objections. 
 
SACRED WRITINGS* 241 
 
 The Bible is a book purporting to be a revelation of 
 God, his works, and his will. It contains every thing 
 suited to the purpose of a Divine revelation, every thing 
 that is " profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
 for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God may 
 be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," 
 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17. It is designed, not only for those 
 among whom it was first published, but for all men in 
 every age of the world. It is " to make all men see what 
 is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning 
 of the world hath been hid in God," Eph. iii, 9 ; " that in 
 the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of 
 his grace," Eph. ii, 7. It pronounces a blessing on " him 
 that readeth, and on them that hear the words" which it 
 contains, " and who keep those things which are written 
 therein," Rev. i, 3. It was therefore necessary that proper 
 means should be used to secure its being delivered in such 
 a manner as to answer the vast purpose for which it was 
 given. And since that purpose could be conceived only 
 by the all-comprehending mind of God, who knows no 
 distance of time or place, from him only it could originate, 
 and by him it must be directed to its design. 
 
 1. It contains a number of important facts, which form 
 the basis on which the rest of Scripture is erected. Of 
 these facts it was necessary that the sacred writers should 
 transmit to us a true and just narrative. The account 
 which Moses gives of the creation, must be such as not 
 only to agree with the real state of things, but to repre- 
 sent God doing his great work in a manner worthy of him- 
 self, and to manifest his perfections as the Creator. The 
 fall of Adam must be so described, as sufficiently to ac- 
 count for the present state of human nature, and to form a 
 sufficient basis for the whole system of human redemp. 
 tion, with which, without inspiration, Moses must have 
 been very imperfectly acquainted. The behaviour of the 
 Israelites, and the dealings of God with them, must be so 
 delineated as to illustrate properly the Divine perfections, 
 and the ways of God with the children of men. The his- 
 tory of Jesus Christ must be a genuine portrait of his cha- 
 racter, a true copy of his doctrine, and a foundation for 
 the whole Christian system. 
 
 Of some of these facts the narrators were not immediate 
 21 
 
242 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 witnesses. It is not necessary to suppose that they made 
 no use of any written document to which they had access, 
 of any undoubted tradition with which they might be ac- 
 quainted, or of the credible testimony of immediate wit- 
 nesses. Moses might learn many parts of his history 
 from the traditions which he collected among the Israel- 
 ites, and other parts from those of his cotemporaries who 
 related what they had seen and heard. Matthew and 
 Luke might take their genealogies, partly from the Old 
 Testament, and partly from other Jewish records. Both 
 of them might receive the account of the birth of Jesus 
 from the holy family. Or the latter might receive the 
 contents of his Gospel from those who were " eye wit- 
 nesses," Luke i, 2, of what he recorded. All this is pos- 
 sible, and even probable : and some part of it is certain. 
 But, on the other hand, it was necessary that the writer 
 should be assured of the truth of what he had thus learned, 
 and of the propriety of making it a part of the record, 
 and that he should relate the facts in such a manner as 
 was fit to answer the Divine purpose. For this end a 
 Divine afflatus was necessary. But beside this, some of 
 those facts, and some circumstances of others of those 
 facts, could not be known but by Divine inspiration. — 
 Such are, the manner and order in which the world was 
 created ; — that when God saw the wickedness of mankind, 
 44 it repented him that he had made man, and grieved him 
 at his heart," Gen. vi, 6 ; — and that Jesus Christ 44 sat 
 on the right hand of God." The accounts which they 
 give of such facts, and their mingling them with those 
 which might otherwise be ascertained, show that they 
 were under a Divine inspiration at the time of writing. 
 
 Of others of the facts which they record, they were 
 themselves immediate witnesses. To doubt whether in 
 publishing those facts, they made use of their best under- 
 standing and memory, would be very unreasonable. But 
 here again was to be a choice of topics, and of circum- 
 stances. It was impossible for them to judge accurately 
 what facts and what incidents it was the mind of God to 
 make known. Nothing was to be wanting which would 
 convey to the reader the necessary instruction concerning 
 the ways and dispensations of God. Nothing was to be 
 insetted which would be a needless incumbrance to the 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 243 
 
 sacred volume. The manner of relation was to be not 
 only faithful, but judicious, and fit for the illustration of 
 the grand topic, the perfections of that God who was but 
 partially known to the writer. How was all this to be 
 done without a Divine inspiration ? If a mere unassisted 
 human understanding was insufficient for this work, an 
 unassisted human memory was still more so. The hu- 
 man memory inherits the imperfection of the understand- 
 ing. When we do not rightly apprehend a thing, we can- 
 not rightly remember it ; but our misconceptions often 
 render our reproductions monstrous. Prejudice or passion 
 sometimes makes us misconstrue the plainest things. Mr. 
 G. says that Moses, with the highest degree of inspiration, 
 was not free from faults. The fault to which he alludes 
 seems to be of that very kind which would have rendered 
 him a very improper person to write a Divine record, with- 
 out immediate inspiration. " The Lord spake unto Mo- 
 ses, saying, Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly 
 together, thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto 
 the rock before their eyes, and it shall give forth his wa- 
 ter, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the 
 rock : so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts 
 drink. And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as 
 he commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the 
 congregation together before the rock, and he said unto 
 them, Hear now, ye rebels ; must we fetch you water out 
 of this rock ? And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his 
 rod he smote the rock twice ; and the water came out abun- 
 dantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also," 
 Num. xx, 7-12. If Moses, through prejudice and pas- 
 sion, mistook the Divine command, and so far misrepre- 
 sented it as to smite the rock when God had bidden him 
 only speak to it ; and to take the glory to himself in- 
 stead of rendering it to God, and that immediately after he 
 had received that command, how unfit must he have been 
 to represent the mind of God to all succeeding genera- 
 tions, without a present Divine inspiration ! But this is 
 not the only case in point. The apostles of our Lord, 
 " went in and out with him, beginning at the baptism of 
 John, unto that same day that he was taken up." They 
 saw his works, and heard his doctrine, and were intended 
 to be witnesses of ** what they had heard and seen." But 
 
244 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 hew little did they understand of what they had heard! 
 What they did not understand they easily forgot. And if 
 they had remembered something of it, how erroneous 
 must have been their representations of it under so many 
 mistakes ! for men generally repeat their own comments 
 rather than the text, and retail their own construction of 
 what they have heard. What possibility was there, then, 
 that after the lapse of a number of years, they should re- 
 member and record, with circumstantial exactness, the 
 many discourses, didactic and prophetic, which are now 
 contained in the four Gospels 1 When they could not con- 
 ceive the meaning of their Divine Teacher, he promised 
 that " the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the 
 Father would send in his name, should teach them all 
 things, and bring all things to their remembrance, whatso- 
 ever he had said unto them," John xiv, 26. Such were 
 their understanding and memory that they could not be 
 witnesses of what they had seen and heard until they "re- 
 ceived power, after that the Holy Ghost was come upon 
 them," Acts i, 8. To this, therefore, we are indebted for 
 authentic histories of the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ. 
 2. They have not only related facts ; their writings 
 afford many predictions of future events. As no man can 
 naturally have any certain foresight of future contingen- 
 cies, it is impossible that the sacred writers should uttear 
 their predictions without Divine inspiration. Prophecy 
 is, therefore, on all occasions attributed to the Spirit of 
 God. "Would God," said Moses, "that all the Lord's 
 people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his 
 Spirit upon them !" Num. xi, 29. " I will pour out my 
 Spirit, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,*' 
 Joel ii, 28. ' To one is given, by the Spirit, the word of 
 wisdom, to another prophecy," 1 Cor. xii, 8, 10, In a 
 word, " the prophecy came not in old time by the will of 
 man, but the holy men of God spake (as they were) moved 
 *by the Holy Ghost," 2 Peter i, 20, 21. It is not neces- 
 sary to prove this against Mr. G., who also maintains, 
 " that all the prophecies in the Scriptures were communi- 
 cated by the Almighty." (Vol. ii, p. 319.) But if pro- 
 phecy came by the Spirit of God, all who uttered predic* 
 tions, by so doing, gave proof that they received th$ 
 breath of Divine inspiration. 
 
SACKED WRITINGS. 245 
 
 3. The doctrines of the Bible come next under our 
 consideration. These were founded on the facts which 
 are recorded by the sacred writers, or on the prophecies 
 which they delivered. They consist of those speculative 
 and saving truths which it was a principal object of the 
 book of revelation to make known to mankind, the things 
 of God which no man knoweth but the Spirit of God, and 
 therefore were communicated by inspiration. As our 
 Lord promised that the Spirit of truth should teach his 
 apostles, and remind them of all things whatsoever he had 
 said unto them ; he promised also that the same Spirit 
 should make known to them whatever was farther neces- 
 sary for the fulfilment of their ministry. " I have yet 
 many things to say unto you, (he observed,) but ye can- 
 not bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, 
 is come, he will guide you into all truth : he shall not 
 speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, (that) 
 shall he speak ; and he will show you things to come," 
 John xv, 13, 14. Mr. G. need not be afraid that we 
 shall seek any undue advantage from the expression, " all 
 things." We include only " all" those " things," which 
 Jesus had yet to say unto them, but which they could not 
 yet bear. 
 
 The Apostle Paul had not heard the instructions, or 
 seen the miracles of Jesus Christ, and therefore received 
 the whole system of Christian doctrine by immediate in- 
 spiration. Hence he says to the Galatians, " I certify you* 
 brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not 
 after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was 
 I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," Gal. i> 
 11, 12. This revelation to St. Paul included both the 
 words and the deeds of Jesus Christ. He therefore men- 
 tions to the Corinthians his having " received that Christ 
 died for oar sins, according to the Scriptures ; and that 
 he was buried, and that he rose again the third day : 
 that he was seen of Cephas, of the twelve, and of above 
 five hundred brethren at once," &c, 1 Cor. xv, 3-8. 
 Again : " I have received of the Lord that which also 
 I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same 
 night in which he was betrayed, took bread : and when 
 he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take eat ; 
 this is my body, which is broken for you ; this do in re- 
 21* 
 
246 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 membrance of me. After the same manner, he took also- 
 the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is the- 
 New Testament in my blood ; this do ye, as oft as ye 
 drink it, in remembrance of me," 1 Cor. xi, 23-25, 
 Hence we learn that this apostle had both the words and 
 the deeds of Jesus Christ revealed to him. 
 
 Mr. G. has conceded " that all the peculiar doctrines 
 of Christianity were of heavenly origin ; that they were 
 not the deductions of reason in the minds of their first 
 promulgators, but were imparted to them by God." (Vol. 
 ii, p. 321. Thus far then is clear, that the apostles 
 originally received the doctrines of the Gospel by Divine 
 inspiration. It is now our business to inquire in what 
 manner those doctrines were delivered. We know that 
 the prophets and apostles often delivered their doctrines 
 viva voce, in their public discourses. But of those public 
 discourses we know nothing, except from the written 
 documents which they have bequeathed to the world* 
 The question therefore is, Do the original documents 
 contain those very doctrines which the prophets and apos- 
 tles received immediately from God ? If they do not, then 
 have we no doctrines of which we are assured that they 
 are of heavenly origin. The Scriptures, then, are none 
 of them divinely inspired. But if the original Scriptures 
 do contain the precise doctrines which were "imparted 
 by God to the first promulgators of them," and those 
 doctrines are " all the peculiar doctrines of Christianity," 
 then those Scriptures which contain the peculiar doctrines 
 of Christianity are divinely inspired. 
 
 4. The sacred writers have promulged not only doc- 
 trines of which they speak as being of Divine origin, but 
 precepts and prohibitions which they attribute to the same 
 authority. We cannot deny that these were received from 
 above, without denying the authenticity, as well as the in- 
 spiration of Scripture. Moses, as the Jewish mediatorial 
 legislator, received his precepts immediately from God. 
 The tables of stone containing the ten commandments, 
 written by the finger of God, were delivered to him on the 
 mount. With him God spake " mouth to mouth," Num. 
 xii, 8. The apostles received their precepts principally 
 from Jesus Christ, to whom the Spirit was given not by 
 measure, and therefore promulged them as the com- 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 247 
 
 mandments of the Lord. The moral or ecclesiastical regu- 
 lations which they had not received from him during his 
 ministry, were made known to them by a vision, as 
 in the case of Peter, to whom it was thus revealed that 
 the Gospel should be preached to the uncircumcised* 
 Acts x ; or were revealed to them by the Holy Ghost, as 
 when the apostolic council decreed, that the Jewish yoke 
 should not be imposed on the Gentile converts, Acts xv% 
 28 ; and when the whole Gospel, preceptive, as well as 
 doctrinal, was made known to St. Paul, Gal. i, 12. Thus 
 all their precepts originated from the Spirit of God. 
 
 If we suppose that in recording these Divine doctrines 
 and commands, the writers were directed and assisted by 
 Divine inspiration, it is not necessary to suppose that the 
 exercise of their natural powers was suspended. It is 
 enough if their minds were enlightened, their judgments 
 cleared, and their memory assisted, so as to secure a 
 faithful record of what had been delivered to them for the 
 benefit of mankind. All we have to ascertain therefore, 
 is, that the Holy Spirit is the voucher for the Divine truth 
 of the doctrines, and the Divine authority of the com- 
 mands. 
 
 5. There are several things which now make an essen- 
 tial part of the Divine revelation, but which probably did 
 not constitute a formal part of the first revelation given to 
 the apostles. Their inspiration with respect to these also 
 demands our serious consideration. 
 
 (1.) The apostles frequently quote from the Old Testa- 
 ment. It was not necessary that in making these quota- 
 tions they should have the words suggested to them ; but it 
 was necessary that they should be taught to make a proper 
 application of them, that they might not corrupt, instead of 
 contending for the faith delivered to the saints, and to 
 guard them against the false glosses of those who had 
 perverted them. 
 
 (2.) They in many places argue against those who 
 deviated from the truth of the Gospel. If we suppose the 
 truth of the Gospel to have been communicated to them 
 from above, it is not necessary to suppose that all their 
 arguments were communicated in the same manner. But 
 as every man is in danger of drawing wrong conclusions 
 from the truth itself, it was necessary that in delivering the 
 
248 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 system of Christianity to the world, they should be guided 
 to reason justly from the Divine principles which they had 
 received. If we admit that they were left merely to exer- 
 cise the powers of their unassisted reason, we are imme- 
 diately left without any thing which we can ascertain to be 
 a Divine revelation; because we cannot distinguish be- 
 tween their own reasonings, and those truths which were 
 made known to them without the deductions of their own 
 mind. 
 
 (3.) They sometimes made prudential regulations in 
 the Christian Church. For instance : The Apostle Paul 
 recommended celibacy to the Corinthians. He acknow- 
 ledges that he had " no commandment from the Lord" on 
 this head. Jesus Christ had not commanded celibacy, 
 though he had recommended it under given circumstances. 
 It was not perhaps necessary that it should be immediately 
 suggested to the apostle to recommend this measure to the 
 unmarried, as " good for the present distress ;" but it was 
 necessary that he should be under such a Divine influence 
 as would lead him to give his judgment in a manner 
 worthy of a Christian cause. And it is remarkable that 
 he did deliver it, "as one who had obtained mercy of the 
 Lord to be faithful," and concluded it with what stamped 
 his advice with Divine wisdom, by observing, M I think 
 also that I have the Spirit of God,'' 1 Cor. vii, 25-40. 
 
 6. There are several things in the apostolic epistles 
 which are not essential parts of the revelation of God, 
 and some which have no necessary connection with reli- 
 gion. There are " facts recorded, sentiments expressed, 
 directions given, requests made, and intentions specified," 
 which it is not necessary to suppose " took place under 
 the communication of the Spirit of God." (Vol. ii, p. 320.) 
 Yet it is not unreasonable, as the record of these is con- 
 nected with the Divine revelation, to suppose that they 
 were, for special purposes, recorded under the " superin- 
 tendence and control" of that Spirit. St. Paul might in- 
 tend to " take a journey into Spain," Rom. xv, 24, 28, 
 and to pass by way of Corinth into Macedonia, 1 Cor. 
 xvi, 5, to propagate the Gospel in those parts ; and yet 
 he might be frustrated. The intention was not the fruit 
 of Divine direction ; but the record of that intention might 
 proceed from the Spirit of God, to show that a minister 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 249 
 
 ought to live and die, forming and prosecuting plans for 
 the spread of Messiah's kingdom. It may be recorded 
 that Paul recommended to Timothy to " take a little wine 
 for his stomach's sake," to show that God requires good 
 men to take care of their health : that he requested him 
 44 to bring his cloak and books," to show that a good man 
 may be poor, and ought to take care of what little pro- 
 perty he has ; and that a great man may properly make 
 use of the ordinary means of knowledge and of learning r 
 that he informed him that " he had left Trophimus sick," 
 to remind us that afflictions befall the best of men : that 
 he " desired Philemon to prepare him a lodging," to 
 show that the greatest concerns ought not to make us neg- 
 ligent of those which are of less moment, and that proper 
 conveniences ought, if possible, to be provided for the itin- 
 erant servants of Christ : and that " Alexander, the cop- 
 persmith, had behaved ill to him," to warn mankind of the 
 danger of treating with unkindness the ministers of the 
 Gospel. Now if these incidental circumstances afford 
 such useful lessons, without " supposing the sentiment 
 and style of them to be dictated by the Spirit of God," we 
 may justly believe them to be written under his " superin- 
 tendence and control ;" for if they are not essential parts 
 of the Divine revelation, they are at least useful appen- 
 dages to it, and therefore not unworthy of his notice. 
 
 Hitherto we have attended only to the matter of Divine 
 revelation ; we shall now pay some attention to the lan- 
 guage in which it has been delivered. But this part of 
 the subject is by no means of the same importance with 
 the preceding. If it be supposed that the sacred writers 
 have delivered the truths of God in appropriate and unex- 
 ceptionable terms, it will perhaps make no great differ- 
 ence, whether or not we believe the words to be immedi- 
 ately and distinctly suggested by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 1. Some of the revelations which the sacred writers 
 received, w r ere delivered to them in words. Such were 
 those which Moses received : " God spake all these 
 words, saying," &c, Exod. xx, 1. Such were many of 
 those communicated to the prophets. Such were all 
 those which the apostles received from Jesus Christ, during 
 his stay on earth. And such was a very considerable part 
 of what St. John has related in the Apocalypse, AM 
 
250 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 these, and such as these, are therefore properly couched 
 in the words of God. 
 
 2. Many of their revelations appear to have been com- 
 municated by suggestion to their minds. When the ideas 
 suggested to them were sensible ideas, those ideas by a 
 natural association would undoubtedly lead to the words 
 which in common language are made the signs of them ; 
 and no other words were necessary. On the other hand, 
 some of those ideas were abstract ideas. Now abstract 
 ideas can be entertained by the human mind only as con- 
 nected with words. To prove this, let any man make the 
 experiment, whether he can form in his mind one single 
 abstract proposition without words. If he cannot, he must 
 allow that the inspired writers were led to conceive all 
 such revelations in words. Those words may with pro- 
 priety be said to be the words of God, as being connected 
 with the ideas which the Divine Spirit suggested ; and yet 
 the arrangement of them might take the mould of the mind 
 which conceived them. Thus the sacred writers might on 
 these occasions " speak the words which the Holy Ghost 
 teacheth," and yet each one might speak in his own cha- 
 racteristic style. 
 
 3. If the inspired writers were thus taught to express 
 themselves on Divine subjects in a proper manner," by the 
 immediate revelations which they received, their general 
 #tyle on the same subjects would be formed on this model. 
 Whenever they spoke or wrote on a topic purely religious, 
 though they might not use terms immediately suggested 
 at the time, they spoke, as St. Paul expressly asserts, in 
 words which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; for from him they 
 had learned them. 
 
 4. On subjects, not religious, it was best that they 
 should express themselves in common language. 
 
 After this explanation, the distinct and only question 
 which remains to be discussed is, Did the sacred penmen 
 write their several books under the inspiration of the Holy 
 Ghost 1 With a hope that our meaning will not now be 
 mistaken, we decidedly take the affirmative side of the 
 question. 
 
 To shorten the dispute, and to clear the argument, as 
 much as may be, of all encumbrances, let it here be noted 
 that what we seek is not proof merely that the writers 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 251 
 
 were inspired, for that will not answer our specific pur- 
 pose ; but that they were inspired as writers. And if it 
 should appear from the Scriptures themselves that Divine 
 inspiration is ascribed to their writings, it will sufficiently 
 appear that they were inspired in writing. 
 
 1. We will first inquire into the inspiration of the writ- 
 ings of the Old Testament. 
 
 (1.) Our Lord speaks of the writings of the Old Tes- 
 tament as inspired : " David himself said, by the Holy 
 Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right 
 hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool," Mark xii, 
 36. This is a citation from the one hundred and tenth 
 Psalm. Now the Psalms are not orations, which were 
 first delivered viva voce, but written compositions. It 
 follows that they were written by inspiration. 
 
 (2.) The Apostle Peter, speaking of Judas, says, " This 
 scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy 
 Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before ; for it is 
 written in the book of Psalms," &c, Acts i, 16, 20. Here 
 the apostle plainly attributes the Psalms of David to the 
 Holy Ghost, when he is speaking of them as Scriptures, 
 (that is writings) and of what is written in them. 
 
 (3.) The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, citing 
 the ninety-fifth Psalm, makes no mention of the amanuen- 
 sis, but introduces his citation with the words, " As the 
 Holy Ghost saith," Heb. iii, 7, and citing the thirty-first 
 of Jeremiah, he begins, " The Holy Ghost also is a 
 witness to us ; for after that he had said before," &c, 
 Heb. x, 15. 
 
 (4.) The Apostle Peter says, " No prophecy of the 
 Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the pro- 
 phecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but holy 
 men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost," 2 Peter i, 20, 21. Here again he is speaking of 
 the prophecies of Scripture, or of written prophecy. 
 
 (5.) Lastly. St. Paul has given us the same view of 
 the subject in those remarkable words : " From a child 
 thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to 
 make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in 
 Christ Jesus. All Scripture (is) given by inspiration 
 of God, and (is) profitable for doctrine," &c, 2 Tim; 
 iii, 15, 16. 
 
252 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 On this passage observe : [1.] The apostle is speak- 
 ing of Scriptures (writings.) [2.] That he calls them the 
 Holy Scriptures, namely, those books which the Jews re- 
 ceived as canonical, and were called by them " the holy 
 writings." [3.] That he speaks of them as being " all 
 given by inspiration of God." 
 
 Mr. G. says, " If you refer to the passage, you will 
 find the auxiliary verb, is, printed in italics, and conse- 
 quently not in the original Greek. It may, therefore, 
 with equal propriety, be translated thus : 4 All Scripture 
 given by inspiration of God, is profitable, &c.' " (Yol. ii, 
 p. 331.) On this we remark : [1.] That if we admit 
 Mr. G.'s translation, still it proves that the Holy Scrip- 
 tures are divinely inspired ; for the apostle having men- 
 tioned the Holy Scriptures as able to make a man wise 
 unto salvation, assigns as a reason for this, that " all 
 Scripture given by inspiration from God, is profitable, " 
 &c. " Holy Scripture is profitable for doctrine," and able 
 to make a man wise unto salvation, because it is " given 
 by inspiration of God." [2.] But Mr. G. ought to have 
 remarked that the second (is,) also is supplementary ; 
 and that, although the apostle's, words are sense in Greek, 
 there is, without it, no sense in the translation. If he had 
 then observed the situation of the conjunction, (and,) as 
 every English reader may do, he would then have seen 
 that the auxiliary verb must be supplied where our trans- 
 lators have inserted the first of the two. " All Scripture 
 is given by inspiration of God, and (is) profitable," &c. 
 
 How much then must our Lord and his apostles have 
 been mistaken, if the holy writings of the Old Testament 
 were not divinely inspired ! 
 
 2. We now come to the inquiry, whether the writings 
 of the New Testament were also inspired. 
 
 It is of some importance to observe here, that our Lord, 
 before his ascension, was pleased to promise to his apos- 
 tles the special gift of the Hory Ghost. " The Comforter, 
 (said he,) which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will 
 send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring 
 all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said 
 unto you," John xiv, 26. Again : " I have yet many 
 things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. — 
 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 253 
 
 you into all truth : and he will show you things to come. 
 He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you," John 
 xvi, 13-15. 
 
 This great gift was promised to them, to fit them for 
 their apostolic ministry. " When the Comforter is come, 
 . whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the 
 Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall 
 testify of me : and ye also shall bear witness, because ye 
 have been with me from the beginning," John xv, 26, 27. 
 44 When he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, of 
 righteousness, and of judgment," John xvi, 8. Again: 
 44 Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come 
 upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me," Acts i, 8. 
 It is an important question, Did not the apostles bear wit- 
 ness of him as well by their writings, as by their preaching? 
 
 The Holy Ghost was promised to them, not as a tem- 
 porary, but a permanent gift. 44 1 will pray the Father, 
 (said our Lord,) and he shall give you another Comforter, 
 that he may abide with you for ever," John xiv, 16 : that 
 is, says Mr. G., 44 during your lives." (Vol. ii, p. 218.) 
 
 This gift they actually received. 44 When the day of 
 pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord 
 in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from 
 heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the 
 house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto 
 them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each 
 of them ; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost," 
 Acts ii, 1-4. 
 
 That the Holy Ghost was thus given to prepare them 
 for preaching* the Gospel, so that 44 they spake as the 
 Spirit gave them utterance," is an important truth. But 
 they were equally inspired by it in writing for the esta- 
 blishment of Christianity, and for the edification of the 
 Churches. 
 
 (1.) Hence they assert their apostleship at the head of 
 their epistles. " Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, accord- 
 ing to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of 
 the truth which is after godliness." (See Tit. i, 1 ; Rom. 
 i, 1 ; 1 Cor. i, 1 ; 2 Cor. i, 1 ; Gal. i, 1 ; Eph. i, 1 ; Col. 
 
 * That they spake by the Holy Ghost is obvious from the follow- 
 ing passages, a^ well as from many others: — 1 Cor. ii, 6-16; 2 Cor. 
 xiii, 3 ; 1 John iv, 6, &c. 
 
 22 
 
254 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 i, 1 ; 1 Tim. i, 1 ; 2 Tim. i, 1 ; Tit. i, 1 ; 1 Pet. i, U 
 2 Pet. i, 1.) In this manner they assert their apostolic 
 authority in their writings. 
 
 (2.) They assert that the substance of their writings 
 was the very doctrine which they preached, and which they 
 had learned from above. For instance : — " Moreover, 
 brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached 
 unto you, which also you have received, and wherein ye 
 stand : by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory 
 what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in 
 vain," 1 Cor. xv, 1, 2. " For this cause, I Paul, the pri- 
 soner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard 
 of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me 
 to you~ward : how that by revelation he made known unto 
 me the mystery ; as I wrote afore in few words, whereby 
 when ye read ye may understand my knowledge in the 
 mystery of Christ ; which in other ages was not made 
 known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto 
 his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit," Eph. iii, 1, 5. 
 " That which was from the beginning, which we have 
 heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have 
 looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of 
 life ; for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and 
 bear witness, and show unto you that eternal Life which 
 was with the Father, and was manifested unto us ; that 
 which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that 
 ye also may have fellowship with us ; and truly our fellow- 
 ship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 
 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be 
 full," 1 John i, 1-4. " Brethren, I write no new com- 
 mandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye 
 had from the beginning. The old commandment is the 
 word which ye have heard from the beginning," 1 John ii, 7. 
 
 (3.) They speak of their inspiration with respect to 
 their writings. Thus St. Paul, giving his judgment to 
 widows, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, adds, " I think 
 also that I have the Spirit of God," 1 Cor. vii, 40. The 
 word <5oxoj, (rendered I think,) does not imply any doubt, 
 but a satisfactory degree of certainty. The same apos- 
 tle, speaking of the grand apostasy, in his Epistle to Tim- 
 othy, prefaces his prediction with, " Now the Spirit speak- 
 eth expressly," 1 Tim. iv, 1. In another place, to the 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 255 
 
 Thessalonians, he observes, " For this we say unto you 
 by the word of the Lord," &c, 1 Thess. iv, 15. St. John 
 says, " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard 
 behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am 
 Alpha and Omega, the first and the last : what thou seest, 
 write in a book. Write the things which thou hast seen, 
 and the things which are, and the things which shall be 
 hereafter," Rev. i, 10, 11, 19. Hence the frequent repe- 
 tition of those words, " He that hath an ear let him hear 
 what the Spirit saith unto the Churches," Rev. ii, 11, &c. 
 Peter says, that his " beloved brother, Paul, had written 
 according to the wisdom given unto him ;" and classes his 
 epistles with "the other Scriptures," 2 Peter hi, 15, 16. 
 And lastly : St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians on the 
 common duties of Christian morality, inculcates them by 
 adding, " He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, 
 who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit, v 1 Thessa- 
 lonians iv, 8. 
 
 (4.) Hence they exercise an apostolic authority in their 
 epistles. [1.] With respect to points of doctrine : " Be- 
 hold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, 
 Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to 
 every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do 
 the whole law," Gal. v, 2, 3. [2.] With respect to points 
 of morality : " But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, (who 
 has said nothing on this subject :) If any brother hath a 
 wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with 
 him, let him not put her away. And so ordain I in all 
 Churches," 1 Cor. vii, 12, 17. [3.] With respect to ec- 
 clesiastical regulations : " I have written unto you not to 
 keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a 
 fornicator, &c ; with such a one no not to eat. There- 
 fore put away from among yourselves that wicked per- 
 son," 1 Cor. v, 11, 13. "Now, we command you, bre* 
 thren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye with- 
 draw yourselves from every brother that walketh disor- 
 derly," 2 Thess. iii, 6. " Is any sick among you ? let 
 him call for the elders of the Church ; and let them pray 
 over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord," 
 James v, 14. [4.] With respect to the use of spiritual 
 gifts : See 1 Cor. xiv. Would St. Paul pretend to regu- 
 late those who were inspired, even the prophets them* 
 
256 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 selves, unless he were inspired in so doing? [5.] And 
 lastly : with respect to the behaviour of all the subordinate 
 officers of the Church : instances of which abound in the 
 epistles to Timothy, and in that to Titus. 
 
 (5.) And hence they assert the apostolic authority of 
 their writings : " If any man think himself to be a prophet, 
 or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I 
 write unto you are the commandments of the Lord,'* 
 
 1 Cor. xv, 37. " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and 
 hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether 
 by word, or our epistle," 2 Thess. ii, 15. "And if any 
 man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and 
 have no company with him, that he may be ashamed," 
 
 2 Thess. iii, 14. " These things (which I have written) 
 command and teach," 1 Tim. iv, 11. The reader may 
 see also Col. iv, 16 ; 1 Thess. v, 27 ; 1 Tim. v, 21 ; vi, 
 13, 14 ; 1 Pet. v, 12 ; 2 Pet. i, 15 ; iii, 1, 2 ; Jude 3, 
 and Rev. xxii, 18, 19. 
 
 From all this it appears, that the Holy Spirit, which was 
 promised to the apostles to guide them into all truth, and 
 to make them competent witnesses of Christ, was with 
 them in their writing as well as in their public ministry, 
 and supported that apostolic authority with which they 
 publish to the end of the world the truths which they 
 preached. The arguments which Mr. G. has urged on 
 the contrary part, are not levelled directly against the 
 preceding observations, and therefore it is necessary 
 to examine them only so far as they are apparently 
 relevant. 
 
 1. "In order to establish the truth of the Christian re- 
 ligion, was any thing else necessary than that we should 
 have complete evidence of the facts, and of the Divine 
 origin of the doctrines?" (Vol. ii, p. 323.) 
 
 It was necessary, after the facts had taken place, that 
 the doctrine founded on them should be deduced from 
 them, that the consistency of that doctrine with the pre- 
 ceding dispensations should be explained, and that the 
 doctrine itself should be vindicated against ordinary cavils. 
 This could be done only by the aid of that Spirit whose 
 office it was to bring things to the " remembrance" of tho 
 witnesses, to " teach" them the truth, and to prepare then*, 
 to be the immediate " witnesses" of Jesus Christ, 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 257 
 
 2. " But the highest degree of inspiration did not con- 
 fer infallibility." (Vol. ii, pp. 322, 348.) 
 
 It is necessary to distinguish between the infallibility of 
 the sacred writers in their personal conduct, and that in 
 their delivery of the Divine revelation ; and between their 
 fallibility in religious opinions, and their being permitted to 
 propagate their errors. In their moral conduct, Moses 
 and Paul were free agents ; in their prophetic character 
 they were the organs of tho Divine Spirit. As moral 
 agents they were capable of doing wrong : as men in- 
 spired they recorded their own faults, for a warning to 
 other men. Again : Peter might be fallible, and refuse 
 to go to Cornelius ; but yet his error was not permitted to 
 overrule the Divine purposes. He is taught by a Divine 
 revelation what his prejudice had not permitted him pre- 
 viously to learn. He might prove his fallibility by sepa- 
 rating himself from the Gentiles for fear of the Jews ; but 
 the Apostle Paul, writing for the edification of the Church, 
 mentions it only as a fault. His error is not permitted to 
 propagate ; for while it is recorded it is condemned. 
 
 3. " On some specific occasions a claim is laid to a 
 superintending Divine inspiration. What can be more 
 self evident than that by thus asserting that they occa- 
 sionally spoke by Divine inspiration, they did not make it 
 as a general claim 1" (Vol. ii, p. 341.) 
 
 How weak must be that cause which can be supported 
 only by such an argument as this ! When a person, on some 
 more important occasions, asserts the authority by which 
 he speaks, can we infer that he does not speak by the 
 same authority at all times, because he is not perpetually 
 ringing it in our ears ? There is, however, in Mr. G.'s 
 argument another important flaw. The cases which he 
 has adduced on this occasion, are not cases of mere " su- 
 perintending Divine inspiration." St. Paul had received 
 the whole Gospel, including the commandments delivered 
 by Jesus Christ, the design of his death and resurrection, 
 and the nature of the Lord's Supper, by revelation : not by 
 a mere " superintending Divine inspiration," but either by 
 suggestion or verbal declaration. If, therefore, in speaking 
 on these subjects, he asserts the authority by which he speaks, 
 he cannot be understood as abandoning, on other occasions, 
 his " claim to a superintending Divine inspiration." 
 22* 
 
258 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 4. But " in repeated distinct passages they absolutely 
 disclaim a Divine inspiration in their writings." 
 
 (1.) "They declare that they have not dominion over 
 the faith of their followers, but are helpers of their joy." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 341.) When the Scriptures are thus quoted 
 for a specific purpose, the occasion gives them a certain 
 colouring, and we are very apt to suppose at the first view, 
 that they are well applied. It often happens, however, 
 that if he that quotes them would attempt to draw out his 
 argument at length, he would himself perceive its fallacy* 
 This is precisely the case in the instance before us. Mr. 
 G, has quoted this passage to prove that the apostles were 
 not inspired with the knowledge of those doctrines which 
 their disciples were called upon to believe : and in the 
 very same page he has cited the words of the same apos- 
 tle to the same Church, in which that apostle asserts that 
 he himself had " delivered" to them that which he had 
 " received" by Divine revelation, which they had "be- 
 lieved" and " by which they were saved," 1 Cor. xv, l-3~ 
 Perhaps the judicious reader will be of opinion that the 
 apostle meant to say, he had no lordly " dominion over 
 their faith" to subvert it. This sense agrees with the con- 
 text, in which St. Paul subjoins by way of argument, " for 
 by faith ye stand." Thus understood, it is precisely 
 what he has said to the Galatians : " Though we, or an 
 angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than 
 that ye have received, let him be accursed," Gal. i, 8* 
 The apostles could "do nothing against the truth, but for 
 the truth :" they had w no authority for the destruction of 
 the Church* but for its edification." 
 
 (2.) " They address themselves to the reason of their 
 disciples, and appeal to their understanding whether they 
 were right." (Vol. ii, p. 342.) And why not ? Why may 
 not he who speaks with Divine authority appeal to the 
 judgment of his hearers? Did notour Lord himself make 
 similar appeals? "Yea, aad why even of yourselves, 
 judge ye not what is right?" Luke xii, 57. And how does 
 this prove that he did not speak by Divine inspiration ? 
 
 (3.) " St Paul says, on, some occasions, 'I speak this 
 by permission, not of commandment ;' — • to the rest speak 
 1, not the Lord ;' — 'I have no commandment of the Lord* 
 yet I give my judgment.' " (Vol. ii, p. 342.) Very true?. 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 259 
 
 and thus he makes a distinction between those things 
 which " were not the deductions of reason, but were im- 
 parted to him by Jesus Christ," and those things which 
 were the deductions of his inspired reason. Hence, 
 while on such occasions he acknowledges that Jesus 
 Christ had himself given no commandment on these 
 points, (which is the true meaning of those expressions,) 
 he claims the superintendency of the Spirit in his advices. 
 First he declares that he gave his judgment as one that 
 had u obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful," 1 Cor. 
 vii, 25 : by which preface he asserts his apostolic autho- 
 rity. Secondly he says, " I speak this by permission," 
 1 Cor. vii, 6 : of which permission he could know nothing 
 but by inspiration. Thirdly, he concludes, " I think also 
 that I have the Spirit of God," 1 Cor. vii, 40 ; and thus 
 claims, at least, a superintendent inspiration. 
 
 (4.) But Luke makes " a positive assertion that he 
 writes his Gospel, of his own individual authority, without 
 any command, or supernatural influence." (Vol. ii, p. 
 342.) Indeed he does not ! Nor does he "disclaim" a 
 supernatural influence. This is one of the grand mis- 
 takes ; that a man can do nothing under " a supernatural 
 influence," for which his own mind has conceived a 
 reason. But why cannot God lead men by their reason, 
 as well as without it] Until this question be answered* 
 " this of itself" is not " sufficient to settle the point in 
 agitation." So far is Luke from conceding the fact of 
 his inspiration, that some critics think he has positively 
 asserted it. " It seemed good to me, (he says,) having 
 had perfect understanding of all things ctvw^sv, from above* 
 to write unto thee," Luke i, 3, This is the sense in 
 which avutev is used in John iii, 3, 7, 31 ; xix, 11 ; James 
 i> 17; iii, 15, 17. 
 
 5. " The reasonings with which the books composing 
 the New Testament abound, evidently show that they 
 were not written under the influence of plenary inspira- 
 tion." (Vol ii, p. 343.) 
 
 Not at all. Does not God himself reason with man- 
 kind, and say, " Come and let us reason together 1" Isa. i, 
 18. Did not Moses reason, when he says, u Do ye thus 
 requite the Lord 1 O foolish people and unwise ! is not 
 he thy Father that hath bought thee ] hath he not mad® 
 
260 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 thee V 9 Deut. xxxii, 6. And yet Mr. G. grants that he had 
 "the highest degree of inspiration." (Vol. ii, p. 319.) 
 Did not Jesus Christ reason, and reason from a prece- 
 ding Divine revelation, when he said, " Have ye not read 
 that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am 
 the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God 
 of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the 
 living?" Matt, xxii, 31, 32. And was not he inspired? 
 Did not St. Paul " reason of righteousness, temperance, 
 and judgment to come," before Felix ? Acts xxiv, 25. 
 And did not our Lord say, " When they deliver you up, 
 it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which 
 speaketh in you ?" Matt, xvii, 20. Where then is the in- 
 consistency between reasoning and Divine inspiration ? 
 
 This is a point of great importance. The Socinians 
 uniformly assume, that there can be no Divine inspiration, 
 but where Divine truths are imparted without the deduc- 
 tions of reason in the mind of the recipient. Nothing 
 can be more foreign from truth. Our Lord promised the 
 inspiration of the Spirit to the apostles, when they should 
 44 be brought before governors and kings for his sake :" 
 and this inspiration was such that he thought proper to 
 say, it should not be they that spoke, but the Spirit of 
 their Father. And yet, there is no occasion on which 
 the apostles reason on the revelations which they had 
 previously received, more than in their apologies. (See 
 all the apologies of Peter and Paul in the book of Acts.) 
 
 So true it is, that the apostles were inspired when they 
 reasoned on the truths which had been previously sug- 
 gested to them. 
 
 6. "They often speak with such uncertainty as to 
 render it incredible, that the sentiment was at the time 
 dictated by the Spirit of God." (Vol. ii, p. 345.) 
 
 (1.) We do not argue that every sentiment which the 
 apostles wrote, for any purpose whatever, was dictated by 
 the Spirit of God, any more than that God dictated to 
 David that, " There is no God." 
 
 (2.) Much less do we suppose that every thing was 
 dictated concerning which they wrote. Mr. G. has in- 
 stanced in such passages as the following : " I know not 
 whether I baptized any other." " I will come to you 
 shortly, if the Lord will." Now what is it that the apos- 
 
SACRED WRITINGS, 261 
 
 tie directly affirms in such cases, but that he was uncer- 
 tain? He knew that he did not know. And what he 
 wrote, he wrote with truth. Who supposes that the 
 apostles knew every thing by inspiration ? Who contends, 
 that when they were confessedly inspired, they were at 
 that time omniscient? It was enough that they knew that 
 which it was necessary for them to write. Their ignorance 
 was their own, and not God's ; but it does not hinder that 
 they were under a Divine influence. It cannot be neces- 
 sary for a man to tell a lie, in proof that he is inspired. 
 The apostles were inspired by the Holy Ghost : but 
 44 they had this treasure in earthen vessels." 
 
 7. 44 The writers of the New Testament often make 
 quotations from the Old Testament in a very incorrect 
 manner. 13 it not a grievous reflection upon the moral 
 character of the Deity to represent him as dictating a 
 quotation from a prophet to different writers, and yet 
 inspiring them to give that quotation inaccurately and 
 variously?" (Vol. ii, p. 351.) 
 
 (1.) It is not necessary to inspiration that words 
 should be dictated. 
 
 (2.) It is not necessary, even if God should dictate 
 the words of a quotation, that the words should be, with- 
 out any variation, the precise words of the original author* 
 It is the sense that is to be quoted : and if the sense 
 be fairly quoted, the words may be more or less varied* 
 according to the particular purpose for which the sense is 
 quoted. 
 
 (3.) In addition to this, some allowance is to be made 
 for a translation. If it were necessary that quotations 
 from the original should be always verbally the same ; it 
 is not equally necessary that one person should always 
 translate the same words in the same manner. Now the 
 fact is, that the passages in question are not properly quo- 
 tations, but translations. And why should such a bar- 
 renness of language be attributed to the Spirit of God as 
 would render it necessary always to use the same words 
 on similar occasions ? Had all the apostles translated the 
 same passage in the same manner, it would have been 
 deemed a stiff, unnecessary monotony, unworthy of the 
 Spirit by which they wrote. 
 
 (4.) Many of the mistakes which Mr, G. has enume* 
 
262 DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE 
 
 rated, (vol. ii, p. 252,) are not necessarily imputed to the 
 original writers, but to subsequent copyists. Some of 
 them have been rectified from different manuscripts ; 
 and all of them, as he grants, are "unimportant." (Vol. 
 ii, p. 353.) 
 
 8. " In the last place : in the writings of the evangel- 
 ists there are inconsistencies and occasional contradic- 
 tions, which, in my estimation, render it utterly impossi- 
 ble that they should have written under the influence of 
 a Divine inspiration." (Vol. ii, p. 358.) 
 
 (1.) The first case of inconsistency and contradiction 
 is the account which the evangelists give of the speech of 
 Jairus, to our Lord, concerning his daughter. 
 
 Matthew makes Jairus say, " My daughter apn 'srs\ev~ 
 T7}<fsv y is now at her end." The evangelist could not 
 mean by this expression to say that she was positively 
 dead ; because he subjoins, Come and lay thy hand upon 
 her, and (not she shall be raised again,) but ^tfsrai, she 
 shall (not die, but) live," Matt, ix, 18. Luke makes Ja- 
 irus say, " AflrsdvijG'xsiv, she lay dying :" i. e. when the fa- 
 ther left her. Here, then, is neither inconsistency nor 
 contradiction, unless it be forced upon them. Again : 
 Luke says, " rig, a certain person came and told him she 
 was dead." Mark says, " Some came and told him she 
 was dead." Now here is neither inconsistency nor con- 
 tradiction, unless Luke had said " only one" came. But 
 it is not only possible, but perfectly natural, to suppose 
 that one came before the rest, and that Luke satisfies 
 himself with mentioning the first, and Mark mentions 
 them all. 
 
 (2.) The second case of inconsistency and contradic- 
 tion is that of blind Bartimeus. 
 
 Matthew states that as Jesus departed from Jericho he 
 healed two blind men, Matt, xx, 29. Luke states that 
 this miracle took place, sv <rw eyyi%eiv y which Doctor Dod- 
 dridge renders, " while he was yet near to Jericho." For 
 this the doctor assigns several reasons, especially the 
 LXX. on Isa. 1, 8, and Jer. xxiii, 23, where they use the 
 same phrase. If this be just, here is neither inconsistency 
 nor contradiction. 
 
 But " Mark and Luke (Mr. G. says) state there to 
 have been only one blind man, while Matthew says two," 
 
SACRED WRITINGS. 263 
 
 Vol. ii, p. 360.) The reader will perhaps turn to the 
 evangelists ; but he will not find that either Mark or Luke 
 says there was " only one." They mention one, but this 
 13 not inconsistent with there being more than one, or any 
 direct contradiction of what Matthew says. Bartimeus 
 might be best known, and his case most striking, and there- 
 fore two of the evangelists, passing over the other, might 
 mention him only. 
 
 (3.) The third instance of inconsistency and contradic- 
 tion is in the case of the two thieves who were crucified 
 with our Lord. Here, again, to support his argument, 
 Mr. G. makes Luke say, " positively, that only one of 
 them reviled him." (Vol. ii, p. 360.) With what degree 
 of truth, the reader will easily know. The fact appears to 
 be, that at first both the thieves reviled him. One of them 
 afterward repented, while the other continued his con- 
 tumely. The penitent thief then rebuked his wicked com- 
 panion. Now Matthew relates particularly the obloquy 
 which was cast upon the Saviour by all around him, and 
 therefore mentions their both reviling him. Luke is rela- 
 ting the conversion of one of the thieves, and the imme- 
 diate fruit of it, (which Matthew omits,) and therefore 
 dwells upon that part of the awful scene which was sub- 
 sequent to the conversion of the penitent. The one omits 
 what the other relates ; but inconsistency or contradiction 
 has no existence between them. 
 
 (4.) The last case of inconsistency and contradiction 
 relates to the inscription which was fixed over the head 
 of Jesus Christ, at his crucifixion. It would be tiresome 
 to the reader to go over a string of remarks similar to 
 those already made. The truth is, the evangelists differ 
 from each other ; but without any inconsistency or con- 
 tradiction : and there is no difference between the evan- 
 gelists which is more easily accounted for. The inscrip- 
 tion was written in three languages ; and undoubtedly ac- 
 cording to the genius of each of them. Suppose that in 
 Hebrew it was written, " The King of the Jews." This 
 agrees with the account which Mark has given. If this 
 Hebrew inscription, as the first of the three, was trans- 
 Jated by Luke, according to the genius of the Greek, he 
 would render it, " This is the King of the Jews." Sup. 
 pose then Matthew to have given the proper Greek in- 
 
264 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 scription, and John the Latin translated into Greek, all 
 their different statements are accounted for. But Mr. G., 
 to serve his purpose, takes into his head, first, that the 
 three inscriptions agreed verbally with each other ; and, se- 
 condly, that each evangelist " professes to give the actual 
 inscription :" and having proved a variation from each 
 other, he shrewdly denominates it inconsistency and con- 
 tradiction. 
 
 In concluding this subject one thing must again be re- 
 peated. Mr. G. takes for granted that there is no inspi- 
 ration but that of immediate suggestion : and against this 
 he points all his artillery. But in facts, of which the sacred 
 writers were witnesses, immediate suggestion was not 
 necessary, even to the exactness of the history. The evan- 
 gelists related what they saw and heard : and it was 
 enough that the Spirit of truth should bring things to their 
 remembrance, and give them to understand them, that the 
 promise of Jesus being fulfilled in them, they, according 
 to his design, might bear witness concerning him. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Of the Fallen State of Mankind. 
 
 The present inquiry relates to the condition of human 
 nature independent of Jesus Christ, and of the blessings 
 of that gracious covenant of which he is the Mediator. — 
 According to the doctrine of Scripture, many blessings 
 are bestowed on mankind which are not hereditary, but 
 which are the gift of redeeming grace : and many good 
 effects are thereby produced, which are not natural, but 
 supernatural, and which are to be attributed to him by whom 
 we are created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works. 
 As the present design is to delineate the true state of man- 
 kind, in order to ascertain their want of a Saviour, and of 
 every branch of the Christian salvation, " the gift of God 
 by Jesus Christ" must be either left entirely out of the 
 question, or introduced as collateral evidence, on the prin- 
 ciple on which we prove the sickness of a patient from the 
 character of his physician. 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND* 265 
 
 The subject divides itself into two parts, of which the 
 first relates to that moral depravity which is transmitted to 
 us from our first parents ; the second relates to our being 
 legally involved in the consequences of their sin. 
 
 First. Of that moral depravity which is transmitted to us 
 from our first parents. 
 
 It is generally granted by those who are not determined 
 to controvert the most obvious facts that, with the excep- 
 tion of those who are renewed in the spirit of their mind, 
 mankind have been, and still are, desperately wicked. — 
 This melancholy fact even the heathens have seen, ac- 
 knowledged, and lamented. Their iron age is a striking 
 picture of the consummate wickedness of mankind. So- 
 crates confessed that he was prone to the grossest vices. 
 Seneca laments that "all vices are in all men." Proper- 
 tius, that " every body has a vice to which he is inclined 
 by nature." And Horace, that " mankind rush into 
 wickedness, and always desire what is forbidden ;" that 
 " we are foolish enough to attack heaven itself;" and 
 that " our repeated crimes do not suffer the God of hea- 
 ven to lay by his wrathful thunderbolts." 
 
 The universal wickedness of mankind, is, however, a 
 truth, for the confirmation of which we cannot entirely 
 depend on their own opinion or testimony. Their 
 confessions may easily be attributed to a voluntary or 
 mistaken humility : and their evidence against each other 
 to malice and envy. Even the knowledge of ourselves 
 may possibly be an improper standard of the human cha- 
 racter : and our experience may be too limited to become 
 the foundation of a sentence on a whole species. But 
 we can place unlimited confidence in the testimony of the 
 Most High : to whose decision we the rather appeal, 
 because " that which is highly esteemed among men is, 
 (often) in his sight, an abomination." Men are apt to 
 •« judge according to outward appearances ;" whereas God 
 " trieth the hearts," and "judgeth righteous judgment." 
 Mankind are frequently tempted by self love to flatter 
 each other, and to extenuate each other's crimes; but 
 44 the judgments of God are true and righteous alto- 
 gether." There is no counsel against the Lord, nor 
 any appeal from his decision. " Let God be true, and 
 every man a liar ; a* it is written, That thou mightest 
 23 
 
266 TtiE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 be justified in thy sayings, and overcome when thou ar! 
 judged." 
 
 According to the unerring testimony of Divine truth, 
 the first man born of woman was " of the wicked one, 
 and slew his brother, because his own works were evil, 
 and his brother's righteous," 1 John hi, 12. Religion 
 was set up in the family of Seth, who u began to call upon 
 the name of the Lord," Gen. iv, 26. But " when men 
 began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters 
 were born unto them, the sons of God saw the daughters 
 of men that they were fair ; and they took them wives of 
 all which they chose. And the Lord said, My Spirit shall 
 not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : yet 
 his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. There 
 were giants in the earth in those days ; and also after 
 that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters 
 of men, and bare children unto them, the same became 
 mighty men, which (rather than good men) were of old, 
 men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of 
 man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of 
 the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And 
 it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, 
 and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will 
 destroy man whom I have created — for it repenteth me 
 that I have made them." " The earth also was corrupt 
 before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And 
 God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt : 
 for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And 
 God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before 
 me : for the earth is filled with violence through them : 
 and behold, I will destroy them with the earth," Gen. 
 vi, 1-13. 
 
 After God had purged the earth by a flood, and had 
 entered anew into covenant with Noah and his family, 
 the truths of religion were soon erased from the minds of 
 mankind, and its institutions were soon neglected. To 
 renew its obliterated traces, and to prepare the world for 
 the coming of the seed of the woman, Abram, a " Syrian 
 ready to perish," was called from the house of idolatry to 
 become a witness of Jehovah. And what was the 
 character of his progeny ! Alas ! their unbelief, obduracy, 
 disobedience, murmurings, rebellions, and idolatries, are 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 267 
 
 known from their whole history. It was not without rea- 
 son that God bore witness against them by his prophet : 
 " Hear, heavens, and give ear, earth ; for the Lord 
 hath spoken : I have nourished and brought up children, 
 and they have rebelled against me. The ox knoweth his 
 owner, and the ass his master's crib : but Israel doth not 
 know, my people doth not consider. Ah, sinful nation, a 
 people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers, children 
 that are corrupters ! they have forsaken the Lord, they 
 have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they 
 are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken 
 any more 1 ye will revolt more and more. The whole 
 head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole 
 of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in 
 it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores." It is 
 true they were very religious ; but their religion was only 
 the garb of hypocrisy, and the cloak of wickedness. 
 " To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices 
 unto me ? saith the Lord : I am full of the burnt offerings 
 of rams, and the fat of fed beasts ; and I delight not in 
 the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When 
 ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at 
 your hands to tread my courts? Your hands are full of 
 blood,'' Isa. i, 2-15. 
 
 Nor did the calamities of a long captivity produce 
 among them any lasting reformation. They were still " a 
 disobedient and gainsaying people." Purged from gross 
 idolatries, their religion was still formal, and their heart 
 worldly. When the harbinger of the Messiah announced 
 the coming of their Deliverer, so long as they were left 
 satisfied with themselves, and were permitted to indulge 
 in their worldly expectations, they rejoiced in his testi- 
 mony. But when the doctrine of the Son of God 
 unmasked their hypocrisy, and the humility of his appear- 
 ance cut off their secular prospects, they soon neglected 
 him, forsook him, derided him, contradicted him, blas- 
 phemed him, laid snares for him, meditated his destruction, 
 conspired against him, seized him, arraigned him, accused 
 him, condemned him, and procured his crucifixion ; and 
 still proceeded to * fc rill up the measure of their iniquity, 
 till wrath came upon them to the uttermost." 
 
 In the meantime, what was the moral state of the rest 
 
268 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 of mankind ? The " Gentiles were walking in the vanif j 
 of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being 
 alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that 
 was in them, because of the blindness of their hearts, who 
 being past feeling, had given themselves over unto lascivi- 
 ousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness," Eph. iv r 
 17-19. " 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. Pro- 
 fessing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and 
 changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image 
 made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed 
 beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave 
 them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own 
 hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves : 
 w T ho changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped 
 and served the creature more than the Creator, who is 
 blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them 
 up unto vile affections ; for even their women did change 
 the' natural use into that which is against nature : (Pasi- 
 phaen nivei solatur amove juvenci :) and likewise also the 
 men, leaving the natural use of the woman ; men with 
 men working that which is unseemly, (Formosum pastor 
 Corydon ardebat Alexin,) and receiving in themselves 
 that recompense of their error which was meet. Being 
 filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, 
 covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, 
 deceit, malignity ; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, 
 despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, dis- 
 obedient to parents ; without understanding, covenant 
 breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmer- 
 ciful : who knowing the judgment of God, that they which 
 commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the 
 same, but have pleasure in them that do them," Rom. i» 
 21-32. 
 
 Such was the state of the Gentiles. " What then ? 
 Are we better than they? No, in no wise, says St. Paul* 
 for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that 
 they are all under sin." This the apostle proves by 
 summing up the suffrages of his inspired brethren, in 
 which are asserted, 1. The universality of human wicked- 
 ness : " There is none righteous, no, not one : there is 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 269 
 
 none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after 
 God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together 
 become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, 
 not one." 2. The eruptions of this wickedness in every 
 possible way. " Their throat is an open sepulchre ; 
 with their tongues they have used deceit ; the poison of 
 asps is under their lips ; whose mouth is full of cursing 
 and bitterness : their feet are swift to shed blood, destruc- 
 tion and misery are in their ways ; the way of peace they 
 have not known ; there is no fear of God before their 
 eyes," Rom. iii, 9-16. 
 
 Thus " have the Scriptures concluded all under sin ;" 
 for " all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," 
 insomuch that, " If we say that we have not sinned, we 
 make God a liar, and his word is not in us." This is the 
 melancholy fact. But how is this fact to be accounted 
 for? According to the Scriptural account of the origin of 
 man, he was at first created in the image of God. How 
 is it then that mankind resemble evil demons more than 
 the holy God ? 
 
 To set aside the Scriptural method of solving this prob- 
 lem, the universal and glaring wickedness of mankind has 
 been attributed to every cause that could be invented. 
 
 1. It is said, that " sin is the abuse of free agency ; and 
 that every man is a sinner merely by his own unbiassed 
 choice." 
 
 That all actual sin is the abuse of free agency, may be 
 true. But the abuse of free agency, though it may appear 
 sufficiently to account for any one sin, or for the sinful- 
 ness of one half of mankind, can never account for uni- 
 versal wickedness. Again : " If men were never drawn 
 into sin any other way than as Adam was, namely, by 
 temptations offered from without, the case would be some- 
 what different. But there are numberless instances of men 
 sinning, though no temptation is offered from without. It 
 is necessary therefore some other account should be given 
 of their sinning than of Adam's." (Wesley on Original 
 Sin, p. 188.) In fact, this is only giving back the same 
 question in another form. " What is the reason that all 
 men have abused their free agency ?*' 
 
 2. It is said that " mankind have contracted evil habits, 
 which render wickedness natural to them." 
 
 23* 
 
270 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 That evil habits have added very much to some other 
 cause, and have increased the difficulty of our cure, is 
 readily granted. It is not easy for those " to do good, 
 that are accustomed to do evil," Jer. xiii, 23. But evil 
 habits are the effect as well as the cause of evil practices. 
 The evil practices which induce evil habits, are therefore 
 still to be accounted for. 
 
 3. It is said that "the prevalence of bad example is the 
 true cause of universal sinfulness." 
 
 To this it is answered: (1.) Thatthe first sinner can 
 have had no bad example before him. Cain, for instance, 
 had no example of persecution and murder, by which he 
 was led astray. Wickedness therefore existed before bad 
 example. (2.) There must have been a general preva- 
 lence of bad conduct, before bad examples could prevail. 
 (3.) There have been good examples set before mankind, 
 as well as bad ones. If example, therefore, be the only 
 thing which governs the conduct of mankind, especially 
 as it is so much more reasonable to copy a good than a 
 bad example, the good and the bad must have divided the 
 world pretty equally between them. We have still to in- 
 quire, therefore, what is the source of bad examples, and 
 what is the reason that mankind so readily follow them. 
 
 4. It is said that " a defective education is the cause of 
 universal wickedness." 
 
 Education is undoubtedly ©spatfsia Yvx*l$, the medicine 
 of a diseased soul. " Ye shall know the truth," said our 
 Lord, " and the truth shall make you free," John viii, 32. 
 The want of it may therefore be one important cause of 
 the continuance of the malady : but it cannot be the original 
 cause of its existence. The want of medicine may leave 
 men the unresisting prey of disease ; but we are not wont 
 to attribute the existence of a disease to the want of me- 
 dicine. Where there is no disease, there is no need of 
 medicine; for "they that are whole have no need of a 
 physician." The cause of the spiritual sickness of man- 
 kind is, therefore, yet to be sought. And beside this : 
 Why have mankind neglected the education of their off- 
 spring? And why do the souls of men resist the healing 
 influence of education ? Still we are at a loss ! 
 
 5. " But if one of these do not account for the universal 
 wickedness of mankind, may not the concurrence of them 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 271 
 
 all produce this phenomenon? Suppose the first sin to 
 have been occasioned by a mere abuse of free agency. 
 This first sin may have corrupted the heart of the indi- 
 vidual, and so opened a flood gate of iniquity. From this 
 source many sins have sprung forth. Sinful practices 
 have grown into sinful habits ; and sinful habits have been 
 fruitful of farther sinful practices. The sinful habits and 
 practices of the individual have prevented the religious 
 education of his offspring, and have been the cause of bad 
 example, which, not being counteracted by proper instruc- 
 tion, has been productive of universal sinfulness." 
 
 This is putting the case in its strongest light. But let 
 us examine it. (1.) This hypothesis embraces all the 
 consequences which will follow from the common one, 
 and therefore makes but little difference in the result. — 
 (2.) It deserves all the praise of human invention ; for it 
 cannot be proved from revelation. The inventor of it was, 
 therefore, undoubtedly a man of genius. (3.) There is, 
 however, a lameness in it which does not belong to truth. 
 It accounts tolerably well for the defection of an individual ; 
 but not at all for that of all his offspring. It supposes his 
 offspring to be naturally upright, and yet supposes them 
 to fall without an adequate cause. It supposes them to 
 want medicine (education) before they are diseased, and 
 to be so disordered as universally to follow a bad example, 
 while yet it supposes them to be in perfect health. 
 
 This subject may possibly be better understood when 
 viewed in the light of an apt illustration. Suppose then 
 that God made man with a taste for wholesome food, and 
 a dislike to poison. Now the phenomenon to be account- 
 ed for is, that all the human race have preferred deadly 
 poison to wholesome food. To solve this problem, you 
 say that the first man perversely ate of the poison, and 
 thereby vitiated his taste. From thenceforth he ate poison 
 only, and rejected food. His offspring, though born, as 
 their parent was created, with an appetite for food, and an 
 antipathy to poison, witnessing continually the example of 
 their father, and not being properly informed how the 
 poison may be expelled by antidotes, or how a vitiated 
 taste may be rectified,* copied the bad example which they 
 
 * In allusion to that kind of instruction of which mankind stand 
 in need, and which God has given us by revelation, which is "the 
 Gospel of our salvation." 
 
272 THE FALLEN STATE OP MANKIND. 
 
 witnessed, vitiated their taste, and, from that time, sever- 
 ally rejected their proper nourishment and ate only poison. 
 You think you have perfectly accounted for the phenome- 
 non. But review the whole affair, and you will perceive 
 that you have left the grand difficulty as you found it ; viz. 
 How a whole race of beings were led to act contrary to 
 the law of their nature, to overcome the bias of an unviti- 
 ated taste, to resist their appetite for food, and their anti- 
 pathy to poison? How is it that not one of them has 
 preserved his taste unvitiated, and overcome the influence 
 of a bad example, to which their very constitution was 
 repugnant ? 
 
 The Scriptural method is the only one in which we can 
 account for this melancholy fact, the universal wickedness 
 of mankind. 
 
 1. According to the sacred writers, the external wick- 
 edness of human conduct flows from an internal depravity 
 of heart. They inform us, that " the heart is deceitful 
 above all things, and desperately wicked," Jer. xvii, 9 : 
 that " every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only 
 evil continually," Gen. vi, 5 : that " the heart of the sons 
 of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while 
 they live," Eccles. ix, 3 : that " out of the heart proceed 
 evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false 
 witness, blasphemies," Matt, xv, 19 : that as u a good tree 
 bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, — an evil man, out of the 
 evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth that which is evil :" 
 that M of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh," 
 Luke vi, 43, 45 : and that it is " an evil heart of unbelief," 
 which causes them to " depart from the living God," Heb. 
 iii, 12. 
 
 Thus far Mr. G. goes with us hand in hand. At least, 
 till he vindicate himself against the charge, we may ven- 
 ture to accuse him of consistency. " The word devil," he 
 says, " seems in general acceptation to signify nothing 
 more than that propensity to ill observable in the human 
 mind." (Vol. i, p. 76.) Mr. G. will undoubtedly abide 
 by this observation, that there is " in the human mind" a 
 " propensity to ill." 
 
 2. This depravity of heart, however it may be in- 
 creased by our voluntary indulgence of it, is traced back 
 to our infancy : " The imagination of man's heart is evil 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 273 
 
 from his youth," Gen. viii, 21. " The word we render 
 youth, includes childhood and infancy, the earliest age of 
 man ; the whole time from his birth." " Foolishness is 
 bound in the heart of a child," Prov. xxii r 15. " The 
 wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as 
 soon as they be born, speaking lies," Psalm lviii, 3. 
 
 3. It is therefore imputed to our birth, as a hereditary 
 disorder : " Man, that is born of a woman, is of a few 
 days, and full of trouble. Who can bring a clean thing 
 out of an unclean? Not one," Job xiv, 1, 4. "What i& 
 man, that he should be clean ] and (he that is) born of 
 a woman, that he should be righteous 1" Job xv, 14. — - 
 " Man is born like a wild ass's colt," Job xi r 12. " How 
 keenly is the comparison pointed ! Like the ass, an ani- 
 mal stupid even to a proverb : like the ass's colt, which 
 must be still more egregiously stupid than its dam : like 
 the wild ass's colt, which is not only blockish^ but stub- 
 born and refractory ; neither has valuable qualities by 
 nature, nor will easily receive them by discipline. The 
 image in the original is yet more strongly touched. The 
 particle like is not in the Hebrew. Born a wild ass's 
 colt ; or, as we should say in English, a mere wild ass's 
 colt." (Theron and Jlspasio, dial. 13.) " Behold, I was 
 shapen in iniquity : and in sin did my mother conceive 
 me," Psalm li, 5. 
 
 Hence our Lord, insisting on the necessity of a new 
 birth, says, " That which is, born of the flesh is flesh ; and 
 that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," John iii, 6. — 
 The plain meaning of which M ords is, that every one born 
 of a woman needs to be born again, and to be born of 
 the Spirit, before he can enter the kingdom of heaven ; 
 and that his being born of the flesh is what renders it ne- 
 cessary that he should be born of the Spirit. It is com- 
 monly objected to this interpretation, that by flesh our 
 Lord means " infirm humanity." He himself, however, 
 was a partaker of the infirmities of human nature. In 
 that sense he was born of the flesh, and was flesh. But 
 did he need to be born again of the Spirit 1 If the passage 
 be compared with other parts of Scripture, it will be found 
 to mean, that which is born of sinful human nature, is sin- 
 ful human nature, and needs to be born of the Holy Spirit, 
 that it may be holy, "If to walk after the flesh, as op* 
 
274 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 posed to walking after the Spirit, is to follow our sinful 
 inclinations : if to be in the flesh, opposed to being in the 
 Spirit, is to be in a state of sin ; if the flesh and the Spirit 
 are two contrary principles, which counteract each other : 
 if the works of the flesh, and the lusts of the flesh, are 
 opposed to the Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit : then to 
 be born of the flesh (in opposition to being born of the 
 Spirit,) must signify something more than being born of a 
 woman,' 5 (Wesley on Original Sin, p. 371,) and to be 
 flesh, (or carnal,) in opposition to being spirit, (or spi- 
 ritual,) must mean something more than to partake of in- 
 firm humanity. 
 
 The doctrine of hereditary depravity is thus established 
 by our being taught to trace it to our birth and concep- 
 tion. In this way we are directed to a long, unbroken 
 chain, the last link of which is one's self, and the first of 
 which is Adam. Of him we are informed, as if to in- 
 struct us particularly in this subject, that " Adam lived a 
 hundred and thirty years, and begat a son, in his own 
 likeness, after his image," Gen. v, 3. " The image of 
 Adam, in which he begat a son after his fall, stands op- 
 posed to the image of God, in which man was at first cre- 
 ated. Moses had said, verse 1, In the day that God 
 created man, in the likeness of God made he him. But 
 speaking of Adam, as he was long after the fall, he does 
 not say, he begat a son in the likeness of God : but he 
 begat a son in his own likeness, after his image. Now 
 this must refer to Adam, either as a man ; or as a good 
 man : or as a mortal, sinful man. But it could not refer 
 to him merely as a man. The inspired writer could not 
 design to inform us that Adam begat a man, not a lion or 
 a horse. It could not well refer to him as a good man. 
 For it is not said, Adam begat a son, who at length be- 
 came pious like himself; but he begat a son in his own 
 likeness. It refers to him, therefore, as a mortal, sinful 
 man ; giving us to know that the mortality and corruption, 
 contracted by the fall, descended from Adam to his son ; 
 Adam, a sinner, begat a sinner like himself. And if Seth 
 was thus a sinner by nature, so is every other descendant 
 of Adam." (Wesley on Original Sin, p. 395.) This sub- 
 ject will require farther elucidation. 
 
 *' God created man in his own image," Gen. i, 27. He 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 275 
 
 made him in his natural image : in the image of his intel- 
 lectual and self-determined nature. As an intelligent be- 
 ing he made him capable not only of sensitive, but of ab- 
 stract knowledge. He formed him capable of knowing 
 not only visible but invisible things : of knowing not only 
 the properties of matter, but also of mind : of being led 
 from effects to their causes, and of being taught to per- 
 ceive their relations to each other, and the consequences 
 of those relations. He made him capable of being direct- 
 ed from the knowledge of himself, a visible effect, a crea- 
 ture, to his invisible cause, his Creator ; and, from the 
 sensible blessings which he enjoyed, to the bountiful do- 
 nor. He made him capable of being taught his derivation 
 from God, and his dependence on him : of learning and 
 entering into the wise design of his Creator, so as to 
 comprehend the purpose of his own existence. He gave 
 him a capacity to understand the will of his Maker, and 
 to perceive his obligation to do it. His understanding 
 was therefore capable of exercising that sort of judgment 
 which we call conscience : it could be taught to dictate 
 what was right, and to accuse or to excuse him. As God 
 is " a God of knowledge, by whom actions are weighed," 
 he made man like himself, capable of weighing his own 
 actions. As God made man after the image of his own 
 infinite understanding, he made him capable of self deter- 
 mination. The Most High " doeth according to his will," 
 Dan. iv, 35. So man was made not a machine, but a 
 being whose actions are his own, and spring from his 
 choice. Such was the natural image of God in man. But 
 this natural image was only the basis of his moral image. 
 And this moral image was knowledge and holiness. (1.) 
 It was knowledge. God endowed him with an adequate 
 measure of that knowledge of which he made him natural- 
 ly capable. As God had made him capable of corporeal 
 sight, and gave him light to make all things visible, that 
 he might see ; so God, who made him capable of know- 
 ledge, of spiritual and Divine knowledge, was himself a 
 light unto him : and as the sun renders himself visible by 
 hi3 own light, and sheds his light on the visible creation, 
 so in God's light did man see light. (2.) He made him 
 in the image of his holiness. This knowledge gave the 
 bias to his will. His choice was therefore wise, and right, 
 
276 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 and good. His heart was fixed on God as his portion. 
 He loved God supremely, and with an undivided heart.— 
 He chose the will of God as the rule of his actions ; and 
 the glory and pleasure of God, as the end of them. Thus, 
 as God is " most upright," he " made man upright." He 
 created him according to God, and planted in him the 
 principles which led him to imitate God in righteousness 
 and true holiness. 
 
 Over such a being it was reasonable and proper that 
 God should assume the character, not only of a gracious 
 benefactor, but of a righteous governor. When man knew 
 his Maker's pleasure, could discern between good and 
 evil, was free to choose the one or the other, he was ca- 
 pable of moral rectitude or obliquity, and was therefore a 
 proper subject of moral government. Able as he was 
 to appreciate the blessings which he enjoyed, and to per- 
 ceive the hand which bestowed them, it was fit that the 
 continuance of those blessings should only accompany 
 his voluntary dependence on the donor, and his grateful 
 acknowledgment of the gifts. Whatever favours might, in 
 the beginning, be bestowed on him gratuitously, must not 
 he continued to him capriciously, but on the principle of a 
 benign and holy justice, and, in some sort, according to his 
 fitness to receive them, and his fidelity in the use of them. 
 The test to which it pleased God to put the obedience 
 of xidam was such as suited his constitution. The pro- 
 hibition of the fruit of a certain tree, which was in appear- 
 ance " good for food, and pleasant to the eyes, and a tree 
 to be desired," was a trial whether man would live ac- 
 cording to the Spirit or after the flesh : whether he 
 would continue to make choice of God as his portion, or 
 turn from him to a creature. The act whereby our 
 parents fell, was therefore a rejection of the knowledge 
 and enjoyment of God, a defection from their dependence 
 on him, and their allegiance to him, and a consignment of 
 themselves to the government of the flesh. The conse- 
 quence was, that the appetites of the body became dis- 
 ordered and irregular : their disordered appetites inflamed 
 their mental passions, and their passions inflamed their 
 reason. As God was rejected, his inspiration was with- 
 drawn ; and as the devil w T as victorious, he took posses- 
 sion of the territories which he had subdued. 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OP MANKIND. 277 
 
 That this was the moral slate to which Adam was 
 reduced by his fall ; and that the state of mankind till they 
 are restored by Jesus Christ, is precisely the same, will 
 clearly appear from a candid examination of the Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 1. Before his transgression, Adam had knowledge, and 
 had it from his creation. He was " created in knowledge." 
 When he had sinned against God, and had thereby re- 
 jected and departed from the source of spiritual and Di- 
 vine light, his mind was darkened, and ignorance took the 
 place of his preceding knowledge. Of the gross igno- 
 rance of God into which he was now fallen, we have a 
 most palpable proof, in his attempt to "hide himself" 
 from the Divine omnipresence and omniscience " among 
 the trees of the garden," Gen. iii, 8. Is then the natural 
 state of all mankind similar to that of Adam before, or after 
 his fall 1 This question is easily answered from those 
 parts of Scripture, which declare " there is none that 
 understandeth — God," Rom. iii, 11 ; that " the world by 
 wisdom knew not God," 1 Cor. i, 21; that "the Gen- 
 tiles knew not God," 1 Thess. iv, 5 ; that they " have 
 their understanding darkened, being alienated from the 
 life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, be- 
 cause of the blindness of their hearts," Eph. iv, 18; and 
 that to " be renewed in knowledge after the image of him 
 that created them," it is necessary that they should " put 
 off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new, where 
 Christ is all in all," Col. iii, 9, 10. 
 
 2. Before his fall Adam had no irregular or inordinate 
 appetite. For instance : With the exception only of the 
 forbidden fruit, God gave him leave to enjoy without 
 restraint the creatures which he had given to him. " Of 
 every tree of the garden, said the Lord God, thou mayest 
 freely eat," Gen. ii, 16. But from the time of their fall, 
 the fruits of paradise were refused to their now irregular 
 appetite, which was to be checked by the use of more 
 homely food, and the tax of labour and sweat.* Does 
 the present state of mankind more resemble the state of 
 innocent, or of fallen Adam? Is it now safe for human 
 beings to be given up to unrestrained appetite, even in 
 things lawful ? No : " The flesh now lusteth against the 
 
 * Similar observations might be made on their other appetites. 
 24 
 
278 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 Spirit," Gal. v, 17. " If, therefore, we live after the flesh 
 we shall die." It is now become necessary to "mortify 
 the deeds of the body that we may live," Rom. viii, 13. 
 " They that are in the flesh cannot now please God. 
 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of 
 the flesh ; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of 
 the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death ; but to 
 be spiritually minded is life and peace : because the carnal 
 mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the 
 law of God, neither indeed can be," Rom. viii, 5-8. 
 The " fleshly lusts now war against the soul," 1 Pet. 
 ili 11. That any man may be spiritual, he must be bom 
 again of the Spirit. " That which is born of the flesh is 
 flesh ; but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," John 
 iii, 6. Before a child of Adam can be renewed in the 
 spirit of his mind, he has to " put off the old man which 
 is corrupt, according to the deceitful lusts ; and to put on 
 the new man, which after God is created in righteousness 
 and true holiness," Eph. iv, 22-24. 
 
 The power which the now irregular appetites of 
 human nature have to overbear our enfeebled and dar- 
 kened reason, is never more conspicuous than in the 
 awakened sinner who, like Medea, says, Video meliora 
 proboque ; deteriora seqiwr. Such is the awakened Jew 
 described by the Apostle Paul, whose language is, * We 
 know that the law is spiritual ; but I am carnal, sold 
 under sin. For that which I do I allow not : for what 
 I would, that do I not ; but what I hate, that do I. Now 
 then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 
 For I know, that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no 
 good thing ; for to will is present with me, but how to 
 perform that which is good I find not. For the good 
 that I would, I do not ; but the evil which I would not, 
 that I do, I find then a law, that when I would do good, 
 evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God 
 after the inward man. But I see another law in my mem- 
 bers* warring against the law of my mind, and bringing 
 me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my mem- 
 bers," Rom. vii, 14-23. 
 
 Mr. G. has given us a very luminous view of this sub- 
 ject. " Let us for one moment reflect what man is. 
 He is a being composed of body and mind. His mind 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 279 
 
 consists of intellect and will. The former comprehends 
 reason and judgment, the latter containing passions and 
 affections of various kinds. The body is perpetually 
 exciting those passions of the mind which are incon- 
 sistent with reason, and contrary to judgment, and 
 therefore denominated sinful." (Yol. ii, p. 241.) This 
 44 bondage of corruption," is broken only by the power of 
 Jesus Christ. " There is therefore no condemnation to 
 them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh 
 but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in 
 Christ Jesus makes us free from the law of sin and 
 death," Rom. viii, 1, 2. They, therefore, and only " they 
 that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections 
 and Justs," Gal. v, 24. " Ye are not in the flesh, but in 
 the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. 
 Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none 
 of his," Rom. viii, 9. 
 
 3. When Adam had thus preferred a creature to his 
 Creator, and embraced the gratification of an animal pas- 
 sion in preference to the enjoyment of God, he lost the 
 blessing of communion with God, and by the loss of that 
 communion with God which, from the moment that God 
 inspired him with the breath of life, was the life of his soul, 
 he became, according to the warning given to him. 
 spiritually dead. Here again we ask, Is the present state 
 of mankind, without Christ, the same in which Adam was 
 made, or that into which he fell? Are mankind naturally in 
 a state of communion with God, and spiritually alive from 
 their birth ; or are they without God, and alienated from 
 the life of God ? The answer is at hand. We have al- 
 ready found that " there is none that understandeth, there 
 is none that seeketh after — God ;" that " there is no fear 
 of God before their eyes," Rom. iii, 11, 18: to which 
 we may add with St. Paul, that all mankind, while they 
 are " Gentiles in the flesh," who are " without Christ," 
 are " ateoi, without God in the world," Eph. it, 11, 12 : 
 that M having the understanding darkened," they are 
 44 alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance 
 that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart," 
 Eph. iv, 18 : that " if one died for all, then were all 
 dead," 2 Cor. v, 14 : and that to every man now spiritu- 
 ally alive, it may be said, " As to those that are alive from 
 
280 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKrNP. 
 
 the dead," Rom. vi, 13 ; " and you who were dead in (res- 
 passes and sins, wherein in time past ye walked accord- 
 ing to the course of this world (like all other men) accord- 
 ing to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that 
 now worketh in the children of disobedience, among whom 
 also we all had our conversation in time past, in the lusts 
 of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and (the 
 consequent desires) of the mind : even when we were 
 dead in sins, God, who is rich in mercy, hath quickened 
 us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together, 
 and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ 
 Jesus," Eph. ii, 1-6. 
 
 4. By the conquest of Adam, Satan obtained a power 
 over him which before he did not possess ; according to 
 that maxim, kW Of whom a man is overcome, of the same 
 is he brought into bondage," 2 Pet. ii, 19. Before the 
 sin of man, Satan had no access to his mtnd or imagina- 
 tion, but through his senses. Hence arose the necessity 
 for the deceiver's making the serpent the instrument of his 
 design. We read of no such mean of temptation being 
 subsequently used till the temptation of our Lord, who on 
 one occasion says, " The prince of this world cometh, and 
 hath nothing in me," John xiv, 30. His only way of 
 tempting Jesus Christ was, as in the case of Eve, through 
 his senses. But not so with mankind, since their first 
 parent was " overcome, and brought into bondage." — 
 From that time he is " the prince of this world." " The 
 world now lieth in rw tf&vTjpco, the wicked one," 1 John v, 19. 
 As " the prince of the power of the air," this " spirit now 
 worketh in the children of disobedience, among whom we 
 all had our conversation in time past," Eph. ii, 2, 3. " He 
 that committeth sin, (and *■ all have sinned,') 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, S. And his 
 Gospel is sent, " to turn men from darkness to light, and 
 from the power of Satan unto God," Acts xxvi, IS. 
 
 Thus while the Scriptures lead us up to our first parents, 
 from whom we derive our hereditary depravity, they point 
 out the precise similarity between their state after their fall, 
 and the present state of their progeny, and that in every 
 particular, and in such a manner as to furnish us with ad- 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 2S1 
 
 ditional proof that the moral disorder of human nature is 
 to be attributed to their fatal disaster. We have traced 
 the corruption of the stream up to the fountain, and have 
 found the corruption of the fountain and of the stream to 
 be precisely the same. 
 
 Secondly. Of our being legally involved in the penal 
 consequences of the sin of our first parents. 
 
 It is not intended here to assert that the posterity of 
 Adam are accounted personally guilty of his personal sin. 
 This is impossible. It is not, however, impossible for a 
 parent, as the representative of his progeny, to involve 
 them in the ruinous consequences of what must always 
 be deemed his own fault. 
 
 When Adam was placed in the garden of Eden, " the 
 Lord God commanded him, saying, Of every tree of the 
 garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the know- 
 ledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the 
 day that thou eatest thereof, dying, thou shalt die," Gen. 
 ii, 16, 17. The threatening by which God thus enforced 
 this command included not only the death of the body, 
 but that of the soul : a death every way opposed to the 
 lives which were given to him, when " the Lord God 
 breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives, and man be- 
 came a living soul," Gen. ii, 7. To this penalty Adam 
 stood exposed when he ate of the forbidden fruit. Had 
 the sentence been immediately executed in its full extent, 
 the personal existence of all his posterity would have been 
 absolutely prevented. The conclusion, therefore, that by 
 his crime the personal existence of his progeny was for- 
 feited, is unavoidable. Had condign punishment been 
 inflicted on him, they must have perished in his loins : 
 and thus, though they would not have suffered the per- 
 sonal punishment of his personal crime, their seminal sin 
 would have met with a seminal punishment. As " Levi 
 paid tithes in Abraham, being yet in the loins of his father 
 when Melchisedec met him," so the children of Adam sin- 
 ned, " being yet in the loins of their father," and in his 
 loins they would have been destroyed. 
 
 When God arraigned Adam before his bar, though he 
 
 convicted him of sin, he did not pronounce on him this 
 
 sentence, but granted to him a gracious reprieve. The 
 
 first judicial sentence which God pronounced was upon 
 
 24* 
 
282 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 the tempter : " And the Lord God said unto the serpent, 
 Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all 
 cattle, and above every beast of the field : upon thy belly 
 shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy 
 life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, 
 and between thy seed and her seed : he shall bruise thy 
 head, and thou shalt bruise his heel," Gen. iii, 14, 15. — 
 This sentence was, for Adam, a gracious sentence. It 
 was not, however, a sentence of acquittal, but a reprieve. 
 It did not absolve him, as the sequel shows ; though it 
 did hold out to him the prospect of beholding the multipli- 
 cation of his species. It did not place him on the high 
 ground from which he had fallen, but promised him a 
 Deliverer by whom he might be restored. 
 
 Under this reprieve Adam lived to behold his progeny- 
 But as he was not thereby absolved, so neither were his 
 posterity, considered as his posterity. Hereby neither 
 were they restored to the possession and enjoyment of 
 the blessings forfeited by him ; nor was the penal sanc- 
 tion of the broken covenant annulled. Considered mere- 
 ly in their relation to Adam, all mankind were, therefore, 
 brought into condemnation, and were subject to the pe- 
 nalty of death. Whatever they became by grace, they 
 were, " by nature, the children of wrath, even as others," 
 Eph. ii, 3. The sense of this passage may be disputed, 
 but it cannot be overturned. 1. " The phrase, children 
 of wrath, is a Hebraism, and denotes persons worthy of, 
 or liable to, wrath. 2. The word (putfsi, by nature, cannot 
 mean custom or habit, for it never has that sense when it 
 stands alone, without any qualifying epithet. 3. It means 
 by birth. This is the sense in which the writers of the 
 New Testament use it : ' We who are cpvtfsi Ixdaioi, Jews 
 by nature : that is, Jews by birth,' Gal. ii, 15." 4. This 
 affirmation the apostle makes concerning himself, the 
 Ephesians, and others. Hence those plain and repeated 
 declarations of St. Paul, "By one man sin enteied into 
 the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon 
 all men, for that all have sinned. (For until the law sin 
 was in the world : but sin is not imputed where there is 
 no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Mo- 
 ses, even over them that had not sinned after the simili- 
 tude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 283 
 
 that was to come.) Through the offence of one r many 
 are dead ; for the judgment was by one to condensation. 
 By one man's otfence, death reigned by one. By the 
 offence of one, or, rather, &' svog irapa^ruiixarog, by one 
 offence, (judgment came) upon all men to condemnation. 
 By one man's disobedience many were made sinners," 
 Rom. v, 12, 19. 
 
 In this important passage Adam is spoken of as ru^o^, 
 a type, or figure of him that should come, viz. of Jesus 
 Christ. In what sense he is a type is obvious from the whole 
 passage, in which the writer runs a parallel between the type 
 and the antitype, and shows that like Jesus Christ he is 
 a representative of all mankind. Hence Jesus Christ is 
 termed "the last Adam," 1 Cor. xv, 45. This "first 
 man, Adam," is the "one man" here repeatedly mentioned. 
 By him, (not by the devil, not by Eve ; for they were 
 not common representatives,) sin, and death, " the wages 
 of sin," entered. By his one sin (for only till the com- 
 mission of that was he a representative,) all were consti- 
 tuted sinners,— judgment came upon all men to condem- 
 nation, — and death reigned over all. This the apostle 
 proves by an appeal to an incontrovertible fact, — the death 
 of those (infants) who have not (personally) sinned after 
 the similitude of Adam's transgression, and who, there- 
 fore, have not personally incurred the penalty of sin. — 
 Thus the doctrine on which we insist is positively asserted 
 in its full extent by apostolical authority, and proved by 
 an unanswerable argument. Dr. Priestley himself ac- 
 knowledges that "if this passage be interpreted literally, 
 it will imply that all are involved in his (Adam's) guilt* 
 as well as in his sufferings." (Hist, of Cor. vol. i, p. 286.) 
 
 To this interpretation it is objected, that " by all men 
 being constituted sinners," and by the "judgment which 
 came on all men to condemnation, nothing is meant but 
 their being liable to the death of the body." 
 
 Let the passage be considered in its own light, and it 
 will appear that the apostle speaks of another death than 
 that of the body, viz. eternal death. 
 
 1. The death which is the consequence of sin is the 
 subject of the apostle's observations. This needs na 
 other proof than what arises from a perusal of verses 12* 
 
 ir, 2i, 
 
2S1 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 2. The death which came by sin must be eternal death, 
 because the apostle contrasts it with eternal life : " As sin 
 hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign unto 
 eternal life, by Jesus Christ," Rom. v, 21. So, in another 
 place : — " The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God 
 is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord," Rom. vi, 
 23. As no medium can be found between life and death, 
 the death incurred by sin could not make eternal life ne- 
 cessary, unless that death were otherwise eternal. If 
 mankind are not exposed to eternal death, they have al- 
 ready eternal life, and God needed not to give it by Jesus 
 Christ ; for this would be to give only what they already 
 possess. In other words : if eternal life is the gift of God 
 by Jesus Christ, then eternal life was forfeited ; which 
 is the same as to say that the penalty of eternal death 
 was incurred. 
 
 3. According to the apostle, corporeal " death reigned 
 from Adam to Moses, even over (infants,) them that had 
 not (personally) sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
 transgression," Rom. v, 14. How then could he say 
 that "as by the offence of one (judgment came) upon all 
 men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of 
 one (the free gift came) upon all men unto justification of 
 life ?" Rom. v, 18. For if the only sentence of condemna- 
 tion is that of bodily death, how does justification of life 
 come upon those who suffer by that sentence, and thereby 
 suffer the whole penalty to which they are exposed ? 
 
 4. If it be said, " But infants who have suffered the 
 penal sentence of corporeal death, are subsequently raised 
 to life by Jesus Christ, and in that sense" justification of 
 life M may be said to come on them also :" we answer, 
 (1.) It is an odd sentence of justification which is pro- 
 nounced after the supposed penalty has been borne. Is 
 not this at once to remit and to inflict the penalty ? Is it 
 not like forgiving a debt after the debtor has paid it ? (2.) 
 After suffering this sentence of the death of the body* 
 either they would, without Christ, have eternal life, or 
 they would not. If they would, then eternal life is not the 
 gift of God through Jesus Christ. If they would not* 
 then the gift of eternal life, by Jesus Christ, saves them 
 from eternal death, which otherwise would have been the 
 consequence. (3.) The objector may take that side 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 285 
 
 which he thinks most nearly allied to truth. Let him be 
 a materialist. He then supposes that the death of the 
 body is the death of the whole man. According to this 
 hypothesis, immortal life depends entirely on the resurrec- 
 tion of the body. He, therefore, who raises the body, 
 saves the man from eternal death, by giving him eternal 
 life : and he that is dead, unless his body be raised, is 
 eternally dead. On the other hand : let the objector en- 
 tertain a contrary opinion. Let him suppose that man 
 has a spirit which is naturally immortal. Eternal life must 
 then be distinguished from eternal existence ; because it 
 is supposed to be a gift to a being to whom an eternal 
 existence is natural. It must stand opposed, not to anni- 
 hilation, but to " eternal punishment." This is obviously 
 the sense in which the Scriptures use the term ; — " These 
 shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the right- 
 eous into life eternal," Matt, xxv, 46. Eternal life, in 
 the Scriptural sense of the term, is eternal blessedness : — 
 " Come, ye blessed of my Father," &c, Matt, xxv, 34. If 
 Jesus Christ justifies all the infant offspring of Adam, and 
 gives them eternal blessedness, he saves them from its 
 opposite, eternal misery : an eternal misery which is the 
 inevitable consequence of the eternal existence and ba- 
 nishment from God, of a spirit made to be blessed, and 
 necessarily desirous of happiness. But if by justifying 
 them, and giving them eternal life, he saves them from 
 eternal misery, it is obvious that eternal misery would 
 have been their portion, unless they had thus been justified 
 and saved. 
 
 Having shown that the whole human race were in- 
 volved with their parent in the immediate legal conse- 
 quence of his fall, we now explore the new condition in 
 which our first parents and their posterity were subse- 
 quently placed. 
 
 1. "And the Lord God said unto the woman, I will 
 greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception : in sorrow 
 thou shalt bring forth children ; and thy desire shall be to 
 thy husband, and he shall rule over thee," Gen. iii, 6. — 
 Here we see that because the woman had unlawfully gra- 
 tified her desire without consulting her husband, who, if 
 he had been consulted, might probably have been the 
 mean of saving her from sinning, her desire was sub* 
 
2S6 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 jected to his rule ; and sorrow was entailed upon her 
 a3 a consequence of the gratification of her desire. But 
 as the former is a grant that she and her husband should 
 still live together ; her sorrow was connected with the 
 production of her seed, the predicted Deliverer. It will 
 not be denied that the present state of married, and child- 
 bearing women agrees precisely with the tenor of this sen- 
 tence pronounced on Eve. 
 
 2. " And unto Adam, he said, Because thou hast hear- 
 kened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the 
 tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not 
 eat of it ; cursed is the ground for thy sake : in sorrow 
 shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also 
 and thistles shall it bring forth to thee ; and thou shalt 
 eat of the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face 
 shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground : for 
 dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," Gen. iii, 
 17, 19. In this sentence a curse is pronounced on the 
 ground ; but not immediately on the man. Adam is, in- 
 deed, warned of his mortality, already induced by his sin, 
 and his death is predicted ; but in a manner which clearly 
 indicates that he should be mercifully spared, and that, at 
 the expense of labour, the ground, though under a curse, 
 should afford him sustenance. This labour is entailed 
 particularly on the man, who, because he chose to cleave 
 to the woman, must now support her. Because he made 
 himself the slave of her wishes, he must now be the ser- 
 vant of her wants. 
 
 It cannot be denied that the ground on which we live 
 is still cursed : that mankind eat of its fruits in sorrow, all 
 the days of their life : that it still spontaneously produces 
 thorns and thistles : or that mankind earn their bread in 
 the sweat of their face. 
 
 It cannot be denied that all mankind are now mortal, 
 or that they return unto the dust from whence they were 
 taken. 
 
 Dangers stand thick through all the ground, 
 
 To push us to the tomb ; 
 And fierce diseases wait around 
 
 To hurry mortals home. 
 
 Some men may impute this to our personal transgressions. 
 The original cause, however, is, that " by one man sin 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 287 
 
 entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death 
 passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." This is 
 abundantly confirmed, as we have seen, by the sufferings 
 and mortality of infants. Pain is the chastisement or pun- 
 ishment, and death is the wages of sin. But these have 
 no personal crime, on account of which they suffer, or 
 die. Yet " death reigned from Adam to Moses (and still 
 reigns) over them that had not sinned after the similitude 
 of Adam's transgression." 
 
 In all this we find a gracious commutation of whole- 
 some chastisement for destructive punishment. A com- 
 mutation founded on the sentence which God first pro- 
 nounced on the serpent. Wholesome chastisement this 
 certainly was. Hard labour, though once unnecessary, 
 was now become wholesome : wholesome to the body, the 
 constitution of which now needed it for the preservation 
 of health ; and to the mind, which now, not naturally in- 
 clined to employ itself in the contemplation of its Maker, 
 needed some innocent occupation to prevent the farther 
 increase of sin. Pain and sorrow were now become as 
 necessary and as wholesome as labour. Unmingled bliss 
 might agree with spotless innocence, and was once a suit- 
 able proof of the unqualified approbation of their Creator. 
 But pain was a necessary appendage of sin, and was 
 adapted to remind them of their fall, and of their loss of 
 the Divine approbation. When, before their fall, they 
 lived in the actual enjoyment of God, they were thereby 
 morally drawn toward him, and led to make him the su- 
 preme object of their choice ; but when, by their sin, they 
 were robbed of their proper portion, the sufferings and sor- 
 rows of sin were necessary to drive them to him. They 
 were, therefore, wisely left under the physical effects of 
 their fall, until they should be completely recovered from 
 its moral and judicial consequences. And their expulsion 
 from paradise, and from the tree of life, with all that it 
 implied, was a proper and standing evidence of the judi- 
 cial sentence which still hung over them. 
 
 Their state was now that of moral agents under the 
 displeasure of their Maker, but under a gracious dispen- 
 sation by which they might be restored : and with this all 
 the circumstances of their new situation were in perfect 
 accord. 
 
2S8 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 The external circumstances of mankind are now pre- 
 cisely those of fallen Adam. The human race are now 
 surrounded with natural evil, and continually exposed to 
 sufferings. " Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly 
 upward," Job v, 7. If he enter at all " into the kingdom 
 of God," it must be " through much tribulation," Acts 
 xiv, 22. It is not necessary to recount here, 
 
 The heart ache, and the thousand natural shocks 
 That flesh is heir to. 
 
 The heart knoweth its own bitterness. This natural evil 
 is the product of moral evil. Suffering is the concomi- 
 tant of sin. These sorrows are the consequences of a 
 breach of a former covenant, and are as truly the marks 
 of legal condemnation, as the sufferings of our first 
 parents. They are intended to corroborate the Divine 
 testimony concerning the moral and relative state of man- 
 kind, to make us conscious of our real situation, and to 
 prepare us to receive the Deliverer from sin and sorrow : 
 and they will continue till, when we are completely sa^ r ed 
 from sin, 
 
 Our mourning is all at an end : 
 
 when these " that have come through much tribulation, 
 shall have washed their robes, and made them white in 
 the blood of the Lamb." In the meantime, while they 
 answer these important ends, " it is good for us to have 
 been afflicted." 
 
 The more closely we examine the present condition of 
 human nature, the more we shall be convinced that it is 
 precisely that into which our first parents were brought by 
 their fall, and by the new covenant which was then made 
 with them through the seed of the woman. TVe have the 
 same marks of our loss of the blessings of the covenant 
 of innocence, the same indications of the judicial sentence 
 which hangs over us ; and we, like them, are under a new 
 covenant by which provision is made for our recovery. 
 
 1. Nothing can less need to be proved than that Adam 
 by his sin forfeited his paradise, and the ease and enjoy- 
 ments to which it contributed. " The Lord God sent 
 him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from 
 whence be was taken. So he drove out the man : and 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 289 
 
 he placed at the east of the garden of Eden, cherubim, 
 and a flaming sword," Gen. iii, 23, 24. If Adam had not 
 sinned, he and his posterity would undoubtedly have con- 
 tinued to inhabit the garden of Eden ; but since his fall 
 no individual of the human race has been admitted. The 
 case then is perfectly plain, that his posterity have lost 
 it by his sin. 
 
 2. Our first parent forfeited the tree of life, and its 
 immortalizing fruit, together with his paradise. " And 
 now," said the Lord God, " lest he put forth his hand, 
 and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever; 
 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of 
 Eden, and placed cherubim and a flaming sword which 
 turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life," 
 Gen. iii, 22, 24. When Adam was placed in the garden 
 of Eden, he had leave to " eat freely of every tree of the 
 garden," of which the tree of life was one, with the ex- 
 ception only of " the tree of knowledge of good and evil," 
 Gen. ii, 16, 17. But who will say that the posterity of 
 Adam are at liberty to eat the fruit of the tree of life ? 
 
 3. Whatever were the benefits of which a paradise, 
 and the tree of life, were the symbols and pledges, they 
 were forfeited with them. The sin of Adam separated 
 between God and him. He was therefore robbed, as we 
 have seen, of the gracious presence of God. He for- 
 feited the Divine light, and sunk into spiritual dark- 
 ness. He forfeited the Divine assistance, and sunk into 
 spiritual debility. He forfeited the Divine favour and ap- 
 probation, and the proofs of that favour and approbation ; 
 and was therefore afraid and hid himself from that God 
 in whose presence he had otherwise rejoiced. He for- 
 feited that communion with God, and that enjoyment of 
 him, which were the life of his life ; and became wretched 
 and forlorn. All these we have already found to be the 
 consequences of his fall, with respect to his posterity : of 
 whom none has God with him or in him, none is enlight- 
 ened or accepted, none beholds the love of God toward 
 him, or enjoys fellowship with God, but in and through 
 Jesus Christ the Mediator of the new covenant. These 
 are undeniable facts. Here is a race of beings, by their 
 very constitution capable of God, whose first parent had 
 God for his portion, and forfeited that desirable treasure 
 
 25 
 
290 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 by preferring a creature before his Creator, and who now 
 do not inherit from him his primeval portion. Why are 
 they robbed of it, but because it was forfeited by their 
 head and representative, whose sin has placed some obsta- 
 cle in the way of their enjoyment of it? 
 
 It remains only to add, that mankind are now, like their 
 first parents, under a gracious covenant which supposes 
 their fallen condition ; which is adapted to their condition 
 as fallen ; which is designed for their restoration ; and 
 to which it is to he attributed that any of the human race 
 are enlightened, accepted, renewed, or saved. 
 
 The seed of the woman, who, in behalf of Adam, was 
 appointed to bruise the serpent's head, is manifested, in 
 behalf of mankind, to destroy the works of the devil. He, 
 therefore, who was the Saviour of Adam is the Saviour 
 of all men, and " there is none other name under heaven, 
 given among men whereby we can be saved." 
 
 1. He came into the world on the supposition that we 
 were fallen. "The Son of man is come to save that 
 which was lost," Matt, xviii, 11. " This is a faithful say- 
 ing, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came 
 into the world to save sinners," 1 Tim. i, 15. "When 
 we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." He " died for 
 the ungodly," Rom. v, 6, 8. " He died the just for the 
 unjust, that he might bring us to God," 1 Pet. iii, 18. 
 But he, " by the grace of God tasted death for every 
 man," Heb. ii, 9. Therefore all men were sinners, un- 
 godly and unjust. 
 
 2. The method of our salvation by Jesus Christ is 
 adapted to us as fallen creatures. Jesus Christ is " the 
 light of the world" because, without him, the whole world 
 is " full of darkness and cruel habitations." He became 
 a " propitiation for the sins of the whole world," 1 John ii, 
 2, because "judgment had come upon all men to condem- 
 nation," " every mouth was stopped, and all the world 
 was become guilty before God," Rom. iii, 19. He 
 required that all men should be regenerated, because all 
 men are deeply degenerated ; and he testified, " Except 
 a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot see the 
 kingdom of God," John iii, 5, because " that which is 
 born of the flesh is flesh (is carnal,) and that only which 
 is born of the Spirit is spirit" (is spiritual.) His apostle 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 291 
 
 • 
 
 insisted that M in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avail- 
 eth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature," 
 Gal. vi, 15 ; because " the old man is corrupt according 
 to the deceitful lusts, and the new man only is created 
 alter God in righteousness and true holiness," Eph. iv, 
 22, 24. And God has " laid help upon one who is mighty," 
 because " without him we can do nothing." 
 
 3. The terms of the new covenant are such as are adapted 
 for our restoration, and therefore imply our antecedent ruin. 
 (1.) The Gospel says to every one, " Except ye repent, ye 
 shall all likewise perish." Now repentance is required as 
 a means of raising the fallen. Jesus Christ " came not to 
 call the righteous, but sinners to repentance ; for they that 
 are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are 
 sick." Repentance then is only the duty of a sinner ; 
 and is intended in order to his cure. But " God command- 
 eth all men every where to repent," Acts xvii, 30 ; and 
 therefore all men every where are sinners. The Gospel of 
 Jesus Christ is the Gospel of repentance, and, therefore, is 
 intended to promote the cure of the diseased. (2.) It re- 
 quires " faith in them that hear it," Heb. iv, 2. God, as of 
 old, has " sent his word to heal" us, Psalm cvii, 20. Jesus 
 Christ therefore required that men should have " faith to be 
 healed," Acts xiv, 9 ; for faith is the mean by which we de- 
 pend on the Physician of souls, receive his advice and his 
 medicines, and by which we are consequently made whole. 
 (3.) All men are taught by Jesus Christ to pray, and to 
 pray, Forgive us our trespasses. This implies that all men 
 have committed trespasses, and that the Gospel is intended 
 to direct all men to the forgiveness of sins. (4.) " If any 
 man will come after me," said Jesus Christ, " let him deny 
 himself," Matt, xvi, 24. This implies that there is some- 
 thing in every man which it is necessary for him to deny or 
 renounce ; and that the peculiar duty of a Christian is such 
 as is adapted to save him from his sinful self. 
 
 4. It is to be attributed to the healing nature of the 
 Gospel covenant that any man is enlightened, accepted, 
 renewed, delivered, quickened, or finally redeemed and 
 saved. (1.) The wisest of men have once been ignorant, 
 and are supernaturally illuminated : " Ye were sometimes 
 darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord," Eph. v, 8. 
 {2.) All the people of God are they whose iniquities are 
 
292 THE FALLEN STATE. Of MANKIND. 
 
 • 
 
 forgiven. They are " accepted in the beloved, in whom 
 they have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of 
 sins," Eph. i, 6, 7. "The Scriptuie hath concluded all 
 under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might 
 be given to them that believe," Gal. iii, 8. " For God 
 hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have 
 mercy upon all," Rom. xi, 32. (3.) All the holy people 
 of God are those who are renewed in the spirit of their 
 mind : " We, ourselves, also, were sometimes foolish, dis- 
 obedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, 
 living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one ano- 
 ther. But after that the kindness and love of God, our 
 Saviour, appeared, not by works of righteousness which 
 we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us 
 by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Je- 
 sus Christ, our Saviour," Titus iii, 3, 5. (4.) All the free 
 servants of God are liberated captives : " He gave him- 
 self for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and 
 purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good 
 works," Titus ii, 14. (5.) The bodies of the followers 
 of Christ are brought back from the tomb by virtue of 
 the death and resurrection of their redeeming Head : — 
 " Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first 
 fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, 
 by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as 
 in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," 
 1 Cor. xv, 20, 22. (6.) All the spirits of just men, made 
 perfect, ascribe their salvation to Jesus, the Mediator of a 
 new covenant : " Unto him that loved us, and washed us 
 from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings 
 and priests unto God and his Father ; to him be glory 
 and dominion for ever and ever. Amen," Rev. i, 5, 6. 
 " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy 
 blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and 
 nation," Rev. v, 9. " What are these which are arrayed in 
 white robes 1 and whence came they ? These are they 
 which came out of great tribulation, and have washed 
 their robes in the blood of the Lamb," Rev. vii, 13, 15. 
 " And I looked, and lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, 
 and with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, hav- 
 ing his Father's name written in their foreheads* These 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 293 
 
 4 
 
 were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits 
 unto God, and to the Lamb," Rev. xiv, 1, 4. In a 
 word : all our blessings are the gifts, not of nature, but 
 of grace : they are not our paternal inheritance, but a 
 44 purchased possession," restored to us by him who came 
 into the world to save sinners : " Of him are we in Christ 
 Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and right- 
 eousness, and sanctiflcation, and redemption : that ac- 
 cording as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in 
 the Lord" Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. i, 30, 31. 
 
 It may possibly be urged that there are exceptions : 
 that Jeremiah was " sanctified before he came forth out of 
 the womb," Jer. i, 5, and that John the Baptist was 
 " filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's 
 womb," Luke i, 15. If these were really exceptions they 
 would only confirm the general rule : for, admitting that 
 the purification of their souls from their birth is what is 
 meant, this does not contradict the general statement. (1.) 
 These expressions do not imply that the purity of Jere- 
 miah and John was the result of their natural constitution, 
 but rather that it was the gift of redeeming grace. (2.) 
 If all mankind were sanctified from their birth, there would 
 be no room for marking these as extraordinary cases. 
 
 In attending to the objections which the Socinians ge- 
 nerally urge against these Scriptural truths, it is reasona- 
 ble to inquire whether Mr. G. do not first demand our 
 attention. Although he has not entered thoroughly into 
 this subject, he has given us a fair specimen of the man- 
 ner in which he would oppose it. His objections are 
 taken entirely from Scripture, and are undoubtedly some 
 of the strongest which he has to produce. If we can 
 fairly answer them, we may justly presume, that whatever 
 others he may have in store, are equally answerable. We 
 will not conjecture the cause of his giving us the texts 
 without any comment ; but will briefly subjoin to each of 
 them what we deem an appropriate and satisfactory 
 answer. 
 
 " For thy pleasure they are and were created," Rev. iv, 1 1, 
 (Vol. ii, p. 122.) Undoubtedly. But Mr. G. will not afprm 
 that all God's creatures have answered the end for which they 
 were created. Some of them have proved extremely wicked. 
 Has God, then, " any pleasure in wickedness 1" If Mr. G. 
 
 25* 
 
294 THE FALLEN STATE OF I^ANKIJSD. 
 
 mean to insinuate that the degeneracy of mankind cannot 
 give God pleasure, we answer, Certainly it cannot. But 
 the passage which he has quoted speaks of their creation. 
 He must remember that all which God created and made, 
 was " created in six days," after which God " rested from 
 his works." Now God did not create any thing sinful, as 
 Mr. G. will inform us by his next quotation. 
 
 " And God saw every thing that he had made, and be- 
 hold it was very good," Genesis i, 31. (Vol. ii, p. 123.) 
 Equally true ! But what has this to do with their sub- 
 sequent state ? Adam and Eve were very good when 
 God made them, and when he approved the work of his 
 hands ; but were they very good when they ate of the 
 forbidden fruit ? And are all their posterity very good until 
 now? 
 
 44 He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things," Acts 
 xvii, 25. How does this passage prove that none of 
 God's gifts are legally forfeited ? or that the gifts which 
 we enjoy are not given according to the law of redeeming 
 grace ? " Eternal life is the gift of God" to sinners ; 
 but it is given " through Jesus Christ our Lord," and Re- 
 deemer. 
 
 " Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven," Matt, xix, 14, &c. Who was 
 it that spake these words ? Was it not the Saviour of 
 sinners ? How then does this passage prove that little 
 children have no need of the Saviour of sinners? Jesus 
 Christ saves them, and therefore of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven. Can this prove that they have no need of be- 
 ing saved ? But wait a moment. 
 
 " Verily, I say unto you, whosoever receiveth not the 
 kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter 
 therein," Mark x, 15. The true meaning of this passage 
 appears to be, that no person can enter into the kingdom 
 of God, but in that spirit of docility which a little child 
 ordinarily manifests in its general conduct. Whether 
 these little children, without Christ, be lost, the reader will 
 immediately understand. 
 
 " For their angels do always behold the face of my Fa- 
 ther which is in heaven." To these words Jesus Christ 
 adds, " For the Son of man is come to save that which 
 was lost," Matt, xviii, 10. Hence it appears that these 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 295 
 
 44 little ones" were lost, but that Jesus Christ saves 
 them. 
 
 " God is love." We have found it useful to turn to the 
 passage which Mr. G. cites, and to read a little farther, 
 and will, therefore, again make the same experiment. — 
 We turn to this passage, (1 John iv, 8, &c,) and read, 
 44 God is love. In this was manifested the love of God 
 toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son 
 into the world, that we might live through him. Herein 
 is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
 sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Mr. G. 
 did not intend that we should pry so narrowly into every 
 thing. Here, however, is St. John's own explanation of his 
 own words, " God is love." According to this explana- 
 tion, how does it appear from this passage that we did love 
 God ; that we had no sins for which a propitiation was 
 necessary ; or that we should all have lived without the 
 coming of his only-begotten Son into the world 1 
 
 44 His tender mercies are over all his works," Psalm 
 cxlv, 9. Most certainly ! But how is this to prove that 
 all mankind have not need of his tender mercies ? 
 
 What remain are totally irrelevant. At least they may 
 stand without any reply. They are such as these : 44 Not 
 a sparrow falleth to the ground without your Father." — 
 44 His compassions fail not." 44 He will not always 
 chide." 44 His mercy endureth for ever." (Vol. ii, pp. 
 123, 124.) All full of consolation for the faithful, but no- 
 thing to the point in hand ! 
 
 If Mr. G. understand how to quote Scripture against 
 us, we may expect but a feeble resistance from that quar- 
 ter. It is when a Socinian assumes the philosopher that 
 he becomes formidable ; for then he is at home. If we 
 are worsted by meeting him on his own ground, it is some 
 consolation that we have a Scriptural battery, behind which 
 we can retire. While we keep our proper place of retreat 
 in our rear, we may venture to face the danger, and to 
 attend to the philosophical objections which are made to 
 this Scriptural doctrine. 
 
 I. 44 It is impossible in the nature of things that man 
 should be created holy. All holiness must be the effect 
 of a man's own choice and endeavour. It must be the 
 result of a right use of his powers. Adam could not 
 
296 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 therefore be holy till he had thus exerted his powers 
 aright." 
 
 It is very justly observed that those who are adverse to 
 the doctrine of human depravity, are equally so to that of 
 the original rectitude of our first parents. The reason is 
 obvious ; for the one cannot be safely denied, if the other 
 be admitted. If Adam were created in a state of positive 
 moral rectitude, it would rest with the Socinians to prove 
 that every man is born into the world in a similar state. 
 This would be too much for even their philosophy. For 
 the same reason it is necessary for us to prove the possi- 
 bility of Adam's original rectitude. 
 
 1. The first and best proof which we give is that taken 
 from the Scriptures, which affirm that so it was. 
 
 (1.) Moses expressly states that "God said, Let us 
 make man in our own image," Gen. i, 26. 
 
 (2.) When God had finished all his works, he pro- 
 nounced them all to be "very good," Gen. i, 31. 
 
 (3.) Solomon consequently declares that " God made 
 man upright," Eccles. vii, 29. 
 
 But if the first of these texts imply only that man was 
 made with reason and choice, (which is not yet granted,) 
 the second and third must imply that those powers had a 
 proper direction. To argue then that the thing is impos- 
 sible, is to argue against plain Scriptural facts. 
 
 " That righteousness or holiness is the principal part of 
 this image of God, appears from Eph. iv, 22, 24, and 
 Col. iii, 9, 10. On which it may be observed, [1.] By 
 the old man is not meant a heathenish life, or an ungod- 
 ly conversation ; but a corrupt nature. For the apostle 
 elsewhere speaks of our old man as crucified with Christ; 
 and here distinguishes from it their former conversation, 
 or sinful actions, which he calls the deeds of the old man. 
 [2.] By the new man is meant, not a new course of life, 
 (as the Socinians interpret it,) but a principle of grace, 
 called by St. Peter the hidden man of the heart, and a 
 Divine nature. [3.] To put off the old man, (the same 
 as to crucify the flesh,) is to subdue and mortify our cor- 
 rupt nature : to put on the new man is to stir up and cul- 
 tivate that gracious principle, that new nature. This, 
 eaith the apostle, is created after God, in righteousness 
 and true holiness. It is created : which cannot properly 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 297 
 
 be said of a new course of life ; but may of a new nature. 
 It is created after God, or in his image and likeness, men- 
 tioned by Moses. But what is it to be created after God, 
 or in his image ? It is to be created in righteousness and 
 true holiness : (termed knowledge, the practical know- 
 ledge of God, Col. iii, 10.) But if to be created after 
 God, or in his image and likeness, is to be created in right- 
 eousness and true holiness, and if that principle of right- 
 eousness and holiness by which we are ■ created unto 
 good works,' is a new man, a Divine nature ; it is easy 
 to infer that man was at first created righteous or holy." 
 (Mr. S. Hebden's Tract on Eccles. vii, 29.) 
 
 2. This Socinian mistake arises from confounding a 
 right state of the powers of the mind with a right use of 
 them, or with those habits which are contracted only by 
 use. It is readily granted that Adam could not act aright 
 but by his own choice and endeavour, and that he could 
 not contract habits of holiness without a series of right 
 actions. But the right state of his powers is another 
 thing, and was antecedent to his choice and endeavour. 
 A rational and free being not only may, but must begin 
 his existence with his powers either in order, or in disor- 
 der, as every living human body must be produced with 
 either a healthy or a sickly constitution ; for there is no 
 medium. Could not God create a human body with eyes 
 capable of seeing clearly and distinctly ? with senses to 
 which what is useful would be agreeable, and what is 
 baneful would be unpleasant, and the result of the first 
 exertion of which would be a choice of the good, and a 
 refusal of the evil ? And why could not God create a 
 human being with the powers of his mind in such a state 
 as immediately to view in a proper light every thing which 
 should come under his notice, — to distinguish between the 
 Creator and his creatures, — to perceive immediately the 
 vast superiority of God to all other things, — and to have 
 a distaste to sin, and a natural relish for piety] And would 
 not the result of the first exertion of such powers in such 
 a state be a choice of God for his portion, and of the Di- 
 vine will for the law of his being ? 
 
 The farther we pursue this subject the more clearly we 
 perceive that so it must have been. Suppose man to be 
 created with his senses unfit for use ; how could he fit 
 
298 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 them for use by using them, since they could not be used 
 until they were fit for use? Can a blind man obtain 
 power to see, by seeing ? He cannot see, until he be 
 blessed with power to see. Again : suppose (if it be not 
 a contradiction in terms,) a man created with appetites 
 which make no distinction between pleasant and unplea- 
 sant, wholesome and baneful. Before he can distinguish 
 between food and poison, he must make the trial of both : 
 and as his appetite is not antecedently disposed to distin- 
 guish, he will not only try, but eat both indifferently. He 
 will be poisoned before he can know the difference. If 
 he make any choice between them, it must be merely 
 accidental, for he has no judgment to guide him. His 
 " mouth does (not) taste meat." He may accidentally 
 give the decided preference to poison, and reject salutary 
 food. Suppose that the poison do not take immediate 
 effect, and he make repeated experiments, whereby he 
 may contract habits of distinction, and a true taste ; it is 
 as probable that, without any fault of his, he will contract 
 a false taste as that he will contract a just one. The 
 reader has already learned to make the application. 
 
 Love to God is the essence of the duty of a rational 
 creature. And why could not man be created in a state 
 of mind and heart constitutionally disposed to love God, 
 as the human eye, when not disordered, finds it " a plea- 
 sant thing to behold the sun," or as the human palate is 
 previously disposed to be gratified by wholesome food? 
 
 But here is the difficulty ! " Man (it is said) could not 
 love God before he knew him." 
 
 Very true. But, according to St. Paul's explanation 
 of the image of God, man was created in knowledge as 
 well as in love. Heat once knew and loved God, at the 
 moment of his creation. Suppose a human being called 
 into existence, not in midnight darkness, but in the light 
 of the meridian sun, with his eyes open and perfect. In 
 the very moment of his creation he heholds the sun, and 
 admires it above every visible object. Just so, Adam, 
 created with his mental powers in their perfect state, in 
 the blaze of Deity, at once knew God and loved him. 
 
 3. It is very obvious that the objection which we have 
 been considering is founded in a mistaken notion of the 
 nature of the things in question. The idea of what is 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 299 
 
 possible is taken from what generally is. Because, in the 
 present state of things, mankind come into existence very 
 imperfect, it is taken for granted that so it must always 
 have been. But is not this begging the question, by 
 supposing the original state of human nature to have been 
 the same as the present] The present state of things 
 is not, however, such as to afford no proof of the possi- 
 bility of Adam's being created in a state of holiness. 
 
 (1.) The human nature of Jesus Christ was produced 
 holy. Hence the Angel Gabriel said unto Mary, "The 
 Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy 
 thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son 
 of God," Luke i, 35. Now if it were impossible for a 
 being to be made constitutionally holy, Jesus Christ could 
 not have been born a holy thing. 
 
 (2.) When a man is renewed in the spirit of his mind, 
 the disposition to holiness precedes the choice and practice 
 of holiness. The Socinians grant that habits are formed 
 by long-continued practices, and that these habits dispose 
 a person to prolong the practices out of which they arise. 
 How then can a man who has contracted violent habits of 
 wickedness, which have become " a second nature," enter 
 on the practice of holiness, without a previous choice of 
 the path of holiness? and how can he choose the path of 
 holiness without a disposition to make that choice] The 
 bent of his mind is directly contrary to such a choice : 
 it is a disposition to choose the way of sin. Unless his 
 disposition, therefore, first be changed, there will be no 
 change in his choice, and consequently none in his prac- 
 tice. However the disposition may be confirmed by the 
 subsequent choice and practice, it must precede them. 
 Hence the sacred writers do not attribute the change of 
 man's heart to a change in his conduct ; but the change 
 in his conduct to that of his heart. " A good man out of 
 the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things," 
 Matt, xii, 35. " Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs 
 of thistles]" Matt, vii, 16. " How can ye being evil 
 speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart 
 the mouth speaketh," Matt, xii, 34. "Make the tree 
 good, and the fruit will be good also ; or else make the 
 tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt : for the tree is known 
 
800 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 by his fruit," Matt, xii, 33. And this change of heart, so 
 necessary to a change of conduct, implies not only a 
 change of choice, but also a previous change of disposi- 
 tion : a change of disposition which, because it must pre- 
 cede a change of choice, is primarily attributed, not to 
 him who is the subject of it, but to God. " We are his 
 workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, 
 which God hath before ordained that we should walk in 
 them," Eph. ii, 9, 10, 
 
 According to this doctrine, Adam was "created unto 
 good works, that he might walk in them." It is perhaps 
 no mean proof of this, that he lived a life of perfect 
 holiness from the beginning : and sinned not till he met 
 with an external temptation. The present state of man- 
 kind we have found to be the reverse of this. They are 
 " transgressors from the womb :" and never turn from 
 their unrighteousness till they are solicited by grace 
 Divine. 
 
 II. " If Adam had been created perfect he could not 
 have fallen. His fall demonstrates that he was not 
 perfect." 
 
 The fallacy of this argument lies in the ambiguity of the 
 term perfect. It may mean absolute perfection, and may 
 include immutability. Taking the word in this sense, the 
 proposition is a truism : it is the same thing as if the objector 
 had said, " If Adam had been made incapable of falling 
 he could not have fallen." But, as we do not contend for 
 such a perfection in our first parent, the objection is irre- 
 levant. It should have been said, "If Adam had been 
 created upright, he could not have fallen." But then the 
 objection would have carried absurdity on the face of it: 
 and would have suggested the answer, " Man could not 
 have fallen unless he had been created upright." The 
 truth is, that Adam was created perfect in a certain sense. 
 His was the perfection of a dependent being, so consti- 
 tuted as to be fit for a fair probation ; and therefore capa- 
 ble of falling, though not already fallen. Such a per- 
 fection Adam could not possess, without a possibility of 
 falling. If he could not sin, he could not freely obey ; 
 and, therefore, he could not have been tried whether he 
 would sin or obey. 
 
 The objection, however, in the mind of the objector, 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 301 
 
 implies the impossibility of any moral change in a created 
 being who has received a previous determination. It im- 
 plies that a wicked man cannot turn from his wickedness 
 to do that which is lawful and right ; and that a right- 
 eous man cannot turn from his righteousness and do ini- 
 quity. It is unnecessary to quote the scriptures to which 
 we have now alluded, in proof of the mutability of the de- 
 termination of a moral agent. As truly as a wicked man 
 may turn from his wickedness, and a righteous man may 
 turn from his righteousness, Adam might be created with 
 a right determination, or be created a righteous man, and 
 afterward turn from his righteousness : he might be made 
 upright, and yet subsequently fall. 
 
 III. " It is impossible for a man to be born in sin, for 
 sin is the voluntary abuse of one's powers." 
 
 To this we answer: — 
 
 1. The Scriptures uniformly assert, that man is 
 44 shapen in iniquity," and 4< conceived in sin ;" that 
 44 man cannot be clean who is born of a woman ;" and 
 that 4 ' that which is born of the flesh is flesh," and needs 
 to 44 be born of the Spirit" before it can enter the kingdom 
 of heaven. To contradict this statement is, therefore, to 
 contradict the plainest assertions of Scripture. 
 
 2. Here is the same confusion on which we have 
 remarked in the counterpart of this objection. It makes 
 no distinction between a wrong choice and a wrong dis^ 
 position ; between the wrong state and the wrong use of 
 our powers. That man cannot be born with any thing 
 which implies a wrong choice already made is obvious. 
 Perhaps it will be granted that we have no innate ideas, 
 and therefore, as principles are compounded of ideas, that 
 we have no innate moral principles. But may there not 
 be a disorder of the faculties before those faculties are 
 called into action ? We easily grant the possibility of the 
 birth of a human body disordered in any of its senses or 
 members, or in all of them. A human body may be born 
 blind, or deaf, or dumb, or maimed, or lame. Again : 
 A man may be born with a false taste, which exists before 
 either food or poison has been presented to him ; and, 
 therefore, before his taste has been vitiated by the use of 
 poison. Now where is the impossibility of the mental 
 powers being produced in disorder? Why must they of 
 
 26 
 
302 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 necessity be in proper order and harmony? Why is it 
 impossible that the understanding should be naturally 
 blind, and the passions headstrong? What reason is to be 
 assigned in proof that the taste (shall we call it) cannot 
 be naturally false, and give a wrong bias to the subsequent 
 choice ? 
 
 IV. " Do not you make God the author of sin, by sup- 
 posing that he brings every human being into the world 
 in a state of sinful depravity ? The proper production of 
 a child is from God. But if God produces a foetus 
 which has sinful dispositions, he produces those disposi- 
 tions." 
 
 " This argument proves too much. It would prove God 
 to be the author of all actual, as well as original (or 
 hereditary) sin. For it is the power of God, under certain 
 laws and established rules, which produces not only the 
 foetus, but all the motion in the universe. It is his power 
 which so violently expands the air on the discharge of a 
 pistol or cannon. It is the same which produces mus- 
 cular motion, and the circulation of all the juices in man. 
 But does he therefore produce adultery, or murder? Is he 
 the cause of those sinful motions ? He is the cause of the 
 motion, (as he is of the foetus,) of the sin he is not. Do 
 not say this is too fine a distinction ! Fine as it is, you 
 must necessarily allow it. Otherwise you make God the 
 direct author of all the sin under heaven. To apply this 
 more directly to the point. God does produce the foetus 
 of man as he does of trees, empowering the one and the 
 other to propagate each after its kind. And a sinful man 
 propagates, after his kind, another sinful man. Yet God 
 produces, in the sense above mentioned, the man, but not 
 the sin." (Mr. J. Wesley on Original Sin.) 
 
 V. " You make a very good apology for the wicked- 
 ness of mankind. If they be naturally disposed to sin, 
 their sin is the necessary consequence of that disposition. 
 How, then, can they be justly blamed for what is una- 
 voidable ?" 
 
 That the natural depravity of the human soul is una- 
 voidable, we grant ; but not that the personal wickedness 
 of every man is unavoidable. Nothing but universal de- 
 pravity can account for universal wickedness ; and uni- 
 versal wickedness would be the necessary consequence 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 303 
 
 of universal depravity, if there were no cure for it. But 
 " the grace of God, which bringeth salvation, hath appear- 
 ed unto all men, teaching them that denying (renouncing) 
 ungodliness and worldly lusts, they should live soberly, and 
 righteously, and godly, in this present world ; looking for 
 that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great 
 God and Saviour, Jesus Christ ; who gave himself for us, 
 that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto 
 himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works," Titus 
 ii, 11-13. Under these circumstances, mankind are placed 
 in a state of personal probation : with this difference, 
 however ; Adam was created upright, and was proved 
 whether he would fall ; we are born prone, and, under a 
 remediate law, are proved whether we will rise. He 
 sinned voluntarily against the law of innocence ; we sin 
 voluntarily against the law of grace. He sinned and 
 induced the disc* ler ; we sin partly by neglecting the 
 remedy, and partly in consequence of that neglect. Our 
 disease is unavoidable; but not so our neglect of the 
 cure. 
 
 VI. " Such a dispensation can never be reconciled 
 with the justice of the Divine administrations. How can 
 all mankind justly suffer for the sin of one person VI 
 
 The undeniable fact is, that all mankind do actually 
 suffer by the sin of Adam. Nor is there in this world any 
 condition of human nature, of which we have any know- 
 ledge, in which many do not suffer by the fault of others. 
 Nothing is more common than for children to suffer by the 
 folly, extravagance, intemperance, or wickedness of their 
 parents. Did not the progeny of Ham, the families of 
 Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and the children of Gehazi, 
 suffer by the sin of their parents 1 And He whose com- 
 mandments are holy, and just, and good, speaks of him- 
 self as " visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the chil- 
 dren unto the third and fourth (generation) of them that 
 hate him," Exod. xx, 5. From whence, then, has the 
 objector learned that it is unjust that one should suffer by 
 the fault of another 1 Not from the actual state of man- 
 kind, or from the sacred Scriptures. To give even plausi- 
 bility to the objection, it must be stated in a very different 
 form. Say, then, " It would be unjust for mankind to 
 suffer unavoidably and finally, without remedy, and with- 
 
304 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 out advantage, in consequence of the sin of Adam." But 
 in this shape the objection becomes irrelevant ; because 
 on that very ground on which Adam was reprieved, a 
 provision was made for the conditional absolution of each 
 individual of his immense family. His reprieve opened 
 indeed the door for their birth and personal existence in a 
 state of thraldom, as it was derived from him ; but not 
 without a simultaneous provision for their deliverance. 
 The declaration that " the seed of the woman should 
 bruise the serpent's head," was not so much a promise to 
 Adam, as a denunciation upon the serpent, the enemy T 
 not of Adam only, but of all his progeny : and was a pre- 
 diction of the conditional deliverance of the whole human 
 race. But it was a benefit to mankind, not indeed through 
 the first Adam, by birth, but through the second Adam, by 
 grace. By that Divine declaration, therefore, all mankind 
 were placed on new ground. Each individual has an in- 
 terest in it, by which he is saved from final and uncondi- 
 tional destruction, and by which, while a remedy is pro- 
 vided for the disorder unconditionally entailed on him, a 
 possibility is secured of its turning to his advantage. — 
 Hence whatever, in the present stage of human existence* 
 individuals may suffer through the disobedience of their 
 first parents, no one, merely on that account, can suffer 
 finally and eternally. 
 
 Although all mankind are involved in the penal conse- 
 quences of the sin of Adam, the original promise of a Re- 
 deemer, which was the ground of the reprieve of our 
 offending parent, or rather the fulfilment of that promise, 
 has arrested the general sentence of condemnation : and 
 while it conditionally saves the whole progeny of man from 
 final ruin, it gives them great advantage. This consola- 
 tory truth we learn, not only from the general tenor of the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ, but especially from that parallel, 
 or, rather, antithesis, which St. Paul has produced between 
 the consequences of the offence of the first Adam, and 
 those of the obedience unto death of the second Adam. 
 u Adam was the figure of him that was to come. By 
 one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; 
 and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 
 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For 
 if through the offence of one many be dead ; much more 
 
THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 305 
 
 the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one 
 man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not 
 as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift : for the judg- 
 ment was by one to condemnation ; but the free gift is of 
 many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence 
 death reigned by one ; much more they which receive 
 abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall 
 reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence 
 of one, or rather <V evog tfapatfrwjxaros, by one offence, 
 (judgment came) upon all men to condemnation ; even so 
 by the righteousness of one, or &' svog Sixouu^UTog, by one 
 righteousness, (the free gift canae) upon all men unto jus- 
 tification of life. For as by one man's disobedience 
 many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, 
 shall many be made righteous. Where sin abounded, 
 grace did much more abound. That as sin hath reigned 
 unto death, even so might grace reign, through righteous- 
 ness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ, our Lord," Rom. 
 v, 12-21. 
 
 If this apostolical mode of reasoning be appropriate, 
 the present economy of God, so far from being unjust, is 
 abundantly merciful. The benefits accruing to mankind 
 through the gift of God, by grace, must not, however, di- 
 vert our attention from our subject. If righteousness and 
 life come by Christ, it is because sin and death first came 
 by Adam, verse 12. The grace of God, and the gift by 
 grace, have abounded unto many, because through the 
 offence of one many are dead, verse 15. The free gift is 
 of many offences unto justification, because first the judg- 
 ment was by one to condemnation, verse 16. If they 
 which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of right- 
 eousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ ; by one 
 man's offence death first reigned over them by one, verse 
 17. The righteousness of one is upon all men unto jus- 
 tification of life ; because by the offence of one (judgment 
 came) upon all men to condemnation, verse 18. If by 
 the obedience of one many shall be made righteous ; by 
 one man's disobedience many were made sinners, verse 
 19. And if grace reign, through righteousness, unto eter- 
 nal life by Jesus Christ, sin had first reigned unto death, 
 verse 21. The strength and extent of the remedy prove 
 the inveteracy and extent of the disease. 
 26* 
 
306 THE FALLEN STATE OF MANKIND. 
 
 VII. " At this rate you destroy the work of your own 
 hands. You first suppose that all mankind are depraved 
 and ruined, and then that they are all renewed and re- 
 stored. But if all men are renewed and restored in 
 Jesus Christ, how can they be depraved and ruined in 
 Adam I" 
 
 We answer : — 
 
 1. If mankind were personally justified and sanctified 
 in Christ Jesus, it would imply that they are otherwise 
 depraved and ruined ; for if this were not the case, they 
 would not need the mediation of Jesus Christ. 
 
 2. All mankind are in such a sense justified through 
 Jesus Christ, as not to perish finally and eternally, merely 
 on account of Adam's sin. Hence they are placed in a 
 state of probation, in which they have an opportunity for 
 seeking and finding both a personal interest in " the grace 
 of God," and a personal participation of " the gift by 
 grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ." In the mean- 
 time, they are not so justified as to avoid all the conse- 
 quences of the sin of their first parent, as not to need a 
 personal union with Jesus Christ ; as not to be called to 
 seek such a union with him ; or as not to be finally con- 
 demned for their own sin, if they wilfully neglect to em- 
 brace the Saviour and his salvation. 
 
 3. Mankind are not necessarily regenerated or sancti- 
 fied in Christ Jesus. If this were the case, the fall of 
 their parent would not account for their personal sinful- 
 ness. But the means of their regeneration and sanctifi- 
 i&ation are provided and set before them. They are un- 
 clean ; but a fountain is opened in the house of David 
 for sin and for uncleanness, in which they may wash and 
 be clean. They are not whole, but diseased ; and there- 
 fore have need of a Physician : and there is balm in 
 Grilead, there is a Physician there, by whom all that come 
 to him* whatever be their diseases, may be made whole, 
 These observations leave room, however, for another ob- 
 jection. 
 
 VIII. " If all mankind are guilty and depraved, bow 
 can dying infants be made partakers of the kingdom of 
 heaven 1 You grant the latter, and therefore must give 
 \ip the former." 
 
 There is nothing inconsistent between the ruin and de- 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 307 
 
 pravity of infants by the sin of their parents, and their be- 
 ing finally saved by Jesus Christ. " If by the offence of 
 one, judgment came upon them to condemnation ; so, by 
 the righteousness of one, the free gift comes upon them 
 unto justification of life." However necessary it may be 
 that they who, by personal sin, have confirmed the original 
 sentence of condemnation, should seek and accept a per- 
 sonal interest in Christ, it cannot be necessary for those 
 who have committed no personal sin, and who have never 
 been capable of a personal application of the merit of the 
 Saviour. As to their participation of human depravity, 
 they have never, by an unholy choice or deed, given them- 
 selves up to its government ; and, therefore, dying in per- 
 sonal innocence, they may be renewed by an operation of 
 the Holy Spirit, which does not require, as in the case of 
 adults, their personal co-operation. Their ruin has been 
 effected without their personal fault ; and their recovery 
 is effected without their personal choice. 
 
 As the depravity and ruin of mankind are clearly and 
 decisively demonstrated, in the sacred Scriptures, to be 
 the natural and judicial consequences of the sin of their 
 first parents ; the whole Socinian system must fall to the 
 ground. The rational divines must relinquish their confi- 
 dence in the infallibility of human reason ; grant that a 
 Divine Redeemer and Restorer is necessary ; submit to 
 the doctrine of a propitiatory sacrifice ; and acknowledge 
 their want of a supernatural influence on their minds and 
 hearts, in order to their salvation. They must renounce 
 their boasts of the moral dignity of human nature ; rank 
 themselves with publicans and sinners ; and condescend 
 to be saved by grace. Nor will they hereby lose any 
 thing but their unreasonable prejudices and their destruc- 
 tive sins. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Of the Miraculous Conception of Jesus Christ, 
 
 To bring this doctrine under suspicion, Mr. G. has 
 given us, from Dr. Watts, "the principles and rules of 
 judgment, by which men are influenced in deciding upos 
 
308 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 matters of human testimony." (Vol. ii, p. 372, &c.) His 
 rules are not, however, exactly applicable to the present 
 case. There is a considerable difference between those 
 facts, on the evidence of which we receive the doctrines 
 of Christianity, and those of which we are thereby certified. 
 Our Lord and his apostles wrought miracles in confirma- 
 tion of their testimony. These were public and notorious. 
 But they have related many facts which can be ascertained 
 only on the credit of their testimony ; because the nature 
 of them is inconsistent with public notoriety. We cannot 
 expect the same evidence of our Lord's transfiguration, 
 which we have of his resurrection : and it would be still 
 more unreasonable to expect that the miraculous concep- 
 tion, a thing necessarily private, should be attested equally 
 with our Lord's public miracles. 
 
 The evidence which we have of this part of sacred his- 
 tory, is contained principally in the accounts which the 
 evangelists, Matthew and Luke, have given us in the two 
 first chapters of their respective Gospels. " If these 
 chapters be genuine, that is, written by Matthew and Luke, 
 their authenticity, that is, the truth of the facts recorded, 
 (as Mr. G. justly observes,) must follow ; the general 
 authenticity of these writers being fully established." (Vol. 
 ii,p. 371.) 
 
 Whether these chapters be genuine, it shall now be our 
 business to inquire. 
 
 I. It is not a matter of small importance that they now 
 make a part of what we receive from our predecessors, a3 
 the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 Wetstein, Griesbach, and other learned editors of the 
 New Testament, have admitted them without scruple. — 
 They make a constituent part of all the ancient versions. 
 With the exception of casual mutilations, such as may 
 take place at the extremity of any manuscript, they are 
 found in all the ancient copies, concerning which we have 
 any information. 
 
 II. In addition to all this, the early testimony of the 
 Christian fathers is decisive in favour of their genuineness. 
 
 Ignatius, the disciple of John, speaks of Jesus Christ 
 as being " both of Mary and of God." (Epist. ad Eph. 
 sec. 7.) "Jesus Christ (he says again) was, according 
 to the dispensation of God, conceived in Mary, of the seed 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 309 
 
 of David, by the Holy Ghost." (Sec. 18.) Mr. G. has 
 admitted, that Ignatius believed the miraculous concep- 
 tion. "Ignatius (he says) assigns what we should now 
 deem a ludicrous reason for this concealment, (of the 
 fact in question,) that it might be hidden from the devil." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 492.) 
 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote A. D. 140, makes the follow- 
 ing allusions to the passages in both Matthew and Luke : 
 44 An angel was sent to the same virgin, saying, Behold, 
 thou shalt conceive in thy womb by the Holy Ghost, and 
 thou shalt bring forth a son, and he shall be called the Son 
 of the Highest. And thou shalt call his name Jesus, 
 Luke i, 31, 32, for he shall save his people from their 
 sins, Matt, i, 21 : as they have taught, who have written 
 the history of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ." (Apol. i.) Again : " And the Virgin Mary hav- 
 ing been filled with faith and joy, when the Angel Gabriel 
 brought her good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should 
 come upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadow 
 her, and, therefore, that holy thing born of her should be 
 the Son of God, answered, ' Be it unto me according to 
 thy word,' Luke i, 35, 38." (Dial. par. ii.) 
 
 Irenseus, who wrote A. D. 178, says, " Matthew re- 
 lates his generation which is according to man : ' The 
 book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, 
 the son of Abraham.' " u The Gospel according to Mat- 
 thew was written to the Jews ; for they earnestly desired 
 a Messiah of the seed of David : and Matthew having 
 also the same desire to a yet greater degree, strove by 
 all means to give them full satisfaction, that Christ was of 
 the seed of David : wherefore he began with his genealo- 
 gy." " But the Gospel according to Luke, being of a 
 priestly character, begins with Zacharias, the priest offer- 
 ing incense to God." " There are many, and those very 
 necessary parts of the Gospel, which we know only by 
 his (Luke's) means : as the birth of John, the history 
 of Zacharias, the visit of the angel to Mary, and the de- 
 scent of the angels to the shepherds." (Easeb. His. EccL 
 lib. iii, cap. xi, sec. 8 ; cap. xxii, sec. 3 ; E. Passini Ca* 
 tena Patrum in Matt. ; apud Massuet, p. 347 ; Grabe y 
 p. 471 ; Lard. Cred. p. ii, ch. 17.) 
 
 Tertullian, who wrote A. D, 200, says, " The Apostles 
 
310 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 John and Matthew, and apostolic men, Luke and Mark f 
 teach us concerning the one God, the Creator, and his 
 Christ, born of a virgin. " (Mv. Marc. lib. iv, cap. 2.) 
 He asserts the genuineness of the copies of the four 
 Gospels which were then held by him, and appeals to all 
 the apostolic Churches founded by Paul and John, from 
 whom he had received them, in proof of it." (Ibid. 
 cap. 5.) 
 
 It is not necessary to pursue this subject any farther. 
 We have here the testimonies of the earliest writers of 
 Christian antiquity, in favour of the doctrine, and of the 
 genuineness of the chapters in question. Perhaps there 
 are not many particular passages in the New Testament, 
 which, distinctly considered, descend to us with more 
 positive historical evidence : and we may venture to 
 affirm, that the Socinians themselves would loudly pro- 
 claim the triumph of the miraculous conception, if it were 
 not so violently at odds with their own system. 
 
 III. To corroborate this external evidence, the chapters 
 themselves afford internal proof of their genuineness. 
 It divides itself into two parts. 
 
 1. Our Lord was called Jesus. This name every 
 Christian has been repeatedly told means a Saviour. 
 That he is eminently "the Saviour of all men," is equally 
 known. Now how came it to pass that he received a 
 name so expressive of his office 1 Did his parents fore- 
 see that he would be a Saviour 1 They could not without 
 some Divine revelation. Where then is that Divine 
 revelation recorded 1 Nowhere but in the account of his 
 miraculous conception. The angel which appeared to 
 Mary said, " Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and 
 bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus," Luke 
 i, 31. And that which afterward appeared to Joseph, 
 said, M She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his 
 name Jesus : for he shall save his people from their sins," 
 Matt, i, 21. These are the only accounts which we 
 have of the reason for his receiving this appropriate and 
 significant name. 
 
 2. Our Lord was always denominated by those who 
 believed in him " the Son of God." This appellation, 
 we have seen, was peculiarly expressive of his character. 
 (See pp. 137-142.) But universally as this appellation 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 311 
 
 was used, the reason for it is stated nowhere, but in 
 Luke's account of the miraculous conception. " The 
 Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also that holy 
 thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son 
 of God," Luke i, 35. 
 
 If these passages be erased, the sacred Scriptures will 
 be manifestly imperfect ; because they every where call 
 their great subject, by the appropriate name, Jesus, and 
 speak of him constantly as the Son of God : and yet in 
 no other place do they state how it came to pass that that 
 appropriate name was, from his childhood, given to him, 
 or assign a reason for his being distinguished by so sin- 
 gular an appellation 1 This is, therefore, a strong collateral 
 proof, that the story of the miraculous conception, and 
 that of the vision of Joseph relative to it, are genuine. 
 
 IV. The evidence of the miraculous conception does 
 not, however, depend entirely on the narratives of Matthew 
 and Luke. The precise manner in which Jesus Christ 
 was conceived and born, it is true, are recorded only by 
 those evangelists ; but the fact, that his humanity was 
 produced by supernatural means, has the countenance of 
 the Scriptures in general. 
 
 1. What reason can be assigned for the peculiar man- 
 ner in which God was pleased originally to promise the 
 coming of the great Deliverer of the human race, unless 
 it were to signify that he should be made of the substance 
 of woman, without the concurrence of man? Why was he 
 denominated the seed of the woman, rather than the seed 
 of the man and of the woman 1 How is this question to 
 be answered, but on the supposition of the miraculous 
 conception? 
 
 2. It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader of that 
 prophecy which Matthew has so properly cited from 
 Isaiah : " Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, 
 and shall call his name Iinmanuel," Isa. vii, 14 : " God 
 with us." 
 
 " At the time referred to (in this chapter) the kingdom 
 of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced 
 very low," and was threatened by Pekah, king of Israel, 
 and Rezin, king of Syria. " In this critical conjuncture, 
 Ahaz was afraid that the enemies who were now united 
 
312 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 against him must prevail, destroy Jerusalem, end the 
 kingdom of Judah, and annihilate the family of David. 
 To meet and remove this fear, Isaiah is sent from the 
 Lord to Ahaz, to assure him that the counsels of his ene- 
 mies should not stand ; and that they should be utterly 
 discomfited. To encourage Ahaz, he commands him to 
 ask a sign or miracle, ' either in the depth or in the height 
 above,' which should be a pledge that God would, in due 
 time, fulfil the predictions of his servant, as related in the 
 context. On Ahaz humbly refusing to ask any sign, it is 
 immediately added, ' Therefore the Lord himself shall 
 give you a sign : behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear 
 a son,'" &c. {Dr. A. Clarke on Matt, i, 23.) 
 
 (1.) It is objected, however, that the original word, 
 *' TVlhv dlmah, does not signify a virgin only ; for it is 
 applied, Prov. xxx, 19, to signify a young married 
 woman." The good sense of the reader will tell him that 
 in these words, " the way of a man with a maid," there 
 is no necessity for understanding the latter word as mean- 
 ing any thing but a virgin. " The word Tin 1 )}? dlmah, 
 comes from ED 1 ?;? dlam, to lie hid, be concealed. A virgin 
 was called nD^j? dlmah, because, as a woman, she had 
 not been uncovered. This fully applies to the blessed 
 virgin, who said, ' How can this be, seeing I know no 
 man] 5 " (Dr. A. Clarke on Matt, i, 23.) ^It is an im- 
 portant confirmation of this, that the LXX. translate it 
 vj tfap#svo£, a virgin. 
 
 (2.) To neutralize this passage, the prophecy con- 
 tained in it is said to have been fulfilled in the impregna- 
 tion of " the prophetess," the wife of Isaiah, as related in 
 the following chapter. Whoever candidly compares the 
 two passages will see that they relate to two different 
 subjects. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not the same name as 
 Immanuel. The prophet's wife bearing a son is not called 
 a sign: nor was it a miracle ; but a thing perfectly natu- 
 ral. Much less can it be called such a sign as God 
 offered to give to Ahaz. God offered to produce a miracle 
 of the most stupendous nature, " either in the depth or in 
 the height above," Isaiah vii, 11 ; whereas this was a 
 thing perfectly common. 
 
 3. When St. Paul speaks of the incarnation of the Son 
 of God, he says, " W r hen the fulness of time was come, 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 313 
 
 God sent forth his Son, made of a woman," Gal. iv, 4. 
 We should not have inferred the miraculous conception 
 from this passage, if the apostle had simply said he was 
 born of a woman ; for every child of Adam is born of a 
 woman. But to be made of a woman is a thing very 
 different, and is no where predicated of any but of Jesus 
 Christ only. 
 
 V. The principal, peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, 
 are such as, considered in their connection with each other* 
 require that the human nature of Jesus Christ should be 
 produced in some extraordinary manner. For three 
 reasons, especially, it was necessary that his human nature 
 should be without spot of sin. 
 
 1. Without the spotless purity of his nature, it could 
 not have " pleased the Father, that in him should all ful- 
 ness dwell." " The temple of God must be holy :" but 
 especially that temple in which all the Godhead dwells. 
 In him the holy God could not be manifested — the holy 
 Father could not be seen in the Son, unless the Son were 
 holy, like the Father. He must, therefore, be eminently 
 "the Holy One of God." 
 
 2. WitLout this spotless purity he could not have been 
 the " propitiation for our sins." " Such a High Priest 
 became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from 
 sinners, who needed not daily to offer up sacrifice, first 
 for his own sins, and then for the people's," Heb. vii, 26, 
 27. He could not have been " made sin for us," but 
 that he " knew no sin," 2 Cor. v, 21. He must be "just," 
 who "died for" us, "the unjust," 1 Peter iii, 18. "The 
 blood of Christ could not purge our consciences from 
 dead works," unless he "offered himself, without spot, 
 to God,". Heb. ix, 14. We must " have an Advocate 
 with the Father," who is eminently " the righteous, " and 
 who " is the propitiation for our sins," 1 John ii, 1. He 
 could "take away our sins," only because " in him was 
 no sin," 1 John iii, 5. 
 
 3. It was necessary that he should be perfectly holy, 
 that the Holy Spirit might be communicated by him. The 
 apostles of Jesus Christ laid their hands on the disciples, 
 designating them as the persons for whom they prayed ; 
 and the Holy Ghost was given in answer to their prayer. 
 But Jesus Christ gives the Holy Spirit ; — " If any man 
 
 27 
 
314 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 thirst, said he, let him come to me and drink. This spake 
 he of the Spirit," John vii, 37. Hence that Spirit is de- 
 nominated " the Spirit of the Son," Gal, iv, 6. But how, 
 unless he were without spot of sin, could the " Holy Spi- 
 rit be given to him without measure," that " out of his 
 fulness all we might receive, and grace on grace?" 
 How could the Corinthians he " sanctified in Christ Je- 
 sus," 1 Cor. i, 2, unless Christ Jesus were himself per- 
 fectly holy ? 
 
 It appears from these considerations, not on Socinian, 
 but on Scriptural principles, that there was an absolute 
 necessity for his being pure from all sin. But " what is man, 
 that he shall be clean, and he which is born of a woman, 
 that he should be righteous V Job xv, 14. " How can he 
 be clean that is born of a woman V 7 Job xxv, 4. There is 
 certainly some difficulty in this. That God can bring a 
 clean thing out of an unclean, is granted. But his power 
 must be exerted in that way which his wisdom chooses. 
 That Jesus Christ was " clean," the Scriptures every 
 where maintain ; but they never account for this, except 
 by the extraordinary manner of his birth. " The Holy 
 Ghost (said the Angel Gabriel,) shall come upon thee, 
 and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; 
 therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee 
 shall be called the Son of God." Blot out this, and how 
 shall we account for the unspotted holiness of the human 
 nature of Jesus Christ? 
 
 Mr. G. has, however, attempted to produce some posi- 
 tive evidence that the account of the miraculous concep- 
 tion is spurious. His argument is much more remarkable 
 for the confidence with which it is stated, than for its 
 novelty ; and may be fairly reduced to the following pro- 
 positions : — 1. "Among the primitive Christians there 
 existed some who were called Ebionites and Naza- 
 renes. These were one and the same people, and com- 
 prised all the Hebrew Christians." 2. Those Hebrew 
 Christians " disbelieved the story of the miraculous con- 
 ception." 3. "They received only the Gospel of the 
 Evangelist Matthew. 4. Their Gospel did not contain 
 those chapters which give an account of the miraculous 
 nativity." (Vol. ii, pp. 380-383.) If this be a just state- 
 ment of facts, the inferences that those chapters are spu- 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 315 
 
 rious, and that the story of the miraculous conception is 
 false, are not without some degree of probability. Bat 
 the statement itself is perfectly erroneous. 
 
 There is nothing more common than the variety of the 
 applications which, under different circumstances, in 
 distant places, and in process of time, are made of the 
 appellations given to religious sects, whether according to 
 long-established custom, or by way of opprobrium. We 
 grant that the Hebrew Christians, in the days of St. Paul, 
 were called by the Jews Nazarenes : that there was, at 
 a subsequent period, a sect so denominated by the Gentile 
 Christians : and that the Ebionites were sometimes called 
 Nazarenes. Nor shall we peremptorily deny that those 
 generally denominated Nazarenes were, on some occa- 
 sions, because of certain shades of similarity, denomi- 
 nated Ebionites. What we assert is, that the Ebionites 
 are sometimes, for very sufficient reasons, distinguished 
 from those who are distinguished as Nazarenes : and that 
 the Nazarenes and Ebionites of ecclesiastical history did 
 not comprise all the Hebrew Christians, but were perfectly 
 distinct from the orthodox Hebrews. If this assertion be 
 founded on glaring facts, the futility of Mr. G.'s argu- 
 ment will be sufficiently apparent. 
 
 1. There were, in the days of the apostles, certain be- 
 lieving Hebrews, who, instructed by the first messengers 
 of Jesus Christ, understood that he had " abolished in his 
 flesh the law of commandments (contained) in ordinances," 
 Eph. ii, 15, " stood fast in the liberty wherewith he had 
 made them free, and were not entangled again with the 
 yoke of bondage," Gal. v, 1, 2. These Hebrews were 
 called by their countrymen " the sect of the Nazarenes," 
 Acts xxiv, 5. They were, however, distinguished from 
 those who are so called by the Gentile converts. In 
 his commentary on the prophecy of Isaiah, Jerome distin- 
 guishes them from those " Nazarenes who observed the 
 law." (Jerome on Isa. ix, 1, 2, 3.) And though Origen 
 seems to comprehend the whole body of the Hebrew 
 Christians under the name of Ebionites, and affirms that 
 they adhered to the law of their fathers, {Contra Cels. lib. 
 ii, sec. I,) in another place, where he professes to describe 
 the sects of the Hebrews with the greatest accuracy, he 
 distinguishes between those who, like other Christians, 
 
316 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 entirely discarded the Mosaic law, and those who retained 
 the observation of the law, with or without any spiritual 
 expositions of it. (Contra Cels. lib. iii, sec. 3.) Th© 
 first, therefore, could not be intended to be comprehended 
 under the name of Ebionites, who adhered to the law of 
 their fathers. These, then, are the Hebrew Christiana 
 whom, to serve their own purpose, the Socinians attempt 
 to confound with the heretical Nazarenes. 
 
 2. The Nazarenes of history were those who, contrary 
 to the design of the Gospel, adhered to the law. Jerome 
 says, " To this day a heresy prevails among the Jews in 
 all the synagogues of the east, who commonly go by the 
 name of Nazarenes : who believe in Christ, the Son of 
 God, born of the virgin ; in whom we ourselves believe. 
 But from a desire of being Jews and Christians both at 
 once, they are neither Jews nor Christians."* (Epist. ad 
 August torn, iii, fol. 155, B. edit. Froben.) They are 
 sometimes distinguished into two classes. The first seem 
 to be the descendants of those " weak brethren," who 
 were " zealous for the law of their fathers," though they 
 believed in Christ. These are mentioned by Jerome, as 
 Nazarenes who observed the law, but despised the tradi- 
 tions of the Pharisees, and thought highly of St. Paul. "J: 
 (On Isa. ix, I, 2, 3 ; viii, 14, 19, 21.) These are the 
 Hebrews described by Origen, as " retaining the observa- 
 tion of the law in the letter of the precept, admitting, how- 
 ever, the same spiritual expositions of it which were set 
 up by those who discarded it." (Contra Cels. lib. ii, sec. 
 3.) The second sort of Nazarenes were, apparently, the 
 descendants of those who, in the apostles' days, taught the 
 Gentiles, " except ye be circumcised and keep the law, ye 
 cannot be saved :" and inherited their bigotry. These 
 are the Hebrews described by Origen, as " observing the 
 law according to the letter, but rejecting all spiritual ex- 
 positions of it." (Ibid.) Epiphanius describes this sect 
 of the" Nazarenes as a set of people hardly to be distin- 
 guished from Jews. Jerome distinguishes them from the 
 first sort, as " believing in Christ, the Son of God, born 
 
 * Dr. Horsley thinks " they arose in the second century, from the 
 ashes of the Church of Jerusalem." (Charge, to the Clergy.) 
 
 yah 
 
 f According to Jerome, " they acknowledged in Christ the Jeho- 
 >h, God of hosts, of the Old Testament. " (On Isa. viii, 13, 14.) 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 317 
 
 of the Virgin Mary, in whom the orthodox believe ; but as 
 being so bigoted to the Mosaic law, that they were 
 rather to be considered as a Jewish sect than a Chris- 
 tian." (Epist. ad •Aug.) 
 
 3. Although Origen gives the name of Ebionites to all 
 the Hebrew sects which adhered to the law of their 
 fathers, (perhaps for the sake of giving an opprobrious 
 name to the Nazarenes,) that name is used by some of 
 the writers of antiquity, as-belonging to a sect distinct 
 from those whom they call Nazarenes. Epiphanius, in his 
 book on heresies, distinguishes " the Ebionites as a sect 
 which branched off from the Nazarenes, and appeared not 
 till after the destruction of Jerusalem," (Epiph. Hcer. 
 30.) Eusebius says, "They were so called from the 
 word Ebion, which in Hebrew means poor, because of 
 the poverty of their understanding." He distinguishes 
 two sorts of them. Of the first he says, that " they 
 esteemed Christ a simple, common, and mere man, born 
 of Joseph and Mary ; but, on account of his improvement 
 in virtue, they thought him a righteous man : and that 
 they deemed the observance of the law indispensably 
 necessary to salvation." Of the second, he says, " They 
 were called by the same name, and though, avoiding the 
 follies of the other Ebionites, they did not deny that Jesus 
 was born of the virgin and the Holy Ghost, yet they fell 
 into the same impiety with the others ; for they did not 
 acknowledge either his Divinity or his pre-existence, or 
 that he was the Word and the Wisdom of the Father, 
 They were also zealous for the observance of the law. 
 Both these, he says, rejected the epistles of St. Paul, and 
 stigmatized him as a deserter of the law, and a traitor. 
 They used only the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
 and thought meanly of the other Gospels." (His. Eccles. 
 lib. iii, cap. 21.) Irenaeus also says, that they M disowned 
 the Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the law." 
 (Lib. i, cap. 26.) 
 
 The evidence already adduced is more than enough to 
 destroy the force of Mr. G.'s grand argument. It already 
 appears that though the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, in 
 consequence of their agreement in some of their opinions, 
 were sometimes confounded, they were, in other respects, 
 distinct sects. Epiphanius says the Ebionites branched 
 
 27* 
 
318 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 off from the Nazarenes. Jerome says the Nazarenes 
 " acknowledged in Christ the Jehovah, God of hosts of 
 the Old Testament." Eusebius says the Ebionites " did 
 not even acknowledge either the Divinity or the pre- 
 existence of Christ, but denied him to be the Word 
 and the Wisdom of the Father.'* Jerome says the 
 Nazarenes thought highly of St. Paul. Eusebius says 
 the Ebionites all " rejected the Epistles of St. Paul,, 
 and deemed him an apostate and a traitor." Irenseus 
 also says they " disowned the Apostle Paul, and called 
 him an apostate from the law." It is equally apparent 
 that the Nazarenes were not the orthodox Hebrew Chris- 
 tians ; although the name of Nazarenes was first applied 
 as a stigma on the latter. The Nazarenes of ecclesias- 
 tical history adhered to the law of their fathers ; whereas 
 when Tertullus accused Paul as " a ringleader of the sect 
 of the Nazarenes," he accused him as one who despised 
 the law, and " had gone about to profane the temple," 
 Acts xxiv, 5, 6. This was one great point of difference 
 between the Nazarenes of Tertullus, and those to whom 
 Mr. G. is so partial. 
 
 Having established these distinctions, we proceed to 
 examine Mr. G.'s assertions. 
 
 1. He says, " These Hebrew Christians disbelieved 
 the story of the miraculous conception." 
 
 We reply : (1 ) Jerome says, " The Nazarenes believed 
 m Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, in 
 whom the orthodox believe." (2.) Eusebius says, that one 
 part of the Ebionites " did not deny that Jesus was born 
 of the virgin and the Holy Ghost." On Mr. G.'s own 
 hypothesis, that " the Nazarenes and Ebionites comprised 
 all the Hebrew Christians," it follows that many of the 
 Hebrew Christians did not disbelieve the story of the 
 miraculous conception. The stone, therefore, rolls back 
 on himself, with a momentum increased by his labour* 
 He appeals to the Hebrew Christians, and they to whom 
 he exclusively applies those terms, become swift witnesses 
 against him. Again : admitting that some of the Ebion- 
 ites disbelieved the story of the miraculous conception* 
 those Ebionites were not the proper Nazarenes; nor 
 were the Nazarenes the orthodox Hebrew T Christians* 
 The Ebionites were universally stigmatized as heretics* 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 319 
 
 Irenreus says, " They were circumcised and retained the 
 Jewish law, and Jewish customs." (Lib. i, cap. 26.) 
 Tertullian says, " It was Ebion's heresy, that he observed 
 and defended circumcision and the law." (De Prces. 
 Hceret. cap. 33.) Jerome speaks of" them as a sect 
 M anathematized for their Judaism, and falsely pretending 
 to be Christians." (Epis. ad Aug.) Epiphanius, accord- 
 ing to the translation by Dr. Priestley, says that Ebion 
 " adopted many more things than the Jews, in imitation 
 of the Samaritans :" and the doctor calls the rites which 
 they borrowed from the Samaritans, " abominable rites." 
 (Letter to Dr. Horsley, p. 15.) But the opinion of 
 heretics cannot decide what were the opinions of the 
 orthodox. 
 
 2. Mr. G. says that these Hebrew Christians received 
 only the Gospel by St. Matthew, and that it did not con- 
 tain those chapters which give an account of the miracu- 
 lous nativity. 
 
 All this may be granted with respect to the Ebionites, 
 But how is it to prove, that the chapters contained in the 
 Gospel by St. Matthew, held by the orthodox Church, 
 which consisted of Jews who stood fast in the liberty with 
 which Christ had made them free," and Gentiles who 
 would not "be entangled in the yoke of bondage," are 
 spurious] If the argument be good, it will prove that the 
 other three Gospels and all the Epistles are to be rejected. 
 But if the testimony of these sects is not to be admitted 
 against the rest of the evangelists and apostles, it is equally 
 vitiated as it relates to the two first chapters of St. Mat- 
 thew. The Socinians, therefore, have yet to seek positive 
 and decisive evidence against the chapters in question. 
 
 We will conclude these observations with two quota- 
 tions from Jerome. 1. Enumerating the evangelists, he 
 says, " The first is Matthew the publican, surnamed Levi, 
 who wrote his Gospel in Judea, in the Hebrew language, 
 chiefly for the sake of the Jews, that believed in Jesus, 
 and did not join the shadow of the law with the truth of 
 the Gospel." (Prol. in Comment, super Matt. T. iv, init.) 
 2. " Matthew, called also Levi, first of all wrote a Gospel 
 in Judea, in the Hebrew language, and in Hebrew letters, 
 for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. 
 Moreover, the very Hebrew (Gospel) is kept in the library 
 
320 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 at Cesarea, which was collected with great care by the 
 martyr, Pamphilius ; and with the leave of the Nazarenes 
 who live at Bersea, in Syria, and use that volume, I 
 transcribed a copy. It is observable, that whenever this 
 evangelist, in his own person, or in the person of our 
 Saviour, quotes any passages of the ancient Scripture, 
 he does not follow the version of the seventy, but the 
 Hebrew original. Among which these two deserve 
 notice : ' Out of Egypt have I called my Son,' Matt, ii, 
 15 ; and, ■ He shall be called aNazarene,' Matt, ii, 23." 
 (Dc Vir. Illus. cap. iii.) 
 
 These passages, the last of which Mr. G. has cited, 
 (vol. ii, p. 381,) but not without prudently suppressing the 
 concluding sentences, subvert his whole hypothesis. 
 This was an ancient copy of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. 
 It contained the parts objected to by the Socinians. Yet 
 it was held by those who in the time of Jerome were 
 known by the name of Nazarenes, and who then used it. 
 In addition to all this, Jerome says, it was originally 
 written to those Hebrews who did not mix the shadows of 
 the law with the truth of the Gospel. 
 
 After this laborious, but vain attempt to prove, from 
 external evidence, that these chapters are spurious, Mr. 
 G. proceeds to strengthen his argument by evidence 
 which is internal. To effect this, he searches for all the 
 difficulties which those chapters afford him, and adds a 
 number still more considerable from his own fruitful 
 imagination. 
 
 When a man has an hypothesis to serve by it, he can 
 often find difficulties which would not have been per- 
 ceived by a candid inquirer. Some of those difficulties 
 may be real ; but this is no proof that the passages in 
 which they occur are spurious ; for difficulties may be 
 met with in any piece of ancient history, and actually 
 occur in other parts of the sacred writings, which still are 
 allowed to be both authentic and genuine. Others of 
 them may be accounted for from the mistakes of tran- 
 scribers without in the least invalidating the scope of the 
 narrative. Let us hear, however, what are Mr. G.'s 
 difficulties. 
 
 I. He considers the two first chapters of Matthew's 
 Gospel. 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 321 
 
 1. On the genealogy he observes, " It is the genealogy 
 of Joseph, not of Mary." (Vol. ii, p. 390.) 
 
 The Jews would not have been satisfied that their Mes- 
 siah was of the house of David, had not the genealogy of 
 Joseph, his reputed father, been traced to that source. 
 Hence Luke, when he relates the miraculous conception, 
 before he had given the genealogy, says, " The Angel Ga- 
 briel was sent to a virgin espoused to a man whose name 
 was Joseph, of the house of David," Luke i, 26, 27 : and 
 Matthew relates that " the angel of the Lord appeared 
 unto him saying, Joseph, thou son of David," Matt, i, 20. 
 It appears that the writers of the miraculous history, who- 
 ever they were, concerned themselves to point out the 
 descent of Joseph, rather than of Mary. This was per- 
 fectly agreeable to the Jewish custom. According to 
 Eusebius, " genealogies were reckoned among the Israel- 
 ites, either according to nature, or to law. According to 
 law, as when another took his brother's wife to raise up 
 seed unto him. And this method of reckoning genealo- 
 gies, which is taken from the law, could not be more sig- 
 nificantly or properly expressed, than by the words of 
 Luke : being us svo/xifsro, as is reckoned by law, the son 
 of Joseph. '' (Eccl. Hist. lib. i, cap. 7.) It is equally 
 remarkable concerning Matthew, that while he gives the 
 genealogy of Joseph, he changes his terms at the end, and 
 says, not, as in every other part of it, Joseph begat Jesus, 
 but Joseph was the husband of Mary, sf ^, of whom 
 [singular] was born Jesus. 
 
 2. m Matthew says there were fourteen generations 
 from the captivity to Jesus, whereas, according to the 
 account itself, there were only thirteen." (Yol. ii, p. 390.) 
 
 What then ? Mr. G. grants that " the genealogy was 
 found in several copies of the Gospel of Matthew used by 
 the Jewish Christians :" (vol. ii, p. 389 :) therefore it is 
 not spurious. But no matter : a wound here may answer 
 a good Socinian purpose, by affecting the verses which 
 follow. Griesbach, however, gives authorities for many 
 manuscripts which read Jehoiachim between Josias and 
 Jechonias, according to 1 Chron. iii, 14-16. This will 
 make fourteen generations. 
 
 3. 4 * The 19th verse assigns the reason for Joseph's 
 conduct in putting her (his espoused wife) away privily. 
 
322 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 that he was a just man.'' Against this, it appears, there are 
 two objections. (1.) That " it was not in the power of Jo- 
 seph to put her away privily after a contract of marriage." 
 (2.) That " the reason here given for Joseph's inten- 
 tion, viz. that he was a just man, is a reflection upon the 
 justice of the Deity for the laws delivered to the Jews." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 391.) 
 
 (1.) Mr. G. should have pointed out the law which 
 prohibited a private divorce before cohabitation. It is 
 certain that Deut. xxii, 13 does not refer to such a case ; 
 and that Deut. xxiv speaks of the wife's having been in 
 the husband's house, and says nothing of a public divorce. 
 
 (2.) It is equally clear that Deut. xxii, 13-21 is a law 
 made for the benefit of the husband, and that it does not 
 require him to exhibit a public complaint, but merely pre- 
 scribes how the matter was to be decided in case he did 
 complain. But Joseph may have had good reason for 
 not arraigning his wife ; because though the cause to 
 which she may be supposed to attribute her situation was 
 not satisfactory to him, it might be a very proper induce- 
 ment to treat her with all possible lenity. No man 
 could have acted more properly in a conjuncture so 
 delicate. 
 
 4. Mr. G. thinks it " singular" that the true state of the 
 case was " not communicated to Joseph by Mary, without 
 so needless a miracle as the intervention of an angel ; or 
 if it had been communicated to him, that he did not give 
 credit to Mary's information." (Vol. ii, p. 393.) 
 
 We cannot doubt that Mary related the truth to him in 
 her own vindication. But supposing the veracity of her 
 story, what man, under similar circumstances, would not 
 have been, at that period, equally incredulous ? 
 
 5. He violently objects to the relief of Joseph from this 
 agitation, by a dream. " There is something not quite 
 satisfactory to the mind, (it seems,) in the account of mira- 
 cles performed in a dream." 
 
 (1.) It is not inconsistent with what the Scriptures 
 teach of God's manner of acting, to suppose him to inter- 
 pose on particular occasions, and to make known his will 
 to individuals by a dream. We have instances enow in 
 the cases of Abimelech, Gen. xx, 6 ; of Jacob, Gen. xxxi, 
 11 ; of Joseph, Gen. xxxvii, 5 ; of Pharaoh, Gen. xli ; 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 323 
 
 and of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. iv. These are a sufficient 
 apology for all the dreams which Matthew has related. 
 
 (2.) Though the dreams of individuals, independent of 
 other circumstances, may not be satisfactory to the world, 
 Divine dreams have always been made satisfactory to the 
 persons for whom they were intended. If not, how is it 
 that God said, " If there be a prophet among you, I the 
 Lord will speak unto him in a dream V 9 Num. xii, 6. Nor 
 is it impossible for the relation of such dreams to become 
 perfectly credible by the circumstances of him that reports 
 them ; for why do we give credit to the dreams related by 
 Moses and by Daniel? But it answers Mr. G.'s pur- 
 pose to confound these dreams which were granted to pri- 
 vate individuals for private purposes, with public miracles, 
 wrought for the establishment of Christianity. 
 
 6. " It is stated that all this was done to fulfil a pro- 
 phecy. The antecedent to ' all this,' must be the situa- 
 tion of Mary, and the appearance of an angel in a dream." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 393.) 
 
 Where the point of this observation lies, it is difficult 
 to perceive. But a man must say something ! The 
 words, " all this," refer to the situation of Mary, and the 
 means which were used for the preservation of her person 
 and purity, that the prophecy might be fulfilled. 
 
 7. *' The angel then assigns as a reason for his being 
 called Jesus, that it was predicted that he should be called 
 Emmanuel !" (Vol. ii, p. 397.) 
 
 When ] and where 1 The angel said no such thing. The 
 prophecy is cited by Matthew ; not by the angel. 
 
 8. "Why did Matthew translate the Hebrew word Em- 
 manuel into Greek, when he wrote for Hebrews 1" (Vol. 
 ii, p. 397.) 
 
 Perhaps it was translated when the translation of the 
 whole was made, not improbably by Matthew himself. — 
 And why should not this word, while the original is re- 
 tained as a proper name, be translated with the rest of 
 the book? 
 
 9. " The expression ■ first born' was never used among 
 the Jews as applying to an only child." (Vol. ii, p. 398.) 
 
 But it was : or how could the Jews know that their first 
 born was the Lord's, according to the law, until they had 
 a second child ? The first child was the first born, and 
 
324 THE MIRACtJLOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 was the Lord's, whether a second followed or not. We 
 are not, however, concerned in the question whether 
 Mary had other children. 
 
 10. u Matthew, in citing the prophecy of Micah, has 
 the words, ' art not the least ;' whereas the words of Mi- 
 cah are, ' though thou art little.'" (Vol. ii, p. 408.) 
 
 " Some manuscripts of very good note, among which is 
 the Codex Bezoz, have \i,y\ sXa^iav*] ?j, Art thou not the 
 least? This reconciles the prophet and the evangelist, 
 without farther trouble." (Dr. A. Clarke, in loc.) 
 
 11. " The variation will be observed in the insertion of 
 the word * governor,' which is not in Micah, for * he.' " 
 (Vol.ii,p. 408.) 
 
 Suppose that Matthew wrote, according to Micah, " He 
 shall come forth unto me to be ruler in Israel," Micah 
 v, 2. He that rules is a governor who rules ; and there- 
 fore our copy is a very good translation. 
 
 12. " But it is most remarkable in the change of the 
 word * Ephratah,' for ' Judah' or 4 Judea,' as contained in 
 many Greek copies of the New Testament." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 409.) 
 
 Why then does Mr. G. " suppose this change to be 
 made by Matthew," unless all the Greek copies had this 
 change ? But the change itself is of no importance when 
 we consider that Matthew wrote for the whole world. 
 
 13. Throughout his whole comment on Matt, ii, Mr. 
 G., without a shadow of proof, assumes that the magi who 
 came from the east, were judicial astrologers : or, as he 
 calls them, " conjurers." (Vol. ii, p. 414.) This hypo- 
 thesis affords much scope to his ingenuity. As many of 
 his observations are founded on this theory, it requires 
 some proof. " The Jews believed that there were pro- 
 phets in the kingdom of Saba and Arabia, who were of 
 the posterity of Abraham by Keturah : and that they 
 taught, in the name of God, what they had received in 
 tradition from the mouth of Abraham. That many Jews 
 were mixed with this people there is little doubt ; and 
 that these eastern magi may have been originally of that 
 class there is room to believe. These, knowing the 
 promise of the Messiah, were now probably, like other 
 believing Jews, waiting for the consolation of Israel." 
 (jDr, A. Clarke, in loc.) This is much more probable 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 325 
 
 than Mr. G.'s conjecture ; but it would not have suited 
 his purpose, which is to find, or to invent, improbabili- 
 ties. 
 
 14. The flight into Egypt, and the return to Naza- 
 reth are objected to by Mr. G. on such grounds as his 
 prejudice, rather than his reason, has suggested. But 
 instead of answering his cavils, the reader must be 
 reminded that the Gospel by St. Matthew, held by the 
 Nazarenes, and copied by Jerome, contained these two 
 passages : " Out of Egypt have I called my Son," and, 
 "He shall be called a Nazarene." (Seep. 320.) As 
 these passages stand immediately connected, the first 
 with the return from Egypt, and the last with his coming 
 to Nazareth, the proof that the Gospel held by those 
 Nazarenes contained those accounts is unequivocal. 
 Mr. G., therefore, must grant that they are not spurious. 
 
 Having replied to those objections which have any 
 appearance of solidity, it is not necessary to follow Mr. 
 G. through all the silly questions, which to darken the 
 subject he proposes ; or through the arguments which 
 he erects on difficulties of his own making. He may 
 puzzle himself a little longer, in finding how Joseph could 
 know the situation of Mary ; (vol. ii, p. 391 ;) and amuse 
 himself with conjectures " how it could get to Matthew's 
 knowledge that Joseph had had a dream." (Vol. ii, p. 
 394.) When he has settled these knotty questions, he 
 will be at leisure to prosecute his inquiries into the pro- 
 priety of Joseph's behaviour as related in Matt, i, 25. 
 Though we think him a little unreasonable, we will not 
 intermeddle in his quarrel with Matthew, who has left 
 Luke to inform us that Bethlehem was not the original 
 abode of the holy family. (Vol. ii, p. 400.) We will 
 not interfere in the department of common sense to show 
 him, that the magi meant they were in the east, when 
 they first saw the star, of which they say, " We have seen 
 his star in the east." (Vol. ii, p. 404.) He shall still be 
 at liberty to speak of the wisdom or of the folly of these 
 magi, in relating at Jerusalem the object of their journey. 
 (Vol. ii, p. 404.) He shall not be beholden to us for 
 any ingenious conjecture concerning the nature of the star 
 which guided them, its height, its motions, the possibility 
 or impossibility of its being seen by other persons, its 
 28 
 
826 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION 
 
 evanescence or its permanence. (Vol. ii, pp. 405, 406.) 
 We will not explain to him how all Jerusalem might be 
 thrown into commotion by news, which, if true, bade fair 
 to sap the foundation of a hated tyrannical government. 
 (Vol. ii, p. 407.) He shall still be left to imagine that 
 tyrants (such as Herod) are open, sincere, tender-hearted, 
 conscientious, and free from jealousy ; and that hypo- 
 crites cannot hope to be credited. (Vol. ii, pp. 411-414.) 
 He shall not be hindered from supposing that a stranger 
 may easily be found, by those who know neither his name 
 nor his residence. (Vol. ii, p* 414.) We will not vindicate 
 the rationality of Herod, who commanded the wise men 
 to " make diligent search" for the young child ; (Vol. ii, 
 p. 413 ;) or undertake the arduous task of teaching Mr. 
 G. to enter into the feelings of those first worshippers of 
 the Messiah, as exemplified in their joy at seeing again 
 the star which was to guide them to the Saviour of the 
 world. (Vol. ii, p. 415.) 
 
 Should the reader inquire why a more particular answer 
 is not given to such objections as these, he is desired to 
 consider: 1. That to dwell on such subjects would prove 
 a great dearth of controversial topics : and 2. That though 
 Mr. G. might really need a little friendly assistance in 
 some serious difficulties, he wants only the disposition to 
 vindicate Matthew against these petty cavils which are the 
 fruit, not of critical sagacity, but of unreasonable preju- 
 dice, and which are produced by misconstruing the text, 
 and raising objections against his own comment. 
 
 II. Mr. G. proceeds next to consider the two " mira- 
 culous chapters" of Luke's Gospel. Those of Matthew 
 "appear to him indisputably spurious." (Vol. ii, p. 495.) 
 But we have ventured to dispute it. "Those ascribed to 
 Luke (he acknowledges) have not equally strong evidence 
 against them." (Vol. ii, p. 494.) If there is any evidence 
 against them, it will appear in the examination of his Lec- 
 ture. In the meantime, the reader will remember that 
 we have found strong and satisfactory evidence in their 
 favour. 
 
 Having stated that Luke's Gospel was written in 
 Greece for the Gentile converts, (vol. ii, p. 431,) he " sup- 
 poses for argument's sake," (vol. ii, p. 432,) (i. e. for want 
 of argument,) " that at first it did not contain the two 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 327 
 
 chapters which relate to our Lord's nativity, and that they 
 were early foisted in from some spurious Gospel, and 
 circulated in this form till the adulterated Gospel was 
 universally received," (Vol. ii, pp. 431-433.) 
 
 This u supposition for argument's sake" cannot for 
 truth's sake be admitted. 
 
 1. Mr. G. supposes that this story of the miraculous 
 conception and nativity made a part of one of those 
 spurious Gospels which were written before the genuine 
 Gospel of Luke. According to him, therefore, a report of 
 the miraculous conception was extensively spread among 
 the Gentile converts in the days of the apostles. If this 
 report had been false, the apostles, whose business it was, 
 as Mr. G. contends, to rectify every mischievous error, 
 and preserve the purity of the Gospel, would have 
 pointedly refuted it in their writings ; and their not re- 
 futing it is satisfactory proof that it was true. This 
 argument is still more conclusive, on the supposition that 
 the story was so early ascribed to Luke* 
 
 2e If Mr. G. suppose that this story was not added to 
 the genuine Gospel in the time of the apostles, it is then 
 to be remembered, that while John lived, the genuine Gos- 
 pel of Luke was circulated among all the Gentiles. Theo- 
 dore, bishop of Mopsuestia, says, that before John wrote 
 his Gospel, those of the three other evangelists " were 
 spread over all the world, and were received by all the 
 faithful in general with great regard." (Lard. Cred. vol. 
 ix, p. 403.) When so many copies of the genuine Gospel 
 were in the hands of the Gentile converts, it would be* 
 come extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to interpo- 
 late them all, and to introduce universally a doctrine so 
 contrary to what had been received, without raising violent 
 opposition, and causing a commotion, the report of which 
 must have reached even to the present times. 
 
 3. The Marcionites held a mutilated Gospel attributed 
 to Luke, which did not contain the " miraculous story." 
 Mr. G. enlists them under the banner of Socinus, because 
 on this point they agree with himself : and he is welcome 
 to associate them with his party. Tertullian maintains 
 against them the genuineness of those Gospels, which 
 teach that " Christ was born of a virgin :" (Adv. Marcion, 
 lib. iv, cap. 2 :) and of that of Luke in particular. " If 
 
328 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION, 
 
 it be certain, (he says,) that is most genuine which is 
 most ancient, that most ancient which is from the begin- 
 ning, and that from the beginning which is from the 
 apostles ; in like manner it will be also certain, that 
 has been delivered from the apostles which is held sacred 
 in the Churches of the apostles. Let us then see what 
 milk the Corinthians received from Paul ; to what rule 
 the Galatians were reduced ; what the Philippians read ; 
 what the Thessalonians, the Ephesians, and likewise what 
 the Romans recite, who are near to us, with whom both 
 Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed with their blood. 
 I say then, that with them, but not with them only which 
 are apostolical, but with all who have fellowship with them 
 in the same faith, is that Gospel of Luke received from 
 its first publication, which we so zealously maintain." 
 (Mv. JWarcion, lib. iv, cap. 5.) 
 
 Mr. G. already feels the weight of this argument, and, 
 to evade it as well as he can, he supposes all the Gen- 
 tile converts to have been perverted, and all the genuine 
 Gospels to have been interpolated : so that his faithful 
 allies, the Ebionites, " had no alternative but to receive 
 or reject the whole." (Vol. ii, p. 435.) Thus all the 
 Greek Gospels were lost to what he would call the Chris- 
 tian Churches! Credat Judceus Apelles ! He then 
 feelingly complains that, " of the conduct of the Hebrew 
 Christians, (the Ebionites,) all the accounts have come 
 down to us through the medium of opponents. " (Vol. ii, 
 p. 435.) Alas ! there were no Christians in the first ages 
 but the Ebionites : and of them Divine Providence has 
 not permitted one to give us a faithful account of the rest ! 
 So Mr. G. confesses that he can place no dependence on 
 ecclesiastical history, and that he is perfectly in the dark* 
 But no matter ; 
 
 For ev'n though vanquished, he can argue still ! 
 
 As he finds a deficiency of external evidence against 
 the authenticity of Luke's two first chapters, he labours 
 to find, or to make, some evidence from the chapters 
 themselves. 
 
 1. He opens his attack, by noticing a supposed incon- 
 sistency between the author's introduction, and the two 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 329 
 
 ftrst chapters. He takes for granted that, iri his introduc- 
 tion, " Luke could intend only to relate the public life of 
 Jesus ;" (vol. ii, p. 439 ;) whereas the two first chapters 
 refer to his birth and education. 
 
 If the reader consult the first four verses of the evan- 
 gelist, he will find that not one word is said of Luke's 
 design to write only the public life of Jesus. Mention is 
 there made of " many who had taken in hand to set forth 
 in order a declaration of those things which were most 
 surely believed, even as they delivered them who were eye 
 witnesses ;" but Luke says " it seemed good to him also, 
 having had perfect understanding of things from the very 
 first, to write in order." Here is nothing to distinguish, 
 in his own purpose, between what was done publicly, and 
 what took pjace in private. But if he had professed to 
 write the public life of Jesus, unless he had proposed 
 only that, who would find fault with him for beginning 
 with the birth and education of the subject of his history ? 
 If a writer purpose to relate the public life "of some great 
 man., why is he to be condemned for beginning with the 
 time and place of his nativity, and the circumstances of his 
 introduction to the scene of action ? 
 
 2. M It is a singular assertion of the angel, that John 
 should be * filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mo- 
 ther's womb.' No good can be imagined to have accrued 
 from such a miracle. " (Vol. ii, p. 439.) 
 
 It is singular : or why should it be asserted at all ? And 
 it would be singular if a Socinian could imagine what 
 good could accrue from it. He has no idea of the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost, but for the performance of miracles. — 
 Untaught by the sacred writers, he never dreams that the 
 Holy Ghost is " the Spirit of holiness," and that human 
 beings do not answer the purpose of their creation till they 
 become " a habitation of God, through the Spirit," and are 
 " filled into the fulness of God." 
 
 3. " The promises which are made of the future king- 
 dom of Jesus, Luke i, 31-33, if spiritual, imparted a de- 
 gree of knowledge to Mary, which she does not seem 
 afterward to have possessed." (Vol. ii, p. 441.) 
 
 That they related to a spiritual dominion there is no 
 room to doubt : and that neither Mary nor the disciples 
 understood the precise nature of that dominion, till a later 
 
 28* 
 
330 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION* 
 
 period, we grant. But the ignorance of Mary, after the 
 annunciation of the angel, is certainly as excusable as that 
 of the disciples, after the repeated declarations and instruc- 
 tions which they received from Jesus Christ himself. 
 
 4. " That Elizabeth should greet Mary, as » the mother 
 of her Lord,' goes on the presumption that Elizabeth 
 knew that the child of Mary was to be the Messiah, which 
 was not known till thirty years afterward." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 444.) 
 
 This is assuming that Luke's account is false, in order 
 to prove it false. Elizabeth knew that Mary's child should 
 be the Messiah, because the angel had said that John 
 should " go before the Lord their God," by " the babe 
 leaping in her womb," and by " being filled with the Holy 
 Ghost," Luke i, 16, 17-41. 
 
 5. "Nor does our astonishment terminate here, for 
 Mary also seems to be fully aware what her son would 
 be." (Vol. ii, p. 444.) 
 
 But why be so astonished, when it is known that the angel 
 had said, " Blessed art thou among women ; thou shalt 
 bring forth a son. He shall be great, and shall be called 
 the Son of the Highest : and the Lord God shall give unto 
 him the throne of his father David, and of his kingdom 
 there shall be no end?" Luke i, 28, 31-33. 
 
 6. He objects to "the first verses of the second 
 chapter." 
 
 (1.) That " this phrase, ' the whole world,' is generally 
 used to signify the whole Roman empire. Now of all the 
 historians who have written of this period, not one has 
 mentioned this extraordinary taxing (of the whole Roman 
 empire,) in the days of Herod the Great." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 447.) 
 
 But what will this amount to, unless it be made to ap- 
 pear that Luke's words, tfatfav *rr\v oixojfAsv^v, are always 
 " used to signify the whole Roman empire ?" Where is 
 the proof of this ? Mr. G. may find this same evangelist 
 obviously applying the same phrase to the land of Judea. 
 " Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after 
 those things which are coming on rrj oixoufxsvrj, the land." 
 Compare Luke xxi,21 and 26. And this is the sense of 
 the passage in question. 
 
 (2.) "At this period the Roman emperors do not ap- 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 331 
 
 pear to have interfered at all in the internal management of 
 Judea." (Vol. ii, p. 448.) 
 
 But Mr. G. has not made it " appear" that they did not. 
 Its " not appearing," will not prove that Augustus did 
 not issue this decree : for from nothing, nothing is to be 
 inferred. 
 
 (3.) " Supposing that a decree of this nature was issued 
 by Augustus, it is very improbable that each person should 
 be compelled to go to the city or town in which he was 
 born." (Vol. ii, p. 449.) 
 
 Are we, then, to condemn every thing merely on our 
 
 ■own perverse opinion of its improbability ? Mr. G. should 
 
 either prove that Luke's statement is false, or let it alone. 
 
 (4.) " Bethlehem does not appear to have been Joseph's 
 
 native place." (Vol. ii, p. 449.) 
 
 It " does not appear" that it was not. 
 (5.) " There was no necessity, according to the Jew- 
 ish customs, for Mary's going." (Vol. ii, p. 449.) 
 
 If there was no necessity for it, " according to the 
 Jewish customs," there might be prudential reasons for 
 her going with her husband : the providence of God so 
 ordering it that Christ should be born at Bethlehem. 
 
 (6.) " Cyrenius was not made governor of Syria till 
 ten or twelve years after the death of Herod." (Vol. ii, 
 p. 450.) 
 
 Granted. But the words of Luke, arpwrvj yysixovsvovrog 
 rr\$ Svpiag Kupr ( v{ou, may be translated, before Cyrenius 
 was governor of Syria. The word tfpurog is used in this 
 sense in John i, 30 : zspurog fxou *jv, " he was before me :" 
 and in John xv, 18, " The world hated me, tfpwrov ujulwv, 
 before it hated you." The sense is therefore legitimate, 
 and renders the passage consistent with the fact alluded 
 to. (See Br. Ji. Clarke in loc.) Other solutions are 
 given by Dr. Lardner, (vol. i, pp. 248-329,) but none of 
 them satisfy Mr. G. And no wonder ! It would not 
 answer his purpose to be satisfied. But the credit of 
 Luke is not to be affected by his dissatisfaction. 
 
 (7.) " But when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, 
 which was ten or twelve years after the death of Herod, 
 there was an enrolment from which the Jews apprehended 
 entire slavery. This must imply that they had never be- 
 fore been so assessed." (Vol. ii, p. 453.) 
 
332 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 Not at all. The Jews might patiently endure a first 
 enrolment, because they had neither witnessed nor con- 
 ceived the effects which it would produce. Before a 
 second was made, their eyes might be opened, and they 
 might be more easily excited to resist. But this, either 
 under a first or a second enrolment, would depend on the 
 zeal of some individuals. Accordingly, the very passage 
 which Mr. G. has cited from Josephus, asserts that " Judas 
 Gaulonites, together with one Sadducus, a Pharisee, urged 
 them to rebel, asserting that the enrolment brought upon 
 them nothing less than entire slavery, and calling upon the 
 nation to maintain their liberty." (Vol. ii, p. 452.) This 
 might be done as probably on the second as on the first 
 occasion. 
 
 (8.) But we have additional " proof that this (under 
 Cyrenius) was not only the first, but the only assessment 
 of the kind, that Gamaliel, in Acts v, 37, calls the days of 
 Judas of Galilee, the days of the taxing." (Vol. ii, p. 453.) 
 
 By no means : for Gamaliel might speak thus, because 
 that taxing was rendered remarkable by the insurrection 
 which it occasioned. 
 
 Here then is no proof of any error in the statement of 
 Luke. 
 
 7. " Another error will be found in verses 41, 42. It 
 was not ' the custom,' among the Jews, for the whole 
 family, or for both parents to go up to Jerusalem, but for 
 males only. It is then scarcely within the limits of credi- 
 bility that both Joseph and Mary went up to Jerusalem 
 every year, from Nazareth, when the law required the 
 presence of Joseph only." (Vol. ii, p. 457.) 
 
 The words of the evangelist do not necessarily imply 
 that it was the custom for females to go to the feast, but 
 that it was the custom for males to go up when they were 
 twelve years of age. That the mother of Jesus should go 
 with him, is not to be wondered, when we consider the ex- 
 traordinary character of the child. Nor can the distance 
 of Nazareth from Jerusalem be a solid objection, when it 
 is considered that boys of twelve years went up from all 
 parts of the land of Israel. When so great a concourse 
 of people went up to the feast, it would be unreasonable 
 to suppose that some women did not customarily attend 
 them, though the law did not require it. 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 333 
 
 8. Mr. G. affects to raise a number of serious objec- 
 tions from the wonder and astonishment which were 
 frequently excited by new circumstances. After many 
 extraordinary things had taken place, " when Simeon 
 congratulated the parents of the child, we are told 
 that Joseph and his mother marvelled. " (Vol. ii, p. 456.) 
 They were amazed when they found him in the temple 
 conversing with the doctors. (Vol. ii, p. 457.) And 
 lastly, when he said, " How is it that ye sought me? Wist 
 ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" to 
 perfect his argument, as if Luke had again spoke of their 
 wonder, Mr. G. represents them as " at the acme of 
 amazement." (Vol. ii, p. 458.) 
 
 To pass by this last mistake, we put it to any man of 
 sense and candour, whether it be not perfectly probable that 
 new circumstances should excite new wonder. Who will 
 say that the amazement of the parents has not since been 
 raised to a much higher pitch, and that it will cease 
 before Jesus shall come in the clouds of heaven, when 
 he shall be " admired in all them that believe V 9 
 
 We now find ourselves again in the midst of objections 
 which neither require nor deserve a reply. We are not 
 concerned to prove the reasonableness of Mary's agitation 
 on the salutation which she received, (vol. ii, p. 411,) 
 of Elizabeth's retirement after her conception, (vol. ii, p. 
 449,) of Mary's leaving Elizabeth when she had about 
 fulfilled her time, (vol. ii, pp. 443, 445,) of the fear which 
 came on the neighbours of Zacharias after the birth and cir- 
 cumcision of John ; (vol. ii, p. 445 ;) or of Mary's bring- 
 ing forth at Bethlehem, under great inconvenience, when 
 her cousin Elizabeth lived only a few miles distant. (Vol. 
 ii, p. 455.) Mr. G. shall be left to invent a more delicate 
 speech for Mary, or to be shocked at that which is re- 
 corded ; (vol. ii, p. 442 ;) to quarrel with Luke for not 
 having informed him when Joseph and Mary were mar- 
 ried ; (vol. ii, p. 443 ;) for not making farther mention 
 of Elizabeth, or of any additional visits which Mary paid to 
 her ; (vol. ii, p. 454 ;) to determine the nature of what Eliza- 
 beth felt on the salutation of Mary, and the manner in which 
 it came to be known ; (vol. ii, p. 443 ;) to show cause why 
 Bethlehem was crowded ; (vol. ii, p. 455;) and to convince 
 himself and his " learned (Socinian) commentators" that 
 
334 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 
 
 a manger is not a cave. (Vol. ii, p. 455.) On such 
 topics the bookseller will best appreciate his observations. 
 III. Mr. G.'s " next point is to compare the accounts 
 in the two chapters supposed to have been written by 
 Matthew, with the two ascribed to Luke." We haste to 
 attend him. 
 
 1. " The accounts are so totally different that no one 
 event is found related by both." (Vol. ii, p. 459.) 
 
 That the two evangelists dwell on different circum- 
 stances connected with the birth of Jesus is granted. But 
 this makes nothing against the truth of their history. 
 Luke relates what Matthew had omitted. 
 
 2. " According to Matthew, the magi are the first 
 persons who bring the important tidings to Jerusalem." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 460.) 
 
 We will wait till Mr. G. have shown where Matthew 
 has said, that no news of the birth of Christ had reached 
 Jerusalem before the magi came thither. When this is 
 done we will attend to the argument founded on it. 
 
 3. " According to Matthew's account, Bethlehem 
 appears to have been the usual residence of Joseph and 
 Mary." (Vol. ii, p. 461.) 
 
 It may appear to Mr. G. ; but to any person who can 
 see with his eyes, it will not appear that Matthew has said 
 any thing about their usual residence. 
 
 4. " According to Matthew, the magi are directed to a 
 house as the residence of Jesus. From Luke we can col- 
 lect only that he was laid in a manger." (Vol. ii, p. 461.) 
 
 But does Mr. G. " collect" from Luke that that man- 
 ger was in the open air ? 
 
 5. " According to Matthew, Joseph and Mary must 
 have stayed at Bethlehem a considerable time when they 
 began their journey to Egypt. Luke states that after the 
 performance of all the ceremonies, according to the law, 
 they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth," 
 (Vol. ii, p. 462.) 
 
 The words of Luke do not necessarily imply that they 
 went immediately from Jerusalem to Nazareth. It is 
 therefore perfectly easy and natural to suppose that they 
 went first to Bethlehem, where they received the visit of 
 the magi ; and that they then took their journey into 
 Egypt, from whence they returned to Nazareth. This 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION, 335 
 
 gives room for all that is related by either of the evan- 
 gelists. 
 
 6. " Luke makes the parents go up from Nazareth to 
 Jerusalem every year. Matthew records their taking a 
 long journey into Egpyt." (Yol. ii, p. 462.) 
 
 Mr. G. cannot prove from Matthew that the journey to 
 Egypt took up a whole year. Nor does Luke say how 
 long they had strictly attended to the custom of annually 
 going up to Jerusalem. His words may be true, as 
 referring to the time of which he speaks, even if the 
 parents, while they were in Egypt, had once omitted to 
 visit Jerusalem. 
 
 IV. Mr. G. in the last place examines the evidence 
 deducible from other parts of evangelical history. 
 
 1. "The first thing that strikes him is, that neither 
 Matthew nor Luke mentions the miraculous conception, 
 throughout the whole remainder of their Gospels." (Vol. 
 ii, p. 463.) 
 
 The frequent recurrence of this mode of reasoning, and 
 the gravity with which it is exhibited, excite a desire to 
 know what are the principles on which it is founded. 
 Must the account which the historian gives of the birth of 
 his subject in the beginning of his narrative, be deemed 
 spurious because, after he has finished that part of it, he 
 does not afterward advert to it ? 
 
 2. " In the Gospels of Mark and John, these miracu- 
 lous events are altogether omitted." (Vol. ii, p. 463.) 
 
 It is much more just to argue that if Matthew and 
 Luke had, in their genuine works, given no account of 
 the birth of Jesus, Mark or John would have supplied the 
 deficiency, than that it was necessary for Mark or John 
 to repeat what was already recorded. This observation 
 will have the more weight, when it is considered that an 
 account of the birth of Jesus was necessary as a record 
 of the fulfilment of many important prophecies ; and that 
 John wrote his Gospel as a supplement to the rest. The 
 silence of Mark and John, therefore, if it prove any thing, 
 proves that the accounts given by Matthew and Luke are 
 genuine.* But, allowing Mr. G.'s mode of reasoning 
 
 * Mr. G. supposes Mark's Gospel to be an abridgment of Mat- 
 thew's, and then assigns a curious reason for Mark's silence on this 
 subject, viz. that Matthew's Gospel did not contain those chapters, 
 
336 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION- 
 
 to be good, it will follow that Jesus Christ was not born 
 at all, because John or Mark make no mention of his 
 birth. 
 
 3. " The commencement of the chapter which, in our 
 received version, stands as the third of the Evangelist 
 Matthew, is exceeding unnatural in its connection with the 
 two preceding chapters." (Vol. ii, p. 465.) 
 
 Such is the power of prejudice ! The third chapter 
 begins with, " In those days came John the Baptist, 
 preaching." Now let the reader judge whether " those 
 days" are most naturally connected with the words, " and 
 from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are four- 
 teen generations," or with the latter part of the second 
 chapter, which speaks of Jesus's " dwelling at Nazareth." 
 While Jesus dwelt at Nazareth, " in those days came 
 John the Baptist, preaching." 
 
 4. The next objection is taken from a comparison of 
 the dates which Luke gives in the beginning of his third 
 chapter, with what may be gathered from Matthew. Mr. 
 G. computes that, whereas according to Luke, our Lord 
 was about thirty years of age when John opened his mi- 
 nistry, according to Matthew he was then about thirty-six 
 years of age." (Vol. ii, pp. 466-469.) 
 
 When a man has a purpose to serve by a compound 
 chronological calculation, he can take many advantages. 
 If there are different periods from which he may calculate, 
 he can fix upon that which will best serve the cause he 
 has espoused. Where only the year is named, he can 
 take what month of it he chooses, and thereby gain 
 several months. And when time is to be allowed for any 
 given transaction, he can lengthen or shorten the period of 
 it as he pleases.* Thus, by various measures, all ope- 
 rating the same way, he makes sure of his object. But 
 
 (Vol. ii, p. 464.) So an abridgment proves that the original con- 
 tained nothing but what is found in the abridgment. Taking the 
 word in its vulgar sense, we do not, however, allow that Mark 
 abridged Matthew. 
 
 * Mr. G. has given us a remarkable instance of this maneuvre. 
 He says that our Saviour must have been between two and three 
 years of age when Herod died : it is generally presumed that he was 
 four. Then, instead of taking that number which he grants may 
 possibly be just, he takes that which will best prove the error of the 
 evangelist. (Vol. ii, pp. 467, 468.) 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION* 337 
 
 this is not the method in which a candid critic would exa- 
 mine the chronology of a writer. He would give, rather 
 than take, every advantage* 
 
 The reign of Tiberius may be calculated from two dif- 
 ferent periods : the first, when he became a partner in 
 the empire with Augustus ; the second, when he became 
 sole governor. Several learned chronologers are of opi. 
 nion that Luke dates the ministry of John from the former 
 of these periods : and they are very probably in the right; 
 for whatever might be done in the imperial city, it was 
 common in the provinces to date from the proconsular 
 reign. Now the proconsular reign of Tiberius is supposed 
 by some to have begun about three years before the death 
 of Augustus, on the 28th of August, A* XL 764. According 
 to this date, the 15th year of his reign began Aug. 28th, 
 A. U. 778. Supposing that John began his ministry in 
 November following, in the same year, then, allowing that 
 Jesus was born in September, A. U. 748, he would be 
 about thirty years of age at the commencement of John's 
 ministry.* Mr. G. supposes Herod to have died A. U. 
 750. This was two years after the birth of Christ. It 
 is not necessary to allow any more than about one year 
 and a half from the birth of Christ to the massacre of the 
 infants at Bethlehem, or more than half a year from the 
 massacre to the death of Herod. At this rate, Matthew 
 and Luke agree exactly in their chronological dates. 
 
 5. " Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, alludes to his 
 * former treatise,' and mentions the nature and object of 
 that treatise, namely, to relate ' all that Jesus began both 
 to do and to teach.' If he had been the author of the 
 two chapters ascribed to him, it would have been easy 
 and natural to have mentioned these as included." (Vol. 
 ii, p. 470.) 
 
 Apply this to the genealogy, or to the ministry of John, 
 both of which are recorded in the chapters which Mr. G. 
 thinks to be genuine, and try whether the argument be 
 good. And yet it is as applicable in one case as in the 
 other. The truth is, the words of Luke mean no more 
 than that he had treated of the acts of Jesus in his former 
 
 * The reader may find the authorities for this computation in Dr. 
 Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, p. 1, b. i^c. 3. 
 
 29 
 
338 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTIONS 
 
 work, and now he was about to write the acts of the 
 apostles. 
 
 6. " Luke states that all men mused in their hearts of 
 John, whether he were the Christ or not. Ask yourselves 
 whether the author who wrote the above, is the same as 
 he who wrote the account of the shepherds, and of Anna." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 473.) 
 
 Suppose the reports which were spread by the shep- 
 herds, by Anna, and add, by the magi, to have excited an 
 unusual expectation of the speedy appearance of the Mes- 
 siah. Does it follow that they who looked for him knew 
 his person? If not, they might at first imagine that John 
 was " he that should come." 
 
 7. " If the evangelists Matthew and Luke knew that 
 Jesus was born at Bethlehem, would they not, sometimes 
 at least, have denominated him Jesus of Bethlehem 1" 
 (Vol. ii, p. 471.) 
 
 Is it clear, beyond all contradiction, that every person 
 is denominated from the place of his nativity, rather than 
 from the place of his long-continued residence 1 Had the 
 evangelists denominated him Jesus, a native of Nazareth, 
 Mr. G. mighthave made something of it. Buthe is denomi- 
 nated Jesus of Nazareth, because " he dwelt in Nazareth." 
 Let Mr. G. produce the place where the apostles said or 
 allowed that Jesus was born in Nazareth, and we must 
 bow to its authority. 
 
 " Then here is the passage ! 4 When Pilate heard of 
 Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilean ; and 
 as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's juris- 
 diction, he sent him to Herod.' Here you see an inquiry 
 is actually made into the birthplace of Jesus, and the 
 result of the inquiry is, that he was born at Nazareth." 
 (Vol. ii, p. 475.) 
 
 How does it appear that the " inquiry was made into 
 the birthplace of Jesus ?" Is here one word about the 
 place of his birth ? And why was not the place of his 
 abode the subject of the inquiry 1 Did not Jesus come 
 under Herod's jurisdiction by being an inhabitant of 
 Galilee ? 
 
 8. " It is recorded of John that he ' knew not' Christ. 
 If the miraculous events recorded in the first two chapters 
 of Matthew and Luke be true, and so great an intimacy 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 339 
 
 subsisted between Mary and Elizabeth, is it probable that 
 for thirty years Jesus should be unknown to John?" (Vol. 
 ii, p. 447.) 
 
 It is not at all improbable that two persons should be 
 thirty years unacquainted with each other. As for the 
 " miraculous events" of which Mr. G. speaks, none of 
 them had any reference to their ever being brought toge- 
 ther : nor can Mr. G. prove from those chapters that they 
 had had any opportunity of knowing each other. 
 
 9. u All the Jews considered Jesus as the son of Jo- 
 s-eph, and the evangelists, so far from contradicting this 
 opinion, appear to have encouraged it, and to have believed 
 it themselves." (Vol. ii, p. 447.) 
 
 (1.) That the Jews in general believed Jesus to be the 
 son of Joseph, is not denied. Nor is it denied that they 
 were never better informed during our Lord's ministry. 
 Until he was " declared to be the Son of God with power 
 by the resurrection from the dead," they were not likely 
 to believe it; because the proofs of his being the Messiah 
 were the only proofs that, in the nature of the thing, could 
 be given of the miraculous conception, had it been an- 
 nounced to them. To have explicitly published this cir- 
 cumstance before, would have been only to throw a 
 stumbling block in their way. But though the Jews 
 thought him the son of Joseph, neither Jesus nor his dis- 
 ciples, when they were well informed, ever acquiesced in 
 that opinion, or encouraged it. The truth is, that they 
 seem to have always evaded it. Mr. G. has attempted 
 to prove the contrary : but without success. " When he 
 was come into his own country, his countrymen said, Is 
 not this the carpenter's son ? and they were offended in 
 him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without 
 honour, save in his own country, and in his own house," 
 Matt, xiii, 54-57. Was this either an acknowledgment, 
 or a denial, that he was the carpenter's son ? In the next 
 passage which Mr. G. quotes, his being the son of Jo- 
 seph is no part of the question. They said, " Is not this 
 the carpenter, the son of Mary ?" Mark vi, 3. The next 
 passage runs thus : " And they said, Is not this Joseph's 
 son? And he said unto them, Ye will surely say, Physi- 
 cian, heal thyself. And he said, Verily, I say unto you, 
 m> prophet is accepted in his own country," Luke iv, 22- 
 
340 THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION 
 
 24. " This (says Mr. G.) is most assuredly an acknow- 
 ledgment, by Jesus himself, that he was the son of Jo~ 
 seph." (Vol. ii, p. 478.) But who beside Mr. G. can 
 see it ? It is an acknowledgment that Nazareth was his 
 own country. Mr. G. thinks, however, that the evangel- 
 ists believed it because they have recorded these things 
 without any note of censure. (Vol. ii, p. 479.) Just 
 as well might he argue that they believed Jesus to be a 
 blasphemer ! 
 
 (2.) The correlative terms, father and son, are some- 
 times used properly, and sometimes improperly. If this 
 were not the case, how could " the author of the two mi- 
 raculous chapters, generally ascribed to Luke," after he 
 had recorded the miraculous conception, put into the 
 mouth of Mary those words, " Thy father and I have 
 sought thee sorrowing ?*' and how could Jesus " call 
 God his Father," and be the proper son of Joseph ] Jo- 
 seph might be called the father of Jesus, as being a kind 
 of father-in-law, and the term might be so used with per- 
 fect innocence, when it did not involve the question of pro- 
 creation. But Joseph is never styled his proper father ; 
 whereas when " the Jews sought to kill him, because he 
 aaid that God was iSw <7ra<rspa, his proper Father," John 
 v, 18, so far from retracting, he proceeded to vindicate 
 the terms which he had used : and Paul styles him tov 
 nJiov uiov, the proper Son of God," Rom. viii, 32. 
 
 10. " When Philip found Nathanael, he said unto him, 
 We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the 
 prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph!" 
 (Vol. ii, p. 479.) 
 
 At this time, whether the story of the miraculous con- 
 ception be true or false, Nathanael knew nothing of it. — 
 He had but just become acquainted with the person of 
 Christ, and distinguished him by the compellation by 
 which he was commonly known. This, therefore, proves 
 nothing ! 
 
 11. " If Jesus were not the son of Joseph, what pro- 
 priety or consistency can there be in that appellation, 4 the 
 Son of man V Would the same appellation be given to 
 Adam ?" (Vol. ii, p. 480.) 
 
 What a blunder ! Was Adam born of a woman ? But 
 waiving this; when Mr. G. has told us with what propriety 
 
THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 341 
 
 Jesus was called " the Son of David," he will be able to 
 assign a reason for his calling himself "the Son of man," 
 without supposing that Joseph was his proper father. 
 
 12. " We read in Mark that his friends said, 'He is 
 beside himself.' How consistent this charge of supposed 
 insanity is with the miraculous chapters, a few moments' 
 consideration will enable any one to decide." (Vol, ii, p. 
 480.) 
 
 One moment is quite enough ; for the charge is as con- 
 sistent with those chapters, as with the miracles at his 
 baptism, or the miracles which the inhabitants of Naza- 
 reth had "heard were done in Capernaum," Luke iv, 23. 
 He that can reconcile it in the one case, will have over- 
 come all the difficulty of the other. 
 
 13. " Luke is positive that he was the son of Joseph, 
 really being, as he was supposed, the son of Joseph." 
 (Vol. ii,p.481.) 
 
 We may omit the passage already quoted from Euse- 
 bius, (p. 321,) for Mr. G. has answered his own argument. 
 " It is rather remarkable (says he) that Grotius, when vin- 
 dicating the two genealogies, although he says Jesus was 
 not the son of Joseph, states that Luke, by the term svo/jlj- 
 £sro meant (not the natural, but) the legal descent." In 
 plain words, Joseph was not the natural, but the legal 
 father, the father-in-law of Jesus. 
 
 In concluding this important subject, it is but candid to 
 observe that Mr. G. has taken immense pains to render 
 the miraculous conception doubtful. If the question is to 
 be decided by the number of his arguments, the victory 
 will be indisputably his. But if a weak cause can need to 
 be betrayed by the imprudent officiousness of its apolo- 
 gist, Mr. G. is the man to decide its fate. A few of his 
 arguments have apparent force, and needed to be fairly 
 examined and refuted : but the majority of them are the 
 most unworthy of a man of sense that can be imagined ; 
 and precisely such as Mr. Paine has used against the 
 whole Christian system. It is not, however, the business 
 of a polemic to ridicule, but to answer the arguments of 
 his opponent. We have answered far more than were 
 deserving of notice, and after a close examination of them 
 all, we see the doctrine in question stand unshaken as a 
 temple, the main pillars of which have not been even 
 29* 
 
342 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 touched. It is not, however, Mr. G.'s fault that he has 
 not succeeded in robbing the Redeemer of his peculiar 
 glory, and in degrading him to a level with many of the 
 sinners for whose salvation he came into the world. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Of the Ordinary Influence of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 It is an opinion of the Socinians, which has been fre- 
 quently repeated by Mr. G., that the Holy Spirit is no 
 other than the energy or operation of God. We think it 
 right, for reasons already assigned, (chapter vi,) to hold a 
 language which appears to us to agree more exactly with 
 the general tenor of Scripture, and to conceive of the Holy 
 Spirit as of God energizing or operating on his creatures, 
 in their formation, sustenance, or improvement. But 
 whether, on this occasion, we adopt our own language or 
 that of our antagonist, we are warranted to say, it is not 
 possible that any creature should be without a Divine in- 
 fluence. For whether the Divine Spirit be the Divine 
 energy or operation, or God operating on his creatures, if 
 that Spirit be (as the Scriptures assert,) every where pre- 
 sent, God is every where operating upon his creatures. 
 
 1. The Spirit of God operated on all the creatures at 
 their creation* (1.) On things inanimate : "The Spirit 
 of God moved on the face of the waters," Gen. i, 2. " By 
 his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens," Job xxvi, 13. 
 (2.) On things animate, and on man in particular : — 
 "God breathed into man the breath (spirit) of life, and he 
 became a living soul," Gen. ii, 7. "The Spirit of God 
 hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given 
 me life," Job xxxiii, 4. 
 
 2. The same Spirit still operates on all nature for the 
 support of the creatures of his power. (1.) On all the 
 vegetable world: " Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are 
 created : thou renewest the face of the earth," Psalm civ, 
 SO. (2.) On all the animal world : — " If he gather unto 
 himself his Spirit, all flesh shall perish together," Job 
 xxxiv, 14, 15. (3.) And on man in particular : " For in 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 343 
 
 him we live and move and have our being," Acts 
 xvii, 28. 
 
 If the Spirit of God be the principal, immediate author 
 of every thing in the natural world, we may justly expect 
 to find him a principal agent in the spiritual and moral 
 world. Whether man be considered as an intelligent 
 being, it is God that " teacheth him knowledge." 
 44 There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the 
 Almighty giveth them understanding," Job xxxii, 8. Or 
 whether he be considered as a moral agent, it is but just 
 in him to acknowledge, 44 Thou Lord hast wrought all our 
 works in us," Isa. xxvi, 12. God 44 poured out his Spirit 
 of old upon the house of Israel," Ezek. xxxix, 29. He 
 44 gave his good Spirit to instruct them," Neh. ix, 20. His 
 " Spirit strove with" them, Gen. vi, 3. He 44 upheld" 
 them by his " free Spirit," Psalm li, 12. Some of them 
 prayed him 44 not to take from, them his Holy Spirit," 
 Psalm li, 11. And others of them t4 rebelled and vexed his 
 Holy Spirit," Isaiah lxiii, 10. But the plenitude of the 
 Spirit was reserved for the latter days, and to do honour 
 to the immediate reign of Messiah, who should " baptize" 
 his followers t4 with the Holy Ghost and with fire," Luke 
 iii, 16. In this enlarged sense, 44 the Holy Ghost was not 
 (previously) given, because that Jesus was not then glo- 
 rified," John vii, 39. But when he 44 ascended up on high, 
 he led captivity captive, and received gifts for men ; yea, 
 for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell 
 among them," Psalm Ixviii, 18. 
 
 When the great Head of the Church sent forth his apos- 
 tles to set up and establish the new dispensation, and to 
 Christianize the world, he fitted them for the vast under- 
 taking by endowing them with supernatural wisdom, and 
 miraculous power. That they might speak the truth of 
 God, 44 not in words which human wisdom teacheth, but 
 which the Holy Ghost teacheth," the Spirit of truth was 
 given to them to guide them into all truth. And to cor- 
 roborate their testimony, they were enabled, in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus, to work the most astonishing miracles. 
 They 44 received power from on high, when that the Holy 
 Ghost was come upon them, and became witnesses" of 
 their Lord. The 44 great salvation which at first began to 
 be spoken by the Lord was thus confirmed by them that 
 
344 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 heard him ; God also bearing them witness, both with 
 signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and with 
 gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will," Heb. 
 ii, 3, 4. 
 
 This extraordinary inspiration, and these miraculous 
 powers were conferred on the first messengers of Christ 
 for general purposes. The design of them was to enable 
 the apostles and their helpers to spread and to establish 
 Christianity among both Jews and Gentiles. The use of 
 them was for the conviction of unbelievers, and the edifi- 
 cation of the Church. (See 1 Cor. xiv, 4, 24.) But are 
 these general purposes the only purposes for which the 
 Holy Ghost has been either promised or imparted ? Is 
 not the influence of the Spirit of God necessary to indivi- 
 duals for their own personal salvation ? and is it not pro- 
 mised, and has it not been imparted, with that design ? 
 Without any hesitation, we answer, Yes. 
 
 When Mr. G. has occasion to produce any of those 
 passages which relate to this subject, he has frequently 
 hinted that they relate to the miraculous powers conferred 
 on the apostles and the primitive ministers of the Chris- 
 tian Church. As it would not be deemed fair to take 
 occasion from those hints to examine this subject, without 
 having produced some of them, the reader is presented 
 with the following specimens : — 
 
 " It will perhaps be asserted that we do not believe in 
 the Holy Spirit, to which Jesus and his apostles so fre- 
 quently laid claim." (Tol. i, p. 111.) 
 
 " It was the energy, the power, the Spirit of God im- 
 parted to Jesus Christ and his apostles, manifested by 
 their performance of miracles." (Yol. i, p. 112.) 
 
 Speaking of the command of our Lord to his apostles 
 to " baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit," he says, " The Holy Spirit, or Divine 
 energy, which was exhibited in miracles, is distinguished 
 from the Son, as not being his own naturally inherent 
 power, nor resident in him alone, but likewise communi- 
 cated to the apostles." (Vol. i, p. 132.) 
 
 " Thus, they (the writers of the New Testament) will 
 be found to have used the term Holy Spirit, sometimes 
 as the cause, viz. the energy, power, or breathing of God 
 himself; sometimes as the effect, viz. the power they 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 345 
 
 possessed of working miracles in consequence of this 
 energy or breathing of the Deity. These significations 
 will be found consistently to explain all the passages 
 relating to the Holy Spirit" (Yol. i, p. 163.) 
 
 " This Holy Ghost, this Comforter, he now declares 
 he will send to them, and then states it to be, that they 
 were to be ' endued with power from on high.' This 
 power, this comforter, this Holy Spirit did descend from 
 on high to dwell with the apostles, and thus the promise 
 of God and of Jesus Christ were fulfilled." (Vol. i, 
 p. 163.) 
 
 And lastly : speaking of the final clause of the apos- 
 tolic benediction, " The fellowship of the Holy Ghost be 
 with you all," he represents the apostle as wishing all the 
 Corinthians " might enjoy a participation of the miraculous 
 powers, the Divine influence which others possessed." 
 (Vol. i,p. 172.) 
 
 We have quoted thus copiously from Mr. G. that the 
 reader may fully understand the manner in which he pre- 
 cludes the expectation of any supernatural influence on 
 the minds of mankind, in order to their salvation. From 
 this statement, two things may be gathered : That the 
 Socinians suppose, 1. That the gift of the Holy Spirit was 
 restricted to the first ages of Christianity, the age of 
 miracles. And, 2. That it never was given but in 
 miraculous gifts, and for extraordinary purposes. The 
 Scriptures which are to be cited on this occasion, are 
 therefore of two classes. The first class is of those which 
 speak indefinitely of the gift of the Spirit, most of which 
 do not distinguish between the miraculous and the saving 
 influence ; but which imply that the Holy Spirit is, or that 
 it may be possessed by all real Christians. The second 
 class are of those in which the ordinary influence of the 
 Spirit is obviously distinguished from that which is extra- 
 ordinary, and which speak of that ordinary influence in 
 such a definite manner, as to indicate a benefit ne- 
 cessary for all men, to make them either wise, or holy, or 
 happy. 
 
 I. Of those scriptures which speak of the influence of 
 the Holy Spirit, in such a manner as implies that it is, or 
 that it may be enjoyed by all real Christians. 
 
 It is not, perhaps, very easy to ascertain to what extent 
 
346 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 the miraculous gifts were, in the apostolic age, given to 
 Christian believers ; but it is perfectly clear that they were 
 not universal. That many real Christians did not possess 
 them, is obvious from the language of St. Paul to the 
 Church which was at Corinth. " God, (said he,) hath set 
 some in the Church ; first, apostles ; secondarily, pro- 
 phets ; thirdly, teachers ; after that miracles ; then gifts 
 of healing, helps in governments, diversities of tongues. 
 Are all apostles ? Are all prophets ? Are all teachers ? 
 Are all workers of miracles ] Have all the gifts of heal- 
 ing ? Do all speak with tongues ? Do all interpret 1" 1 
 Cor. xii, 28-30. But if all real Christians did not enjoy 
 these miraculous gifts, and yet it should appear that they 
 did enjoy, or were called to enjoy the influence of the 
 Spirit, it will follow that there is an influence of the Spirit 
 which is not miraculous : and that that influence is the 
 common privilege of all real Christians. 
 
 1. In the following scriptures it is obvious that the 
 Holy Spirit is promised to all real Christians : — 
 
 (1.) " And it shall come to pass that I will pour out 
 my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and your daugh- 
 ters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, 
 your young men shall see visions : and also upon the 
 servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour 
 out my Spirit," Joel ii, 28, 29. It is true this passage 
 speaks of the extraordinary and miraculous effusion of 
 the Spirit, and that Peter applied it to the spiritual gifts 
 which were bestowed on the day of pentecost, Acts ii, 
 17, 18. But it is equally true, that the prophet speaks 
 also of the universal effusion of the ordinary influence of 
 the Spirit. It is to the sons and daughters of Israel he 
 promises that some (not all) of them should prophesy, 
 dream dreams, and see visions ; but he promises the effu- 
 sion of the Spirit to all flesh ; to Gentiles as well as Jews, 
 and to the meanest as well as to the greatest ; to the ser- 
 vants, and to the handmaids. 
 
 (2.) " Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be bap- 
 tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for 
 the remission of sins: and ye shall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your 
 children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the 
 Lord our God shall call," Acts ii, 38, 39. Here the apos- 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 347 
 
 tie has explained the extent of the preceding promise, which 
 he had taken for his text. According to him, this inesti- 
 mable gift is imparted to all who repent and are baptized 
 in the name of Christ, for (expecting through him) the 
 forgiveness of sins. And this he asserts, not only of the 
 Jews and their children, but of " all that are afar off," the 
 Gentiles also : not only of that generation, but of all suc- 
 ceeding generations, even " as many as the Lord our God 
 shall call." 
 
 (3.) " In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus 
 stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come 
 unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the 
 Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of liv- 
 ing water. But this he spake of the Spirit, which they 
 that believe on him should receive," John vii, 37-39. — 
 What our Lord has here said of living water, the evangel- 
 ist has explained as meaning the gift of the Spirit. This 
 Spirit our Lord has most positively promised shall be re- 
 ceived by all who believe on him, and he has invited, 
 indiscriminately, all who thirst for it, thus to come and 
 receive it. Precisely of the same character, in the latter 
 respect, is that remarkable passage, " Let him that is 
 athirst, come : and whosoever will, let him take the water 
 of life freely," Rev. xxii, 17. 
 
 (4.) "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good 
 gifts unto your children, how much more shall your hea- 
 venly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him," 
 Luke xi, 13. Again : " If thou knewest the gift of Gold, 
 and who it is that saith unto thee, Give me to drink, thou 
 wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee 
 living water," John iv, 10. We have just seen, in the 
 preceding passage, that by living water is meant the Holy 
 Spirit. In these two scriptures we are assured that the 
 Holy Spirit is given to them that ask it ; and the argu- 
 ment in both is such as to warrant the application of the 
 promise to all that ask it. In the former, our Lord places 
 the promise on the ground of parental affection, and, there- 
 fore, intends to give this assurance to all in every place 
 and age ; for God is the Father of all. In the latter, our 
 Lord argues from his own character as the Messiah, who 
 is anointed with the Holy Ghost without measure : and 
 while he takes for granted that when that character is pro- 
 
348 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 perly known and acknowledged, the living water will be 
 asked, he also assures us that it shall be given. 
 
 2. The following scriptures prove that the Holy Spirit 
 was actually given to private Christians : — 
 
 (1.) u What ! know ye not that your body is the temple 
 of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of G od ?" 
 1 Cor. vi, 19. Here the apostle addresses himself to all 
 the members of the Corinthian Church individually, as 
 having received the Holy Spirit from God, and as being 
 his habitation. 
 
 (2.) " For as the body is one, and hath many mem- 
 bers, and all the members of that one body, being many, 
 are one body ; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are 
 we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
 Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all 
 made to drink into one Spirit," 1 Cor. xii, 12, 13. Here, 
 not merely the Corinthian Church, but the Church uni- 
 versal, including both Jews and Gentiles, and all the in- 
 dividuals of which it is composed, whether bond or 
 free, are positively said to be partakers of the Spirit of 
 God. 
 
 (3.) u This only would I learn of you, Received ye the 
 Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ? 
 Are ye so foolish 1 having begun in the Spirit, are ye now 
 made perfect by the flesh] He, therefore, that ministereth 
 to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth 
 he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' 
 Gal. iii, 2-5. Here the apostle speaks of the Galatians 
 as having received the Spirit, and makes an obvious dis- 
 tinction between themselves as private Christians, and 
 those apostles who had ministered unto them the Spirit, 
 and had wrought miracles among them. And to this re- 
 ception of the Spirit he alludes, as having been universal, 
 by supposing their defection from the liberty of the Gos- 
 pel to be, in every case, a submission to a principle op- 
 posed to the Spirit : having begun in the Spirit, are ye 
 now made perfect by the flesh ? 
 
 (4.) "There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are 
 called in one hope cf your calling," Eph. iv, 4. Here 
 the individual members of the Ephesian Church are sup- 
 posed to be the members of a universal Church which is in- 
 habited by one Spirit, and each one is supposed individually 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 349 
 
 to participate that one Spirit, as the members of one body 
 are individually actuated by one living principle, and as 
 they were individually called by one Gospel, to the hope 
 of one glorious inheritance. 
 
 (5.) " For our Gospel came not unto you in word only, 
 but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much 
 assurance ; and ye became followers of us, and of the 
 Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with 
 joy of the Holy Ghost," 1 Thess. i, 5, 6. Thus the 
 Church at Thessalonica also received the Holy Ghost. — 
 The latter part of the passage is added in proof that what 
 they received was the ordinary influence. 
 
 3. The following passages show that the persons who 
 are addressed indiscriminately had experienced, or did at 
 the time enjoy, the Divine influence. 
 
 (1.) " Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and 
 ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost : as your fathers 
 did, so do ye," Acts vii, 51. So the Holy Ghost had ex- 
 erted his energy on the minds of these disobedient Jews, 
 or they could not have resisted him. 
 
 (2.) " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye 
 are sealed unto the day of redemption," Eph. iv, 30. The 
 latter part of this passage demonstrates that the apostle 
 spoke not of the miraculous influence, but of the ordinary ; 
 and the admonition implies that the private members had 
 received that influence, for otherwise they could not grieve 
 him. 
 
 (3.) "Quench not the Spirit," 1 Thess. v, 19. The 
 reader will remember how John the Baptist predicted 
 that Jesus Christ should " baptize them with the Holy 
 Ghost and with fire." This baptism of heavenly fire the 
 Thessalonians had received, and were in danger of 
 quenching it. The allusion is to the purifying power of 
 fire ; and, therefore, the influence of the Spirit which they 
 had received was that which purifies, and was not the 
 miraculous, but the saving influence. 
 
 (4.) ki And hath done despite to the Spirit of grace," 
 Heb. x, 29. This passage supposes every apostate from 
 Christianity to have enjoyed " the fellowship of the Spirit," 
 to which he has done despite. 
 
 4. There can be no propriety in the language of the 
 following passages, only on the supposition that the gift 
 
 30 
 
350 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 of the Holy Ghost is the common privilege of all Chris* 
 tian believers. 
 
 (1.) " The communion of the Holy Ghost be with you 
 all," 2 Cor. xiii, 14. This cannot be interpreted of the 
 miraculous powers, without supposing, in contradiction to 
 the apostle, that " all are workers of miracles." 
 
 (2.) " Be not drunk with wine ; but be ye filled with 
 the Spirit ; speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, 
 and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your 
 heart to the Lord ; giving thanks always for all things 
 unto God and the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ," Eph. v, 19. This passage cannot be interpreted 
 of the extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit, unless 
 we suppose it necessary to every act of religious worship, 
 and then it is no longer extraordinary but common. 
 
 5. The following scriptures imply, and one of them 
 expressly asserts, that a man cannot be a Christian with- 
 out receiving the Holy Spirit : — 
 
 (1.) " These be they who separate themselves, sensual, 
 having not the Spirit," Jude 19. It will not be objected 
 that their not having miraculous powers is here intended ; 
 for what has that to do with their being sensual 1 
 
 (2.) " So then they that are in the flesh cannot please 
 God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so 
 be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man 
 have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his," Rom. 
 viii, 9, 10. According to these two passages every man 
 is in the flesh, or is sensual, who has not the Spirit of 
 God dwelling in him ; and he that is in the flesh, or sensual, 
 who has not the Spirit of God dwelling in him ; and he 
 that is the flesh, or sensual, cannot please God. It 
 follows that no man can be a Christian without the Spirit; 
 because without it no man can please God. 
 
 Let us now take a view of the result of this scrutiny. 
 We have found that the Holy Spirit was originally pro- 
 mised to all real Christians ; that whole Christian socie- 
 ties, and the Christian Church at large, did actually 
 receive it ; that they who refused to become Christians, 
 and they who apostatized from Christianity, in so doing, 
 abused the operations of the Spirit, and that all true Chris- 
 tians were in danger of imitating the example of the latter ; 
 that the apostolic exhortations and benedictions were such 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 351 
 
 as imply that even the fulness of the Spirit might be en- 
 joyed by them always ; and that no man can be a Chris- 
 tian without some measure of it. From these truths we 
 argue: 1. That since miraculous gifts were not possessed 
 by every real Christian, the promises of the Gospel were 
 not fulfilled, unless the Spirit were imparted to produce 
 effects which were not miraculous. But all the promises 
 of God are yea, and Amen, in Christ Jesus ; and there- 
 fore the Spirit was poured out in his ordinary and saving 
 influence. 2. That several of these scriptures cannot be 
 interpreted of miraculous gifts, without supposing miracu- 
 lous gifts to be essential to the character of a Christian. 
 But if this could be proved, it would equally imply that 
 the same gifts are necessary to form the Christian charac- 
 ter now. And if it be admitted that a man may now be a 
 real Christian though he do not possess those gifts, it will 
 follow that a man might, in primitive times, be a Christian 
 without them. And if a Christian might then be destitute 
 of all miraculous gifts, and yet the Spirit of Christ was 
 necessary to form the Christian, it follows that Divine 
 operations, not miraculous, were then, and for the same 
 reason will always be necessary. 3. That some of these 
 scriptures distinguish the Divine influence of which they 
 speak, from those which were miraculous. Whatever 
 reason may be given for the effusion of miraculous pow- 
 ers, will not be equally a reason for the effusion of that 
 which was not miraculous. But every reason which can 
 be given for the effusion of blessings, not miraculous, in 
 the first ages, will, in all ages of the Church militant, be 
 equally valid. 4. That whereas some of these scriptures 
 argue that a man could not be a Christian in the apostles' 
 days without the Spirit of Christ ; the same argument is 
 equally conclusive at the present period. 5. That this 
 observation is corroborated by others of these scriptures 
 which expressly assert that in all succeeding times the 
 Holy Ghost, as it is always necessary to produce the same 
 effects, shall be always imparted on the same terms on 
 which it was imparted in the days of the apostles. 
 6. That if the primitive Christian Church was intended 
 to be a perpetual pattern in doctrine and in practice, 
 it must be equally so in its means and enjoyments. If 
 the truths which were delivered to the members of that 
 
352 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT* 
 
 Church, by the apostles, had either a near or a dfstani 
 relation to the gift of the Holy Ghost, and if that gift was 
 the mean by which those truths were rendered effectual to 
 their salvation, the same truths cannot be of the same use 
 to us, unless they still stand in the same relation to that 
 gift, and are rendered effectual by the same means. In 
 like manner : if the practice of the first Christians was 
 the result of their reception of the Holy Ghost, and had 
 the continuance and increase of that heavenly gift, and 
 farther benefits by that gift, among its principal objects 
 and motives, the same practice can now be produced only 
 by the same cause, and needs still the stimulus of the 
 same motive, or it cannot be itself the same. This sub- 
 ject, however, will be much better illustrated from the 
 considerations which follow. 
 
 II. The second class of scriptures to which we refer, 
 is of those in which the ordinary influence of the Spirit is 
 obviously distinguished from the extraordinary ; and which 
 speak of the ordinary influence in such a definite manner, 
 as to indicate a benefit which is necessary for all men, to 
 make them either wise, or holy, or happy. 
 
 If ignorance were truly the mother of devotion, if 
 religion consisted, as some seem to suppose, in morality 
 without piety, or in the form of godliness without the 
 power, in a regular enjoyment of the creatures, and not 
 in the enjoyment of God, perhaps it might be possessed 
 and practised without any illumination, assistance, encou- 
 ragement, or consolation from above. But if true religion 
 require that we know the God whom we worship, if piety 
 be the soul of all genuine morality, and the essence of 
 religion, if the power as well as the form be necessary to 
 true godliness, and if God be the proper portion of his 
 people, no man can be a truly good man like Barnabas* 
 only in proportion as like him he is " full of the Holy 
 Ghost," Acts xi, 24. 
 
 1. According to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 a Divine and supernatural illumination is absolutely neces- 
 sary to our proper knowledge of Divine and saving truth. 
 
 Not that it is necessary for every man, like the prophets 
 and apostles, to receive the truth by an immediate revelation 
 from heaven. " Those holy men of God spake and wrote 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," 2 Pet, i, 21. 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 353 
 
 ** All (their) scriptures were given by inspiration of 
 God," 2 Tim. iii, 16. But " the vision and the prophecy 
 are now sealed," Dan. vii, 24. The Christian Church, 
 and every individual member of it, are now to be " built 
 on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (only, 
 where) Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone," Eph. iii, 
 20. The book of revelation is now amply sufficient for 
 every purpose both of faith and practice, and from thence 
 44 the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished 
 unto every good work," 2 Tim. iii, 17. No man, there- 
 fore, whether in a public or a private station, has any Scrip- 
 tural right to expect that the same truths shall be made 
 known to him in the same manner, much less that any Di- 
 vine knowledge will be communicated to him in addition 
 to that which is given in the sacred code. Even Apollos, 
 while immediately employed in the work of the minis- 
 try, had no knowledge of Divine things but what he had 
 received from the " Scriptures," and from the instructions 
 44 in the way of the Lord which he had heard." Though 
 he was 44 fervent in the Spirit," and 44 spake and taught 
 diligently the things of the Lord," he knew 44 only the 
 baptism of John," in which he had been instructed, until 
 44 Aquila and Priscilla took him unto them, and expounded 
 unto him the way of God more perfectly," Acts xviii, 
 24-26. This example may serve to show the arrogance 
 of those who pretend to new revelations, and the folly of 
 those who pay any serious attention to them. It was 
 necessary to make this statement for the prevention of 
 any misconception or misrepresentation of what we have 
 to advance. For the same reason, we shall endeavour to 
 avoid the use of the word inspiration : not because there 
 would be any great impropriety in the use of it ; but be- 
 cause we have already applied it, with the authority of 
 Peter, to the extraordinary communications which were 
 received by the prophets and the apostles. 
 
 44 But if the sacred Scriptures be sufficient for the 
 instruction of mankind, what need can there be of a Divine 
 illumination 1" We answer : — 
 
 (1.) It is in vain that visible things are laid before a man 
 who is perfectly blind. Yet this is precisely the natural 
 state of the human mind. 4l The natural man receiveth 
 not the things of the Spirit of God, (the things revealed 
 
 30* 
 
354 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures,) for they are foolish- 
 ness unto him ; neither can he know them, because they 
 are spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii, 14. This spiritual 
 discernment is what we want ; the faculty for discerning 
 spiritual things being disordered. A man may have eyes, 
 by which, because they are diseased, he does not see. So 
 mankind " have eyes and see not." That we may dis- 
 cern spiritual things, the Physician of the human mind 
 exhorts us to " anoint our eyes with eye salve that we may 
 see." The knowledge of Divine things is therefore attri- 
 buted to a gracious operation on the human mind. " We 
 know that the Son of God is come (says St. John) and 
 hath given us an understanding, that we may know him 
 that is true," 1 John v, 20. And God says, " I will give 
 them a heart to know me," Jer. xxiv, 7. " He that is 
 (thus made) spiritual, discerneth all things," 1 Cor. ii, 15. 
 (2.) In vain are objects of sight laid before the eyes of 
 any man in perfect darkness ; for nothing can render them 
 visible but the light. " That which maketh manifest is 
 light." But if light be necessary to the discernment of 
 natural things, spiritual light is equally necessary to ren- 
 der spiritual things discernible. As the sun is seen only 
 by its own light, so God is known only in the light of his 
 own Spirit. " God is light," and "in his light (only) we 
 see light." The light of the sun displays to our eyesight 
 every other visible object in nature ; and nothing but the 
 light of God can display to our minds the spiritual things 
 which are laid before us in the book of Divine revelation. 
 It is thus, and only thus, we see, like Moses, " him that is 
 invisible." Not that the use of our rational or intellectual 
 powers is thereby superseded, any more than the use of 
 our eyes is superseded by the light of day. But reason, 
 enlightened from above and properly exerted, produces 
 the w faith (which) is the substance of things hoped for, 
 and the evidence of things not seen." This Divine illu- 
 mination is uniformly attributed to a Divine influence. 
 Hence the apostle prayed in behalf of the Ephesians, that 
 they might " receive the spirit of wisdom and revelation in 
 the knowledge of him ; that the eyes of their understand- 
 ing being enlightened, they might know what is the hope of 
 his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inherit- 
 ance in the saints," Eph. i, 17, 18. 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 355 
 
 By this twofold operation of the Spirit, and not other- 
 wise, we are enabled properly to know the things of God. 
 We say properly, because there is what is called know- 
 ledge, which may be attained (perhaps) without it. A man 
 blind from his birth may by oral instruction be made so 
 far acquainted with the theory of light and colours, as even 
 to be able to teach others ; but he will have no proper 
 knowledge of them. His knowledge is a mere artificial 
 arrangement of words without ideas : or at least without the 
 proper ideas. He can speak readily of the source, the 
 properties, and the uses of light : and can discourse of 
 the comparative beauty of colours, without any concep- 
 tion of the true meaning of his borrowed words. His 
 knowledge of the subject of his speculations, is, however, 
 such as is convertible to no proper practical use. It 
 cannot preserve him from the dangerous precipice, or 
 guide him to his proper home. Precisely such is all the 
 knowledge of Divine things which a man may have from 
 any source of oral instruction, until God " open his eyes, 
 and turn him from darkness to light." It is a mere arti* 
 ticial arrangement of words without appropriate ideas ; a 
 speculation of no more real use than the theory of light 
 and colours to the blind. It is not that " knowledge of 
 the only true God, and of Jesus Christ whom he has 
 sent, which is life eternal." 
 
 " The god of this world hath blinded the minds of 
 them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious 
 Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine 
 unto them," 2 Cor. iv, 2. " The veil is upon their heart. 
 But when it (that veiled heart) shall turn unto the Lord, 
 the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that 
 Spirit [which taketh away the veil :] and where the Spirit 
 of the Lord is, there is liberty," 2 Cor. iii, 17, to behold 
 " the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ." Then kt God, 
 who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 
 shineth in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge 
 of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. 
 iv, 6 : and then, " we all with unveiled face, beholding 
 as in a mirrbr the glory of the Lord, are changed into the 
 same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of 
 the Lord," 2 Cor. iii, 18. 
 
 These important truths will receive farther confirma- 
 tion from the following Scriptural arguments : — 
 
356 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 (1.) The apostles received their verbal instructions from 
 the best of Teachers, who " spake as never man spake." 
 The lessons which they received from him were the most 
 intelligible that, under existing circumstances, could be 
 devised. The matter of them was adapted to the state 
 of their minds ; for he " spake the word unto them as 
 they were able to bear it :" and the terms in which they 
 were dictated were appropriate and familiar. He answered 
 all their questions, obviated their difficulties, and replied 
 to the doubts which they did not dare to utter. But not- 
 withstanding the unparalleled propriety with which he 
 taught them, it was necessary that they should be divinely 
 illuminated to understand his meaning. " These things 
 have I spoken unto you, (said he,) being yet present with 
 you. But the Comforter, (which is,) the Holy Ghost, 
 whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach 
 you all things, (and bring all things to your remembrance,) 
 whatsoever I have said unto you," John xiv, 25, 26. At 
 another time u he said unto them, These are the words 
 which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that 
 . all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law 
 of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concern- 
 ing me." But they had not understood the things which 
 he had said unto them, while he was yet with them. 
 " Then (therefore) opened he their understanding, that 
 they might understand the Scriptures." If then the apos- 
 tles needed that Jesus Christ should " open their under- 
 standing, that they might understand the Scriptures," and 
 that the Father should send " the Holy Ghost to teach 
 them all things whatsoever the Son had said unto them ;" 
 what arrogance is it for a Socinian to profess to teach 
 his followers in such a manner, that they shall need neither 
 that Christ should open their understanding, nor that the 
 Holy Ghost should illuminate their mind ! 
 
 (2.) " No man hath seen God at any time. The only- 
 begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath 
 declared him." " If ye had known me, (said Jesus,) ye 
 should have known my Father also," John xiv, 7. " But 
 as no one knoweth the Father save the Son, so no one 
 knoweth the Son but the Father," Matt, xi, 27. " No man 
 can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost," 
 1 Cor. xii, 3. When " Simon Peter" said, " Thou art 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 357 
 
 Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus answered, and 
 said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh 
 and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father 
 which is in heaven, ,, Matt, xvi, 16, 17. What our Lord 
 said to his disciples is therefore equally applicable 
 to every other human being : " I will pray the Father, and 
 he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide 
 with you (my Church) forever ; even the Spirit of truth; 
 whom the world cannot receive (not because the Father 
 is unwilling to send him, but) because it seeth him not, 
 neither knoweth (acknowledged) him. I will not leave 
 you comfortless : I will come to you (in the Spirit.) Yet a 
 little while, and the world (which cannot receive the Spirit 
 of truth) seeth me no more ; but ye see me, (for I am 
 still with you by the Spirit of truth,) because I live, and ye 
 shall live also. At that day (when the Spirit of truth is 
 come) ye shall know that I am in my Father, and you in 
 me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and 
 keepeth them, he it is that loveth me : and he that loveth 
 me (whether he be an apostle or a private Christian of the 
 first or of the nineteenth century) shall be loved of my 
 Father ; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to 
 him." The Socinians do not need to exclaim, " Impos- 
 sible !" for one, not a regularly accredited member of their 
 corps, has prevented them. " Judas said unto him, (not 
 Iscariot,) Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself 
 unto us, and not unto the world 1 Jesus answered, and 
 said unto him, If a man (at any time, or in any part of the 
 world) love me, he will keep my words : and my Father 
 will love him, and we will come unto him, (by the Spirit 
 which ■ shall be in you,') and make our abode with him," 
 John xiv, 16-23. 
 
 (3.) Hence the Apostle John, addressing his general 
 epistle to the private members of the Christian Church* 
 some of whom were mere " babes in Christ," says, " Lit- 
 tle children, it is the last time : and as ye* have heard that 
 antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists. 
 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know 
 all things (which are essential to Christianity, and con- 
 nected with your welfare.) I have not written unto you 
 because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, 
 and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that 
 
358 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 denieth that Jesus is the Christ ? He is antichrist that 
 denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the 
 Son, the same hath not the Father. Let that, therefore, 
 abide in you which ye have heard (by verbal instruction) 
 from the beginning, (and which ye know by the anointing 
 which ye have from the Holy One.) These things have 
 I written unto you concerning them that seduce you." — 
 As to the truth concerning the Father and the Son, from 
 which those seducers wish to draw you aside, I need not 
 write to you. " But the anointing which ye have received 
 of him abideth in you, (giving you the proper knowledge 
 of those things * which ye have heard from the beginning,') 
 and ye need not that any man teach you (those things.) 
 But, as the same anointing (still) teacheth you of all (the) 
 things, (which ye have heard from the beginning,) and is 
 truth, and is no lie, (is a true anointing from the Holy 
 One, and leadeth you into the knowledge of the truth,) 
 and (teacheth) even as it hath taught you, (I trust,) ye 
 shall (still) abide in him." 
 
 The argument thus deduced from Scripture is equally 
 as conclusive with respect to the modern Christian world, 
 as with respect to the primitive Christian Church. Now, 
 as in the beginning, u no one knoweth the things of God, 
 but the Spirit of God, and he to whom the Spirit of God 
 has revealed them." When the Socinians undertake to 
 prove the contrary, they are called to prove, either — that 
 there is now an essential difference in the faculties of the 
 human mind ; that there is some method of obtaining 
 the knowledge of spiritual things, on which the Scriptures 
 are silent ; or that the same knowledge is not now neces- 
 sary for the same purposes. We have learned from 
 themselves not to be surprised if any of them should ven- 
 ture to undertake such a task; but the accomplishment of 
 it would be ranked among the greatest achievements of 
 this adventurous age. The conquerer of this difficulty 
 will be the man to prove to the world, either — that eyes 
 and light are not now necessary to vision, — or that the 
 most important affairs of human life may now be transact- 
 ed as well without it. 
 
 2. According to the sacred Scriptures, the influence of 
 the Spirit of God is necessary to make mankind holy. 
 
 We shall not need to review the Scriptural arguments 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 359 
 
 by which it has been already proved that the hearts of 
 mankind are morally diseased. The fact, sufficiently 
 glaring in itself, we shall here take for granted. The 
 question now is, By what means is this moral disorder to 
 be counteracted and cured ] Without disregarding or 
 underrating any mean which God has seen good to pro- 
 vide or to enjoin, we reply, By the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit. This is, perhaps, the true reason that the epithet 
 holy is so much more frequently applied to the Spirit 
 than to the Father or the Son : not because he is more holy 
 than they ; but because he is the immediate author of our 
 purification, " the Spirit of holiness." 
 
 That the ordinary operations of the Spirit are such 
 as to destroy the constitutional freedom of the human 
 mind, suspend its volitions, irresistibly direct its choice, 
 or supersede the necessity of human exertions, is no part 
 of our creed. We are not disposed to make an unpro- 
 voked attack on those who on this subject may see rea- 
 son to differ from us ; but we deem it necessary to guard 
 the truth against those objections which are frequently 
 taken from an hypothesis to which we cannot subscribe. 
 As we cannot vindicate the doctrine of irresistible grace, 
 we must avoid meeting an antagonist on that ground, by 
 denying it. We do not conceive of the agency of the 
 Spirit as of a mechanical motion, a chymical operation, or 
 a magical charm ; but as of the agency of one intelligent 
 and free Being upon another being who is also intelligent 
 and free. We therefore no more suppose that the influ- 
 ence of the Spirit of holiness does violence to the human 
 will, than that Satan, by his temptations, forces men to 
 sin. In every thing in which man is accountable, we 
 conceive he remains a moral agent ; or there could be no 
 moral turpitude in his sin, or moral rectitude in his ser- . 
 vices. With the sacred writers, we suppose that the grace 
 of God may possibly be received in vain, that the Holy 
 Ghost may be resisted, may be grieved, or may even be 
 quenched ; and that some have done despite to the Spirit 
 of grace. 
 
 This being premised, we proceed to examine whether, 
 according to the Scriptures, all the holiness and righteous- 
 ness of human nature be not imputed to the influence of 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
360 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 (1.) The first step which a sinner can take toward 
 holiness is repentance. It will not be denied that repent- 
 ance is sorrow for sin, producing sincere desires and strong 
 resolutions to amend: a steadfast purpose to "cease to 
 do evil, and learn to do wehV , That this is an act of the 
 human will is undeniable. Hence " God commandeth 
 all men every where to repent," Acts xvii, 30. On the 
 other hand, however, it is the gift of God : — " Him hath 
 God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and a 
 Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness 
 of sins," Acts v, 31. When, therefore, the apostles heard 
 of the conversion of Cornelius and his house, " they 
 glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles 
 granted repentance unto life," Acts xi, 18. Had it been 
 said that Jesus Christ came into the world to give repent- 
 ance, the Socinians could have given the subject an easy 
 turn, by stating that Jesus Christ came to preach the doc- 
 trine of repentance. But the case before us is a little 
 different from this. That Jesus Christ " came to call 
 sinners to repentance," is a great truth ; but it is equally 
 a truth that he is " exalted to give repentance." In what 
 sense, then, is that repentance given? 
 
 Before a sinner can properly repent, he must know him- 
 self to be a sinner in the sight of God : he must be con- 
 vinced that in God's account " sin is exceeding sinful :" 
 he must be deeply impressed with the thought that " the 
 end of these things is death." But these are among 
 those spiritual truths, the proper, practical knowledge of 
 which, we have already seen, can be received only in the 
 light of the Spirit of God. Hence, Jesus Christ, when he 
 promised to send the Comforter to his disciples, said, 
 M When he is come, he will reprove (or convince) the 
 world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment," 
 John xvi, 8. 
 
 (2.) The next step which a sinner must take in order 
 to his salvation, is to come to Christ. Hence our Lord, 
 addressing himself to penitent sinners, says, " Come unto 
 me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will 
 give you rest," Matt, xii, 28. But has he not said also, 
 " No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath 
 sent me, draw him?" John vi, 44. Now, in order to 
 <draw us to the Son, the Son must be revealed to us : re- 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, 361 
 
 veaied to us in the attractive charms of his benevolent 
 character, as the Friend and Saviour of mankind, who 
 ** receiveth sinners." The Father, therefore, reveals the 
 Son. " It pleased God, (says St* Paul,) who called me 
 by his grace, to reveal his Son in me," Gal. i, 15, 16. — ■• 
 For this purpose he must " give to the sinner an under- 
 standing to know him that is true," 1 John v, 20. The 
 Father must give to him the Spirit of truth, whereby Christ 
 has promised to manifest himself to him, that he may see 
 him whom the world cannot see. Compare John xiv, 16, 
 19, 21, &c. To come to Christ, is practically to believe 
 on him. " He that cometh to me, shall never hunger ; 
 {says he) and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," 
 John vi, 35. But this faith is the gift of God : " To you 
 it is given to believe on him," Phil, i, 29. And it is 
 given by a Divine operation, and is therefore called, " a 
 faith of the operation of God," Col. ii, 12. 
 
 (3.) The immediate object of a sinner's coming to 
 Jesus Christ is that through him he may come to the Fa« 
 ther : " He is able to save them to the uttermost that 
 come to God by him," Heb. vii, 25. u I am the way, 
 and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Fa- 
 ther but by me," John xiv, 6. We have just seen that 
 to come to Christ, is to believe in him. But a sinner 
 believes in Christ, that he may believe in God. He trusts 
 in the redeeming love of the Son, that he may trust in the 
 pardoning love of the Father : " If ye call on the Father, 
 who, without respect of persons, judgeth .according to 
 every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning in 
 fear; forasmuch as ye know that ye were redeemed 
 with the precious blood of Christ, who was manifest in 
 these last times for you who by him do believe in God 
 that raised him up from the dead and gave him glory, that 
 your faith and hope might be in God," 1 Peter i, 17-21. 
 Here, then, we are to consider, [1.] that the Father is 
 revealed to us in the Son, by the Spirit : " At that day," 
 says our Lord, (when the Comforter, the Spirit of truth 
 is come, that he may abide with you for ever,) " ye shall 
 know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in 
 you," compare John xiv, 16-20 : [2.] that this is in- 
 volved in our coming to the Father by him, and that they 
 are connected by our Lord, if not identified : " No man 
 
 31 
 
362 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, 
 
 (says he) cometh unto the Father but by me. If ye had 
 known me, ye should have known my Father also ; and 
 from henceforth ye know him and have seen him," John 
 xiv, 6, 7 : [3.] that a sinner is encouraged to come to 
 the Father by beholding him in the Son, and to depend on 
 his forgiving love by knowing the redeeming love of the 
 Saviour. All this is comprehended in one sentence by 
 the apostle, who says, " Through him we have an access 
 by one Spirit unto the Father," Eph. ii, 18. 
 
 (4.) The result of a sinner's coming to God by Jesus 
 Christ is his regeneration. Hence the Apostle Peter, 
 having addressed the Christians of his time, as " through 
 Christ believing in God, who raised him from the dead, 
 and gave him glory, that their faith and hope might be in 
 God," — subjoins : " seeing ye have purified your souls in 
 obeying the truth through the Spirit ; being born again, 
 not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word 
 of God, which liveth and abideth for ever," 1 Pet. i, 22, 23. 
 So the Evangelist John states, that " to as many as 
 received him ( fc the Word of God,' who ' full of grace 
 and truth,' hath 'declared the Father; 5 ) to them gave 
 he power to become the sons of God, even to them that 
 believe on his name : which were born, (not of blood, nor 
 of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but) of God," 
 John i, 1, 12-14, 18. 
 
 From the language of St. Peter it is obvious that, in his 
 opinion, to be born again is synonymous with " having 
 purified our souls." In the conversation of our Lord 
 with Nicodemus, the same idea is couched under similar 
 terms. " Jesus said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto 
 thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the 
 kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a 
 man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time 
 into his mother's womb and be born? Jesus answered, 
 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of 
 water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that 
 which is born of the Spirit, is spirit," John iii, 3-6. From 
 this passage we gather, [1.] That the new birth is a neces- 
 sary preparation for a man's entrance into the kingdom of 
 God. [2.] That it i3 a preparation necessary for every 
 one born of a woman. [3.] That it is a change which our 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 363 
 
 Lord here calls being made spirit, in opposition to that 
 which is born of the flesh, and is flesh. These phrases 
 we interpret as relating to the moral disposition of the 
 mind. To be flesh, in Scriptural language, is to be carnally 
 minded : to be spirit, is to be spiritually minded. In this 
 sense the Apostle Paul uses these and similar terms, as 
 in the following passage : " They that are after the flesh 
 do mind the things of the flesh ; but they that are after 
 the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally 
 minded is death ; but to be spiritually minded is life and 
 peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God ; 
 for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can 
 be." It therefore renders a man unfit for the kingdom of 
 God. " So then they that are in the flesh cannot please 
 God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit," 
 Rom. viii, 5-9. 
 
 But whatever be the nature of the new birth, it is ob- 
 vious that the Spirit of God is the efficient cause of it. 
 Thus our Lord says, " Except a man be born of the 
 Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." " That 
 which is born of the Spirit is spirit." rt So is every one 
 that is i>orn of the Spirit," John iii, 5, 6, 8. St. Peter 
 bears * testimony to the same important truth, when he 
 says, that the believers to whom he wrote had purified their 
 souls by obeying the truth, and thus were born of incor- 
 ruptible seed, by the word of God ; for he observes that 
 they had obeyed the truth " through the Spirit," 1 Pet. 
 i, 22. 
 
 The idea which we have of a birth is that of an intro- 
 duction to natural life ; to be born again, and to be born 
 of the Spirit is, therefore, to be introduced into spiritual 
 life. " To be spiritually minded is life," Rom. viii, 6. 
 To begin to be spiritually minded is therefore to begin to 
 live. Hence, St. Peter, addressing himself to those of 
 whom he speaks as "born again," exhorts them, "As 
 new-born babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that 
 ye may grow thereby." The sacred writers, therefore, 
 speak of the same subject under the idea of a spiritual 
 resurrection. " Even when we were dead in sins he hath 
 quickened us together with Christ," Eph. ii, 5. " And 
 you, being dead in your sins, hath he quickened together 
 with him," Col. ii, 13. But this resurrection is effected by 
 
364 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLT SPIRIT, 
 
 the Spirit. " It is the Spirit that quickeneth," John vi? 
 23. " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none 
 of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead, because 
 of sin ; but the spirit is life, (lives,) because of righteous- 
 ness," Rom. vii, 9, 13. " If we live in (or by) the Spirit, 
 (says St. Paul to the Galatians,) let us also walk in (or 
 by) the Spirit," Gal. v, 25. 
 
 As regeneration is the beginning of spiritual life* 
 that life is a new life. " We are buried with Christ by 
 baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up 
 from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
 should walk in newness of life," Rom. vi, 4. But this 
 renewal of life, in regeneration, is effected by the Holy 
 Spirit: u He saved us (says St. Paul) by the washing of 
 regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which 
 he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our 
 Saviour," Tit. in, 5, 6. 
 
 As they who are born of woman are born in the likeness 
 of their parents, so they who are born of God are born in 
 his image. " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh ; 
 and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." It is there- 
 fore observed by the Apostle John, that " if ye kn^>w that 
 he is righteous, ye know that every one which doeth right- 
 eousness (who is righteous) is born of him," 1 John ii, 
 29. To be renewed in the spirit of one's mind, is to put 
 on the new man, which after God is created in righteous- 
 ness and true holiness," Eph. iv, 23, 24. This moral 
 image of God, in which we are renewed, is attributed to 
 the agency of the Spirit. " We all with open face, be- 
 holding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed 
 into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit 
 of the Lord." 
 
 In these passages it is observable, that in whatever 
 point of light the Scriptures view the change of a sinner's 
 heart, whether in its nature or in its effects, whether the 
 allusion to human generation be preserved, laid aside, or 
 exchanged for some other mean of elucidation, they uni- 
 formly attribute it to the Spirit of God. 
 
 (5.) From the time that this change takes place, the 
 Holy Spirit condescends to inhabit the heart which is 
 thus renewed. This is the substance of what our Lord 
 graciously promised to his disciples. The Comforter* 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 365 
 
 said he, " is with you, and shall be in you," John xiv, 17. 
 This promise was fulfilled even in private Christians. 
 " They that are in the flesh cannot please God ; (says St. 
 Paul ;) but ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so 
 be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man 
 have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his," Rom. 
 viii, 8, 9. Every real Christian (and such is every regene- 
 rate person) has therefore the Spirit of God within him. 
 Hence St. Paul, addressing the Corinthians, speaks on 
 this subject with the utmost confidence, and in a'manner 
 that admits of no exception : " What ! know ye not that 
 your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in 
 you, which ye have of God V 9 1 Cor. vi, 19. And again : 
 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the 
 Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 1 Cor. iii, 16. The 
 same apostle has another passage which requires an appli- 
 cation only to private Christians, and extends to all suc- 
 ceeding ages. " Through him (Christ) we both (Jews 
 and Gentiles) have an access by one Spirit unto the 
 Father. Now, therefore, ye (Gentiles) are no more 
 strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the 
 saints, and of the household of God ; and are built upon 
 the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
 himself being the chief corner stone ; in whom all the build- 
 ing, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in 
 the Lord : in whom ye also are build ed together for a 
 habitation of God through the Spirit," Eph. ii, IS— 22. In 
 this passage the reader will perceive, [1.] That a distinc- 
 tion is made between the apostles and prophets on the one 
 part, and the private Christians who were builded on 
 them, on the other part. [2.] That both Jews and 
 Gentiles are included : the former as built upon the pro- 
 phets ; the latter upon the apostles. [3.] That all these 
 are said to be " a habitation of God through the Spirit." 
 [4.] And that this habitation of God is said to " grow unto 
 a holy temple in the Lord :" an expression which at once 
 implies a continual accession of members to the Christian 
 Church, which still continues to be the habitation of God ? 
 and that it is always sanctified by his immediate presence. 
 
 (6.) This leads us to observe that Xo the indwelling 
 Spirit the sanctification of the saints, whether initial or 
 complete, is uniformly attributed. It is this, according to 
 31* 
 
366 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLT SPIRIT. 
 
 the passage which we have just now examined, that makes 
 the "habitation of God" "grow unto a holy temple in the 
 Lord." With this the Scriptures in general accord : " Such 
 (says St. Paul, to the Corinthians,) were some of you: but ye 
 are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our 
 God," 1 Cor. vi, 11. To the Thessalonians he writes* 
 M God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation 
 through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the 
 truth," 2 Thess. ii, 13. And to the Romans he speaks 
 of himself as " the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gen- 
 tiles, ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering 
 up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified 
 by the Holy Ghost," Rom. xv, 16. It is true, indeed* 
 that the Holy Spirit uses subordinate means for our sanc- 
 tification. Hence the Corinthians are exhorted to "cleanse 
 themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and Spirit, per- 
 fecting holiness in the fear of God." But it is equally 
 true that this exhortation is founded on the promises of 
 God : " Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, 
 let us cleanse ourselves," &c, 2 Cor. vii, 1. Now, one 
 of the promises to which St. Paul alludes, according to 
 the preceding chapter, is, " Ye are the temple of the living 
 God ; as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk i» 
 them," 2 Cor. vi, 16. 
 
 (7.) From the sanctification which, in all its various 
 stages, is the effect of our being a habitation of God 
 through the Spirit, all holy and acceptable obedience 
 flows : " A good man, out of (this) good treasure of his 
 heart, bringeth forth good things." " The tree is (hereby) 
 made good, and consequently produces good fruit," Matt, 
 xii, 33, 35. The Apostle Peter, therefore, speaks of his 
 believing brethren in the Lord as being " elect according 
 to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctifi- 
 cation of the Spirit, unto obedience," 1 Peter i, 2. For 
 this reason Christian obedience is, by that apostle, attri- 
 buted, in the very same chapter, to the same Spirit : " Ye 
 have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the 
 Spirit," 1 Peter i, 22. But this subject requires a more 
 extended : vestigation. 
 
 [1.] The first thing requisite to all holy obedience is 
 the knowledge of our duty. Hence St. Paul prayed fo? 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 367 
 
 the Colossians that they " might be filled with the know- 
 ledge of the will of God, in all wisdom, and spiritual un- 
 derstanding ; that they might walk worthy of the Lord 
 unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work," Col. 
 i, 10. It is certain, indeed, that God has declared his 
 will by his holy law. It is equally certain that God sees 
 it necessary, and that he has graciously promised to " put 
 his law into our mind," Heb. viii, 10, or understanding. 
 This he does by his Spirit : " Ye are manifestly declared 
 to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not 
 with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God : not in 
 tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart," 2 Cor. 
 iii, 3. In other words : it is necessary that God should 
 44 guide us with his counsel, and afterward receive us to 
 glory," Psalm lxxiii, 24. And for this purpose " his Spirit 
 is good, and leads into the land of uprightness," Psalm 
 cxliii, 10. This guidance of the Spirit is granted to all 
 his children ; for " as many as are led by the Spirit of 
 God, they are the sons of God," Rom. viii, 14. 
 
 [2.] The next thing essential to holy obedience is a 
 disposition to do the will of God : " Incline my heart unto 
 thy testimonies, (said David,) and not to covetousness," 
 Psalm cxix, 36. St. Paul piayed, that the Philippians 
 might " approve things that are excellent ; that they might 
 be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ, being 
 filled with the fruits of righteousness," Phil, i, 10, 11. — 
 For this purpose, he informs them, "it is God, which 
 worketh in you both to will and to do, of his good plea- 
 sure," Phil, ii, 13. And for this purpose God promises 
 not only to " put his law in our mind," that we may know 
 it, but to " write it on our heart," Heb. vii, 10, that we may 
 love it. But this is effected by the Spirit : " for as the 
 flesh lusteth against the Spirit, the Spirit lusteth (desireth) 
 against the flesh : and these are contrary the one to the 
 other ; so that f///j tfoiTjrs, ye may not do the things that 
 ye (otherwise) would," Gal. v, 17. 
 
 [3.] It is also necessary to actual obedience that we be 
 strengthened to do the will of God : " Without me," says 
 Jesus Christ, "ye can do nothing," John xv, 5. But, 
 on the other hand, " I can do all things," said St. Paul, 
 "through Christ which strengtheneth me," Phil, iv, 13„ 
 It is by the Spirit, however, that Jesus Christ strengthen- 
 
368 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT- 
 
 eth his followers : " Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our 
 infirmities," Rom. viii, 26. " For this cause I bow my 
 knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he 
 would grant unto you to be strengthened with might by 
 his Spirit in the inner man," Eph. iii, 14, 16. 
 
 In this way the promise of God to his people, by the 
 Prophet Ezekiel, is fulfilled : " Then will I sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your 
 filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A 
 new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I 
 put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out 
 of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And 
 I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in 
 my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do 
 them," Ezek. xxxvi, 25-27. 
 
 If we inquire into the source of every grace which forms 
 the Christian character, we shall find that they all take 
 their rise from these combinations of his various influ- 
 ence. Thus piety, morality, and virtue, owe to him their 
 very existence. 
 
 [1.] The Holy Spirit is the source of all genuine piety- 
 What is piety, but sincere and supreme love to God I 
 "This is the first and great commandment: Thou shalt 
 love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy 
 soul, and with all thy mind," Matt, xxii, 37, 38. 
 
 But love to God is one of God's greatest gifts. " The 
 Lord directs our hearts into the love of God," 2 Thess. 
 iii, 5. He has therefore graciously promised that he will 
 41 circumcise our heart, to love the Lord our God with all our 
 heart, and with all our soul, that we may live," Deut. xxx, 6. 
 This great gift God bestows by the operation of his Holy 
 Spirit : " God hath not given us the Spirit of fear ; but of 
 power, of love, and of a sound mind," 2 Tim. i, 7 : i. e. the 
 Spirit by which power, and love, and sobriety, are given to 
 us, or wrought in us. " I bow my knees to the Father 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he would grant unto you 
 to be strengthened by his Spirit's might in the inner man, 
 that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, that ye 
 being rooted and grounded in love," &c, Eph. iii, 14-17. 
 Again : " Who declared unto us your love in the Spirit," 
 Col. i, 8. 
 
 [2.] The Holy Spirit is the source of all genuine 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 369 
 
 morality. If love to God be the soul of piety, love to 
 mankind is the soul of sincerity, veracity, fidelity, equity, 
 mercy, benevolence, and beneficence to man. " If there 
 be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in 
 this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- 
 self. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour : therefore 
 love is the fulfilling of the law," Rom. xiii, 9, 10. But 
 this commandment is obeyed only by the aid of the Holy 
 Spirit. " Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying 
 the truth through the Spirit, unto unfeigned love of the 
 brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart 
 fervently," 1 Pet. i, 22. And as love to our neighbour is 
 the effect of the influence of the Spirit, so all veracity, 
 justice, and benevolence, which are the inseparable com- 
 panions of love, spring from the same source : " for the 
 fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, 
 and truth," Eph. v, 9. 
 
 [3.] The Holy Spirit is the source of all virtue. 
 Temperance, sobriety, chastity, deadness to the world 
 and to all the means of sensual gratification which it 
 affords, with the subjugation of every opposite passion, 
 are the virtues of a Christian. " Risen with Christ," he 
 is called to " seek those things which are above, where 
 Christ sitteth on the right hand of God ;" to " set his 
 affections on things above, not on things on the earth," 
 and to " mortify his members which are upon the earth ; 
 fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concu- 
 piscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry," Col. iii, 1, 
 2, 5. But " the works of the flesh, which are these, 
 adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idola- 
 try, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, 
 seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revel- 
 lings, and such like, are diametrically opposite to these 
 virtues," Gal. v, 19-21. "They (therefore) who are 
 Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affections and 
 lusts," Gal. v, 24, by " walking in the Spirit, that they 
 may not fulfil the lust of the flesh," Gal. v, 16. " Through 
 the Spirit they mortify the deeds of the body that they may 
 live," Rom. viii, 13. 
 
 In a word : as " the grace of God which bringeth sal- 
 vation teacheth all men that denying ungodliness and 
 worldly lusts they should live soberly, and righteously, and 
 
370 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 godly in this present world," all these are produced by 
 the Spirit of God. " The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, 
 peace, (the graces of piety,) long suffering, gentleness, 
 •goodness, tfi&g 9 fidelity, (the duties of morality,) meek- 
 ness, temperance," (the government of our mental pas- 
 sions, and of our bodily appetites or personal virtue.) 
 
 3. The influence of the Spirit is necessary to the hap- 
 piness of a Christian. 
 
 It perhaps will not be denied that every truly good man 
 is a happy man, or that he who is a Christian in heart and 
 deportment, enjoys the proper comforts of Christianity. 
 Our Lord has pronounced every stage of true religion 
 blessed, or happy : not excepting that of " the poor in 
 spirit," of the "mournful," of those that u hunger and 
 thirst after righteousness," or of those who are " persecuted 
 for righteousness' sake." And God has decreed, that the 
 ways of wisdom " are ways of pleasantness, that all her 
 paths are peace : and that happy is every one that retaineth 
 her," Prov. iii, 17. But all the happiness of religion 
 proceeds from the Comforter, and depends on cur " walk- 
 ing in the comfort of the Holy Ghost," Acts ix, 31. 
 
 (1.) The first and most essential ingredient in real 
 happiness is inward peace. Not that insensibility, care- 
 lessness, and ease, which characterize those who sleep 
 secure upon the verge of hell, and who say to themselves, 
 " Peace, peace, when there is no peace,;" but the calm 
 tranquillity of a mind perfectly awake to its real situation : 
 " the peace of God which passeth all understanding, keep- 
 ing the heart and mind through Christ Jesus," Phil, iv, 7. 
 Of this inward serenity every true follower of Christ is, 
 in a greater or less measure, a partaker. " Being justi- 
 fied by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ," Rom. v, 1. " Peace," said Jesus Christ to 
 his disciples, "I leave with you, my peace I give unto 
 you ; not as the world giveth, (deceitful, scanty, unstable,) 
 give I unto you," John xiv, 27. 
 
 This peace, we have already seen, is one of the fruits 
 of the Spirit. And what but the Spirit could communicate 
 it? The deceiver of mankind may minister opiates to a 
 guilty conscience, and sing the syren song to an una- 
 wakened sinner whom he rocks in the cradle of carnal 
 security, or the sinner may say to himself, " I shall have 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 371 
 
 peace, though I walk after the imagination of my heart, 
 adding drunkenness to thirst ;" none, however, can calm 
 his yet awakened conscience, but He that says to the 
 raging waves of the sea, " Be still ! and there is a great 
 calm." None but he can enable us to look God in the 
 face, and to take a view of 
 
 That undiscover'd country from whose bourne 
 No traveller returns, 
 
 and yet to sing, " Lord, I will praise thee, though thou 
 wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou 
 comfortest me," Isa. xii, 1. Nothing could produce this, 
 but what the apostle calls " the love of God (the pardoning, 
 paternal love of God) shed abroad in our hearts by the 
 Holy Ghost which is given to us," Rom. v, 5. 
 
 (2.) But Christianity affords not merely a negative 
 consolation ; it is full of positive and present enjoyment. 
 All the wicked are " without God in the world." To 
 return to their duty is to " return unto the Lord," to 
 " draw nigh unto God," to " seek the Lord while he may 
 be found." But this return to their duty is followed by a 
 restoration to felicity. " Return unto me, and I will 
 return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts," Mai. iii, 7. 
 " Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you," 
 James iv, 8. " Ye shall seek me, and find me when ye 
 shall search for me with all your heart," Jer. xxix, 13. 
 This done, they say with the psalmist, " The Lord 
 is the portion of mine inheritance, and of my cup," 
 Psalm xvi, 5. Whom have I in heaven but thee ? and 
 there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee," Psalm 
 lxxiii, 25. 
 
 In possession of such a portion a Christian is unspeak- 
 ably happy. 
 
 "When God is mine and I am his, 
 Of paradise posscst, 
 I taste unutterable bliss, 
 And everlasting rest. 
 
 He "joys in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by 
 whom he has now received the reconciliation," Rom. 
 v, 11. He cannot, however, rejoice in God unless he 
 know that God is his ; that he is graciously with him, and 
 in him. And how does he know this 1 As the Shechinah 
 
372 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 was the symbol of the presence of God in his holy temple, 
 when he dwells in men by his Holy Spirit, he by that 
 Spirit certifies them of his presence, and reveals his glory. 
 " Hereby, (says St. John,) we know that he abideth in us, 
 by the Spirit which he hath given us," 1 John iii, 24. 
 " 1 will pray the Father, (said our Lord,) and he shall 
 give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth: 
 he shall be in you. At that day ye shall know that I 
 am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you," John xiv, 
 16-20. 
 
 (3.) Religion has its hopes as well as its enjoyments. 
 The Christian's hope is full of immortality : being " as 
 an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, entering 
 into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us 
 entered," Heb. vi, 19, 20. It is a hope of future glory. 
 He is " begotten again to a lively hope of an inheritance, 
 incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved 
 in heaven for him," 1 Pet. i, 3, 4. But the Spirit of God 
 is the source of this hope. Hence that prayer of the 
 apostle: " Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and 
 peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through 
 the power of the Holy Ghost," Rom. xv, 13. 
 
 The more closely we examine this subject, the more 
 reason we shall see to attribute the Christian hope to the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 [1.] The first thing necessary to the hope of glory is 
 a knowledge of the nature and value of that glory. But 
 this knowledge is given by the illuminating Spirit : — " I 
 cease not," says St. Paul to the Ephesians, " to make 
 mention of you in my prayers ; that the God of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the 
 Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him : 
 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened ; that 
 ye may know what is the hope of your calling, and what 
 the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints," 
 Eph. i, 16-1S. 
 
 [2.] We cannot reasonably hope to participate this 
 inheritance unless we be assured of our title to it. As an 
 inheritance it is held in reversion for those who are chil- 
 dren and heirs. How then does a man ascertain that he 
 is " no more a servant, but a son ; and if a son, then an 
 heir of God through Christ t" Gal. iv, 7. If the Scrip- 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. S73 
 
 tural account be just, we receive this assurance from the 
 Spirit : " God sends forth the Spirit of his Son into our 
 hearts, crying, Abba, Father," Gal. iv, 6. And when " we 
 have received, not the spirit of bondage unto fear, but the 
 Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father, the self- 
 same Spirit, avro <ro tfvai/xa, beareth witness with our spirit 
 that we are the children of God : and if children, then 
 heirs ; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ ; if so 
 be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified 
 together,'' Rom. viii, 17. 
 
 [3.] Whether a pledge and foretaste of future glory 
 is or is not essential to the hope of it, it is a benefit which 
 God bestows to increase the earnestness of a man's desire 
 for it, and to confirm his expectation. Such, therefore, 
 is the blessing which is enjoyed by a Christian, and such 
 are its effects. But this also is of the operation of the 
 Spirit of God : " We know that if our earthly house of this 
 tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a 
 house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For 
 in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon 
 with our house which is from heaven- — that mortality might 
 be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us 
 for the self-same thing is God, who also hath given us 
 the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always con- 
 fident, knowing that while we are at home in the body, 
 we are absent from the Lord : we are confident, I say, 
 and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be 
 present with the Lord," 2 Cor. v, 1-8. Hence St. Paul 
 says to the Ephesians, " We (Jews) should be to the 
 praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ, in whom 
 ye (Gentiles) also (trusted,) after that ye heard the word 
 of truth, the Gospel of your salvation : in whom, also, 
 after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spi- 
 rit of promise, (that Holy Spirit which was promised,) 
 which is the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemp- 
 tion of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his 
 glory." He, therefore, who can say with the psalmist, 
 u Whom have I in heaven but thee 1 and there is none 
 upon earth that I desire beside thee," can subjoin with 
 him, " My heart and my flesh faileth, but God is the 
 strength of my heart, and my portion for ever." 
 
 (4.) Not only the fruition, but the hope of a Christian 
 32 
 
374 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT* 
 
 is a source of joy : " We rejoice," says St. Paul, "in hope 
 of the glory of God," Rom. v, 2. He exhorts the Ro- 
 mans to be " rejoicing in hope," Rom. xii, 12. St. Peter 
 addresses the scattered strangers, as " begotten again 
 unto a lively hope to an inheritance incorruptible, and un- 
 defiled, and that fadeth not away, — wherein," he says, 
 " ye greatly rejoice," 1 Peter i, 3, 4, 6. This joy, in con- 
 nection with the joy of present fruition, he represents as 
 unutterable and glorious : " That the trial of your faith 
 might be found unto praise, and honour, and glory, at the 
 appearing of Jesus Christ : whom, having not seen, ye 
 love ; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, 
 ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory," 1 Pet. 
 i, 8. But whether the religious joy of a Christian be com- 
 mon or extraordinary, the joy of hope, or of fruition, it is 
 the gift of God by the Holy Spirit : and to that Spirit it is 
 uniformly attributed : " The fruit of the Spirit (we have 
 already seen,) is joy," &c, Gal. v, 22. " Ye became 
 followers of us and of the Lord, (says St. Paul to the 
 Thessalonians,) having received the word in much afflic- 
 tion, with joy of the Holy Ghost," 1 Thess. i, 6. And 
 this joy is one of the essential branches of Christianity; 
 for "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but right- 
 eousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," Rom. 
 xiv, 17. 
 
 To give the reader a clue to the doctrine of Divine 
 influence, to guide him through the intricacies of the mul- 
 tiplied passages which we have quoted, and to show that 
 in every gradation of religion, the work of human salva- 
 tion is " begun, continued, and ended" in the Holy Spirit, 
 we have divided our subject into three distinct heads, 
 under which the different texts are arranged. It must not 
 be supposed that the Divine operations are always divided 
 according to these artificial distinctions. The powers of 
 the human mind have a reciprocal influence, and each 
 promotes, retards, or changes more or less, the operations 
 of the other. Knowledge contributes to the choice of that 
 which is good ; and the uprightness of the choice renders 
 knowledge more easy of attainment. The holiness of the 
 human heart contributes to its felicity ; while its felicity 
 tends to increase its holiness. Again : knowledge con- 
 tributes to our enjoyment, while enjoyment increases the 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIKIT. 375 
 
 thirst for that knowledge, the happy influence of which we 
 have felt ; or, in other words, happy experience makes us 
 wiser. In like manner, the various influences of the 
 Spirit co-operate in one great design, the complete salva- 
 tion of the souls of men from ignorance, sin, and wretch- 
 edness. We are illuminated by the Holy Spirit, not for 
 purposes of mere speculation, but that we may " know 
 the truth, and that the truth may make us free :" or, in 
 other words, that we may be " sanctified through the 
 truth." There could be no moral, ameliorating change in 
 the human heart, without the infusion of moral principles : 
 and those moral principles must be apprehended by the 
 understanding before they can govern the heart. As all 
 moral action is founded in moral motives, those motives 
 must be more or less distinctly perceived before we can 
 act under their impulse. There is, on the other hand, a 
 certain influence of the Holy Spirit, which " God hath 
 given (only) to them that obey him." We must be 
 " rooted and gounded in love" before we can be " strength- 
 ened with the Spirit's might in the inner man," so as to 
 11 be able to comprehend, with all saints, the love of 
 Christ, which passeth knowledge, that we may be filled 
 with all the fulness of God." There is likewise a recipro- 
 cal co-operation of the sanctifying and the consolatory 
 influence of the Holy Spirit. The gift of repentance is 
 necessary to prepare us for Divine consolation : " Blessed 
 are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." The 
 gift of faith is necessary as the immediate mean of our 
 receiving the Holy Ghost to dwell within us ; for we re- 
 ceive it " by the hearing of faith." On the other hand : 
 when " the love of God to us is shed abroad in our hearts 
 by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us," " we love him 
 because he has first loved us." Our filial affection and 
 consequent obedience are not the causes, but the effects 
 of his paternal regard. " The joy of the Lord is our 
 strength." But this subject, though highly important and 
 interesting, does not belong to the discussion of the Soci- 
 nian controversy, which, without the introduction of any 
 thing extraneous, has been already sufficiently protracted. 
 To return : 
 
 1. The difficulty of explaining the mode of the Spirit's 
 operation on the human mind makes nothing against the 
 
376 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, 
 
 reality of that operation. Every objection drawn from 
 this source makes equally against any Divine operation, 
 whether physical or moral, miraculous or common. It is 
 enough for us to know that " God will give his Holy 
 Spirit to them that ask him ;" and that it is our duty when 
 we " live in the Spirit, to walk also in the Spirit." As to 
 the manner how that inestimable benefit is given, we know 
 nothing : " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou 
 nearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it 
 cometh, and whither it goeth. So is every one that is 
 born of the Spirit." But it is not necessary that we 
 should understand it. We do not see the worse, because 
 we are unacquainted with the nature of light, or with the 
 manner of its operation. Our food is not of less service 
 to us because we do not know how it is assimilated to 
 our constitution, or how it nourishes our bodies. Our 
 not knowing how we live, needs not hinder our living to 
 the best purpose. Nor does our ignorance of "the way 
 of the Spirit," need to hinder our reception of it, or the 
 accomplishment of that great purpose for which it is given, 
 the salvation of our souls. 
 
 2. Whatever others may pretend, Socinians cannot 
 consistently urge that the world is already Christianized, 
 and that it needs not, therefore, that Divine influence 
 which was once necessary for the conversion of heathen 
 idolaters. According to Dr. Priestley, and his History 
 of Corruptions, the whole of simple Christianity is over- 
 whelmed in falsehood, and the Christian world is full of 
 idolaters who worship a mere man instead of the eternal 
 God. At this rate, we are mere Christian heathens, and 
 almost need a restoration of the miraculous gifts to effect 
 a reformation of the reformed. Their objections must 
 therefore take another shape. They will rather urge : — 
 
 3. " That it is naturally in the power of man to do the 
 will of God, must be taken for granted, if we suppose the 
 moral government of God to be at all an equitable one. 
 He that made man certainly knew what he was capable 
 of, and would never command him to do what he had not 
 enabled him to perform ; so as to propose to him a re- 
 ward which he knew he could never attain, and a punish- 
 ment which he knew he had no power of avoiding." (fln 
 Priestley's Hist, of Cor. vol, i, p. 281.) 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 377 
 
 That the government of God is equitable, and that he 
 does not require any thing which is impossible, is, and 
 must be granted. But, in arguing from these premises, 
 this Socinian patriarch has made no less than three 
 mistakes : 
 
 (1.) He has altogether neglected to inquire what is the 
 will of God with respect to mankind. According to the 
 New Testament, it is the will of God that we " walk in 
 the light while we have the light ;" that we " come to the 
 light that our deeds may be reproved ;" that we " believe 
 according to the working of his mighty power ;" that we 
 " obey the truth through the Spirit ;" that we " by the 
 Spirit mortify the deeds of the body ;" that we " walk in 
 the Spirit ;" that we bring forth " the fruit of the Spirit ;" 
 and that " we grieve not the Holy Spirit of God." Had 
 the doctor considered this, he would have found it per- 
 fectly unnecessary to inquire, whether man have a natural 
 power to do the will of God without the light, the power, 
 the Spirit of God ; for the very language in which God has 
 declared to us his will, implies that we have naturally no 
 such power. 
 
 (2.) He has neglected to make a distinction between 
 our being naturally able to do the will of God, and our 
 being enabled to do it by supernatural grace. Mankind 
 may be in fact able to do the will of God, and so be with- 
 out excuse, and yet their ability may be not natural, but 
 supernatural. And this we take to be the Scriptural truth : 
 44 Without Christ we can do nothing," John xv, 5 ; but 
 44 can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth 
 us," Phil, iv, 13. On this ground, we grant that the 
 whole will of God is practicable. But when Dr. Priestley 
 so unceremoniously 44 takes for granted, that it must be 
 naturally in the power of man to do the will of God," 
 he takes for granted the very thing which he ought to have 
 proved ! 
 
 (3.) He has neglected to distinguish between a physi- 
 cal and a moral inability. A man may be supposed to 
 be physically able to 44 deny himself;" to 44 crucify the 
 flesh with the passions and desires ;" to " mortify the 
 deeds of the body ;" to renounce the world ; or even to 
 love God ; yet if he be morally unable to do these things, 
 if he have an aversion to them, all his physical ability 
 32* 
 
378 THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 will avail nothing. But this moral inability is that for 
 which we particularly contend. It is a contradiction in 
 terms to say that man has a natural inclination to deny 
 himself. It is the same as to say that he is naturally in- 
 clined to resist his natural inclination. The carnal mind 
 may be changed to a spiritual mind ; and, therefore, it has 
 a physical capacity to love God and to obey his law. But 
 so long as it is a carnal mind, it is enmity to God, and is 
 not subject to his law, neither indeed can be. Obedience, 
 in this state, is morally impossible. The mind of man 
 may be physically free in its volitions ; yet, while " the 
 flesh lusteth (causeth desires,) against the Spirit," unless 
 those desires be counteracted by " the Spirit, which lust- 
 eth (causeth desires,) against the flesh," the man is in 
 moral bondage, and will still " walk in the flesh," and 
 "obey it in the lusts thereof." It is not impossible for us 
 to " work out our own salvation ;" but it is only rendered 
 possible by God, who " worketh in us to will and to do, 
 of his good pleasure," Phil, ii, 12, 13. 
 
 4. Yes, says the doctor, " God works all our works in 
 us and for us, not by his own immediate agency, but by 
 means of those powers which he has given us for that pur- 
 pose!" (Hist, of Cor. vol. i, p. 283.) 
 
 In reply to this we will ask a few plain questions : — 
 When God is said to have given to the Gentiles repent- 
 ance unto life, — to have given to the Philippians to believe, 
 — and to have purified the heart of Cornelius by faith, — 
 is nothing meant but that he had given to them faculties 
 capable of repentance, faith, and holy obedience ? Had 
 they not, at this rate, repentance before they repented, and 
 faith before they believed, and purity in the midst of all 
 their fllthiness ? And since God has given to all men the 
 same powers, does it not follow that God has given to all 
 men repentance, faith, and purity of heart ? When Jesus 
 Christ is said to be " exalted a Prince and a Saviour to 
 give repentance to Israel," is it meant that he was exalted 
 to give to the Israelites those powers which they had pos- 
 sessed from their infancy? Is not this something like be- 
 ing exalted to create those who were already created ? A 
 hundred such questions might be proposed, all tending to 
 show how little they who make these assertions attend to 
 the word of God I 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 379 
 
 There is a manifest distinction between the powers 
 which God has given us by nature, and that which is ne- 
 cessary to the proper and effectual use of them. A man 
 may have eyes, and yet be blind ; ears, and be deaf : 
 hands and feet, and be maimed or lame : all the members 
 of the human body, and be so paralyzed as to have no use 
 of them : and lungs which are rotten and cannot respire. 
 The first thing he will want, therefore, is a cure. Again : 
 it is not enough that God has given us eyes ; we cannot 
 see till he has also given us light. Our ears would not 
 answer the purpose of hearing, if we lived in vacuo, or if 
 the air were robbed of its elasticity. Our members, 
 though in themselves formed for motion, would not move 
 at our will, unless God had superadded something to which 
 we find it difficult to give a name. And our vital organs 
 would answer no purpose of life without the vital air for 
 respiration. The judicious reader is left to make the 
 application. 
 
 To conclude : the dogmas of philosophical and rational- 
 izing divines, and the dreams of enthusiasts, though direct- 
 ly opposed to each other, are equally distant from the 
 doctrine of the sacred writings. Socinians, and less con- 
 sistent trinitarians, may reject the plain testimony of Scrip- 
 ture, deny all intercourse with heaven, and ridicule the 
 professions of serious Christians as the cant of hypocrisy; 
 while impostors and madmen impute to the Spirit of God 
 their imaginary revelations, or absurd and unscriptural im- 
 pressions : the one may renounce the truth of God, and 
 the other may abuse it ; but it stands on its own basis, 
 and is immovable as the Rock on which the Christian 
 Church is built. 
 
 Granting that our Lord promised to his immediate fol- 
 lowers the knowledge of evangelical truth by direct inspi- 
 ration, and those miraculous powers which demonstrated 
 that they spake the wisdom and truth of God, — we have 
 found it equally true that he promised the Holy Spirit, for 
 other purposes, to all his followers in all ages, — that his 
 promises have hitherto been fulfilled, — that the Scriptures 
 are faithful records of the fulfilment, as well as of the pro- 
 mise, — that the blessing is necessary to each individual of 
 mankind, — and that " the same Lord is rich unto all that 
 call upon him." The miraculous powers were given for 
 
380 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 the introduction of Christianity, and for its establishment 
 in the world : and they were not withdrawn until the im- 
 portant design was accomplished. The same necessity 
 for them now no longer remains. The ordinary influences 
 of the Spirit were originally promised for the personal sal- 
 vation of each individual of mankind. That purpose is not 
 yet universally effected ; but the same necessity for them 
 remains. The cessation of the former, therefore, by no 
 means implies the cessation of the latter. In six days 
 God created the heaven and the earth, and all that are in 
 them, and rested the seventh day. But a cessation from 
 creation by no means implies that the Divine energies 
 are not still engaged in the preservation, propagation, and 
 improvement of the work of his hands. Nor does God's 
 withdrawing those extraordinary powers, by which the 
 Christian Church was called into existence, argue that he 
 will not be with his faithful servants " always, even unto 
 the end of the world." 
 
 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 In examining and refuting the doctrines of modern 
 Socinians, it can scarcely escape our observation, that the 
 source of their destructive errors is the pride of reason. 
 14 If any man consent not to wholesome words, even the 
 words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine 
 which is according to godliness, he is proud," 1 Tim. vi, 3. 
 One who is a stranger to the case might naturally suppose, 
 that a person born in a Christian country, and surrounded 
 from his infancy by the direct or reflected light of Divine 
 revelation, would be satisfied with such a source of in- 
 struction, in every thing connected with God and religion. 
 But this is not the case with those who run the race of 
 Socinianism. As if every man were a fool, who dees not 
 light a taper of his own to seek the meridian sun, their 
 belief of the Divine testimony must be suspended, till 
 from other sources they have demonstrated to themselves 
 the being, attributes, and will of God. However difficult 
 such a demonstration might be to one who has no previous 
 knowledge of these subjects, it is not difficult to one who, 
 
THE CONCLUSION. 381 
 
 in fact, is only seeking a proof of his own ingenuity, and 
 who therefore can easily persuade himself that he has 
 demonstrated by reason, what he has really learned from 
 revelation. The result of his imaginary researches he 
 calls natural religion. 
 
 Some of the principal doctrines of this natural religion 
 are, — 44 God is," " God is one," " God is a Spirit," and 
 44 God is love." As the doctrines thus adopted are all 
 borrowed from Divine revelation, from thence they ought 
 to be illustrated. For although our novice has imagined 
 that he has perfectly demonstrated them, he has not even 
 perfectly understood one of them. He knows neither what 
 God is, what is the nature of his unity, what a spirit is, nor 
 how his love is modulated. It is easy to conceive the pos- 
 sibility, and the propriety of receiving additional instruction 
 from Divine revelation, on subjects which as yet we have 
 but imperfectly comprehended. But how is it possible for a 
 man to reason conclusively from premises which he does 
 not perfectly understand, and which, therefore, he cannot 
 compare ? Is not this to build knowledge on ignorance ? 
 The superstructure raised on such a basis is 44 a castle in 
 the air." Yet this is the regular process of a philoso- 
 phical religionist. Untutored by a celestial messenger, 
 
 Into the heaven of heavens he presumes, 
 An earthly guest. 
 
 From his crude notions of what God is in some respects, 
 he boldly infers what he must be in other respects. 
 From his dark metaphysical ideas of spirit, and of the 
 simplicity or unity of spirit, he concludes, by wholesale, 
 that there can be no distinction in the Deity. And from 
 his imperfect notion of the Divine benevolence, as he calls 
 it, he presumes to dictate what God must, and what he 
 must not do. 
 
 Having passed his noviciate, and, nurtured in academic 
 groves, having become a staunch and positive philosopher, 
 he is now prepared to make use of the book of revelation, 
 as far as it will sanction his creed, or adorn his opinions. 
 His adoption of the sacred code is, however, strictly 
 guarded by this apophthegm, that 44 as reason is a partial 
 revelation of the being, attributes, and will of God, a sub- 
 sequent and more perfect revelation cannot contradict it." 
 
382 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 His philosophical system of" natural religion" is thus set 
 up as an infallible test, by which every doctrine of Divine 
 revelation is to be tried. His reason is not, like that of 
 a professed infidel, so far perverted, as to deny the Divine 
 mission, as he affects to call it, of Jesus Christ. But so 
 confident is he of the precision of every previous induction 
 of reason, that a system promulged by Divine authority is 
 not permitted to convict him of any error in judgment. He 
 is infallible. So complete is his information on almost 
 every subject, and so competent has he found himself to 
 the most abstruse ideas and reasonings, that every thing 
 which rises above his present opinions, as well as what- 
 ever contradicts them, must be erroneous. With such a 
 preparation for the study of a supernatural revelation of 
 those things which " no one knows but the Spirit of God, 
 and he to whom the Spirit hath revealed them," how is it 
 possible but that many obvious Scriptural truths must be 
 discarded? " The wisdom of God in a mystery," is " fool- 
 ishness" to one who is thus " wise in his own eyes, and 
 prudent in his own conceit." 
 
 To get rid of the difficulties which Divine revelation has 
 thrown in his way, is now the great work of our philoso- 
 phical divine. This herculean task does not discourage 
 those who, like Dr. Priestley, have resolved not to be 
 convinced, and aver that the doctrines of the trinity, 
 and of the atonement, " are things which no miracles can 
 prove." (Hist, of Cor. vol. ii, p. 861.) By what methods 
 this is to be done, it was at one time intended here to ex- 
 emplify. But the catalogue of " ways and means," drawn 
 merely from Mr. G.'s performance, became so long and 
 tedious that it is now omitted. The reader is therefore 
 referred to the preceding pages for a sufficient number of 
 examples of the unfair and unwarrantable means in com- 
 mon use among Socinians, by which the Bible is to be 
 purged from every thing that offends their illuminated 
 reason. 
 
 But wherefore all these mighty efforts, in which the 
 whole Socinian corps unite their strength, to purge from 
 all mystery the revelation which the " great, mysterious 
 God" has given of himself, his ways, and his will ? Is 
 Socinianism itself so clear and intelligible that no diffi- 
 culty remains? Have its votaries left no mystery unex- 
 
THE CONCLUSION. 383 
 
 plored ? Have they explained what God is, — what the 
 Divine Spirit is, — how he exists without beginning, and 
 without succession, — how he fills all space without exten- 
 sion, — how he foresees the actions of men, and yet leaves 
 them free ? — how evil originated when as yet there was 
 nothing but good ? By no means. Nay, a Socinian is 
 still a mystery to himself. He can explain neither how 
 his material body thinks, nor how an immaterial, thinking 
 substance is united with it. All this might, however, be 
 forgiven, if he did not pretend to divest religion of all its 
 mysteries. To be ignorant is human ; but the pride of 
 understanding was not made for man. " The foolishness 
 of God, however, is wiser than men." Of all the known 
 systems of theology, the Bible, which " explains all mys- 
 teries but its own," has the fewest mysteries. Compare 
 it with Socinianism, and it will be found that the latter, in 
 attempting to remove the veil from the holy of holies, has 
 hung the temple of God with cobwebs. The philosophi- 
 cal religion also has its mysteries : mysteries of its own 
 creation. Mr. G. cannot get over the existence of the 
 devil, without substituting two mysteries for one. Thus, 
 on the one hand, he has invented or borrowed the inven- 
 tion of an imaginary personage, whom he calls " the an- 
 gel of death," and whom he supposes to hold a contest 
 even with an archangel, about the departed soul of Moses. 
 (See p. 53.) On the other hand, to supply the place of 
 the devil, he has invented an abstract evil principle, an ac- 
 cident without a substance, as mischievous as the devil 
 himself. Lest it should appear that "the Word of God 
 was with God." before his incarnation, some of Mr. G.'s 
 brethren contrive to send the human nature of Christ up 
 to heaven, before he opened his ministry, that he might 
 receive his instructions and his commission. When Jesus 
 Christ evinces his mysterious union with the Divine na- 
 ture, by the Divine perfections which he exerted, and Mr. 
 G. is forced to concede to him those perfections ; this 
 metaphysician contrives to abstract the Divine perfections 
 from the Divine nature, and attributes them, in this ab- 
 stracted form, to mere humanity. Here, again, two mys- 
 teries are substituted for one ! Here is the mystery of 
 the abstraction : a mystery ten thousand times more pro- 
 found than that which should suppose that the rays of the 
 
384 THE CONCLUSION* 
 
 sun are abstracted from that luminous body with all their 
 splendour. And here is the mystery of delegation, which 
 supposes infinite perfections to be possessed by a finite 
 being: a mystery infinitely greater than that which sup- 
 poses this whole material creation to be inclosed in a 
 nutshell. To exclude the mystery of the Divinity of the 
 Holy Spirit, many mysteries are invented. From these 
 teachers of " simple Christianity," we learn the mysteries 
 of a Spirit which is not a spirit, — of a being who has no 
 real existence, — who has properties, without any substance 
 in which they inhere, — searches all things without an un- 
 derstanding, — acts voluntarily without a will, — and is nei- 
 ther a creature nor the Creator. To rid the world of the 
 whole mystery of the trinity, a mysterious unity is invent- 
 ed, which more than equals the mystery of an atom filling 
 the universe. Nor have we yet explored all the mysteries 
 of Socinianism. To set aside that of the miraculous con- 
 ception, these philosophical divines give us our choice 
 between a Saviour generated in the ordinary way, without 
 partaking the ordinary defilement; and, as if Satan might 
 cast out Satan, a Saviour, born a sinner, to save his peo- 
 ple from their sins. The mystery of a proper " propitia- 
 tion for our sins," they have not found how to avoid, 
 without first paying a compliment to the sacred writers, 
 and supposing the Jewish sin offerings to have been " a 
 figure for the time then present," and then paying a com- 
 pliment to their idol, and supposing the " offering for sin," 
 made by the Son of God, to be so denominated by a figu- 
 rative allusion to those offerings which were " a shadow 
 of good things to come." Thus the offering of Christ is 
 mysteriously reduced to " the shadow of a shade :" and, to 
 add to the mystery, no substance is left to account for the 
 derivation of either the shade or the shadow. Beside this, 
 on the one hand the beloved Son of God is supposed to 
 have suffered the penalty of sin without any respect to sin 
 committed by himself or by others, as the criminal cause ; 
 and, on the other hand God is supposed, as the moral go- 
 vernor of the universe, to be at once just and the justifier 
 of the ungodly who believe in Jesus, without any declara- 
 tion of his righteousness by setting forth a propitiatory. 
 Here, again, the mysteries are multiplied. The righteous 
 God is supposed to have inflicted the penalty where it was 
 
THE CONCLUSION. 385 
 
 on no account due ; and to have remitted it where it was 
 properly and justly due, without even a qualified substitu- 
 tion of the persons, or any commutation of punishment. 
 None but a Socinian can explain this mystery, which sup- 
 poses public justice to punish the innocent, and to reward 
 the guilty. Having exhausted their own resources, and 
 finding their own imagination insolvent, thej now borrow 
 the mysteries of that very Church against which they have 
 protested. To blot out from the book of God the eter- 
 nal punishment of the wicked, two popish mysteries are 
 revived. First, hell is turned into a purgatory : and then, 
 the finally impenitent being excluded from the congrega- 
 tion of the righteous, a new limbus is opened for their 
 reception, between heaven and hell. So true it is that 
 extremes meet in the antipodes of truth ! The Roman and 
 the Socinian Churches having separated, the one" having 
 gone into the extreme of superstition, and the other into 
 the extreme of rational refinement, meet together in a 
 fabulous limbo, or a chimerical purgatory. 
 
 Such are the mysterious absurdities which rational 
 Christians can swallow and digest, while they reject the 
 sublime and heavenly truths of the Gospel ! So true it is 
 that more faith is required to make a Socinian or an infi- 
 del, than to make a Christian ! 
 
 The men who sincerely and cordially love the Bible, are 
 now called upon to consider seriously how much it is 
 transformed by these calm investigators. " Let it be 
 neither mine nor thine," said the woman who was not the 
 mother of the child in question, " but divide it." Such is 
 the zeal of the Socinians to have their wisdom made cur- 
 rent by the stamp of Divine authority, that they rend in 
 pieces the book of God, rather than not have it on their 
 side. It is related by the Rev. W. Jones, whose anti- 
 Socinian works deserve the most serious attention, that 
 46 Dr. Samuel Clarke wrote a celebrated book upon the 
 Being and Attributes of God ; and having discovered, as 
 he thought, by the force of his own wit, what God is, and 
 must be, in all respects, he rejected the Christian doctrine 
 of the trinity ; and, to put the best face he could upon 
 his unbelief, spent much of the remainder of his life in 
 writing ambiguous comments, and finding various read- 
 ings, that is, in picking holes in the Bible." The same 
 33 
 
386 THE CONCLUSION* 
 
 is the constant practice of our Unitarian divines. If they 
 are to be believed, how small a part of the New Testa- 
 ment is genuine ! and how much is the rest obscured by 
 their elucidations ! According to them its language is but 
 unmeaning bombast ! It is a mere " mountain in labour I" 
 They glory in degrading it, by insinuating that it is almost 
 replete with interpolations, false readings, contradictory 
 representations, and unmeaning figures, and by charging 
 the sacred writers with producing " lame accounts, impro- 
 per quotations, and inconclusive reasonings." (Dr. Priest- 
 ley's 12th letter to Mr. Burn.) Nor does it at all con- 
 cern them, that they are constantly undermining its autho- 
 rity ; for Socinianism has borrowed all it wants, and can 
 support its dignity by reason, without being any longer 
 much beholden to revelation. But a Christian believer is 
 as the mother of the child, whose life was bound up in the 
 life of her infant. " If the foundations be destroyed, 
 what can the righteous do ?" 
 
 The canons of criticism which the Socinians have 
 adopted, are such as, if allowed, may equally serve to 
 subvert every doctrine of the Bible, and to undermine the 
 credit of the whole revelation of God. The arguments 
 adduced to disprove the existence of the devil, are equally 
 sufficient to disprove the existence of all the heavenly 
 hosts. The mode of reasoning which is used in quashing 
 the evidence of the Divinity of the Word and of the Spirit, 
 needs only a bold innovator, an eastern philosopher, who 
 will venture, on the same ground, to destroy all positive 
 evidence of the proper Divinity of the Father. If Socinians 
 have disproved the proper atonement made by Jesus Christ, 
 they can prove that his being slain " by the determinate 
 counsel of God," was unjust and cruel : and can set 
 aside both the mercy and the justice of God. The extra- 
 ordinary influence of the Spirit of God must fall before the 
 artillery which levels the ordinary : and when it is made 
 to appear that mankind heal the maladies of their own 
 mind, and that the dead in sin arise without " the Spirit of 
 life from God," the miracles of Christ and of his apostles 
 will need no longer to be attributed to " the finger of God." 
 The criticisms which remove our dread of eternal misery, 
 may equally subvert our hope in the eternal God, who, by 
 an everlasting covenant, has promised us a kingdom 
 which shall endure for ever. 
 
THE CONCLUSION. 387 
 
 The authority of the evangelists may as well be over- 
 turned by the same engine by which they attempt to over- 
 turn the authority of the apostolic epistles. Mr. Paine 
 can furnish them with objections to the whole Gospel, as 
 specious as those which they exhibit against the first 
 chapters of Matthew and Luke. And Moses and the 
 prophets will come under the same sentence of condem- 
 nation with the apostles and evangelists ; for their doc- 
 trine is the same, the latter relating as facts, what the 
 former predict as future. Dr. Priestley, therefore, made 
 only an honest confession when he said, " If the doctrine 
 of atonement were really Scriptural, I hesitate not to say, 
 that by me the evidences of revealed religion would be 
 deemed unsatisfactory." 
 
 Let the subject be maturely considered, and it w r ill be 
 found that Socinianism destroys all the prominent features 
 and vital parts of Christianity. What part of the system 
 of human redemption does a Socinian believe? He talks 
 loudly of the "Divine mission of Jesus," and professes to 
 regard him as a " teacher sent from God ;" but what ho- 
 nour does he put upon him while, with Dr. Priestley, he 
 accounts him " fallible" like other men ; (Def of Unita- 
 rianism for 1787, p. Ill :) and, with Mr. G., he deems 
 him a mere time-server, who accommodates his discourse 
 to the fashionable superstition of the day ; or a mere im- 
 postor, who, pretending to cast out demons, when no such 
 beings exist, makes a display of false credentials? (See 
 p. 41.) With the exception of the resurrection of the hu- 
 man body, and of the truths which he supposes himself to 
 have learned from reason, which of the peculiar doctrines 
 of Christ does he believe? The story of Eve and the 
 serpent, though " written for our learning," he deems a 
 fable which he does not care to explain. (See p. 44.) He 
 denies that by the offence of one (judgment came) upon all 
 men to condemnation ; and that " by one man's disobedi- 
 ence many were made sinners." He will not allow that 
 " the Word, which was made flesh, was God ;" or, if he 
 acknowledge it for a moment, it is only that he may deny 
 it at a more convenient time, and under more auspicious 
 circumstances. He makes it his chief concern to show 
 that " Christ hath (not) redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law, being made a curse for us ;" that he is not " the pro* 
 
388 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 pitiation for our sins ;" that " we have (not) redemption 
 through his blood, the forgiveness of sins ;" and that 
 " God hath (not) set him forth a propitiation through faith 
 in his blood.' 3 He counts it enthusiasm to say that " God 
 will give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him." Accord- 
 ing to him there is no devil ; and therefore " the Son of 
 God was (not) manifested to destroy the works of the 
 devil." Even the perfect example which Jesus Christ has 
 left for his disciples, is ruined for the support of Socinian- 
 ism. If Dr. Priestley thought Jesus Christ like other 
 men, a peccable creature, Mr. G. has gone still farther. — 
 He has found a tempter in the breast of the Holy One of 
 Israel, and ascribes to our Saviour the thought of pursuing 
 44 worldly objects" by the abuse of his miraculous powers. 
 If Mr. G.'s comment, (see p. 52,) compared with the text, 
 be true, the Son of God had it in contemplation to " gra- 
 tify his palate" by unwarrantable means ; to satisfy a vain 
 ambition, and " command universal admiration" by an act 
 approaching to suicide ; and to promote his separate inte- 
 rest at the expense of the honour of God, by " the corrupt 
 use of his power." If the thought of foolishness is sin, 
 what then becomes of the perfect Christian pattern ? If he 
 be a materialist, he scouts the opinion, that " when the 
 earthly house of this tabernacle is dissolved, we have a 
 building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in 
 the heavens ;" and asserts that our only habitation for a 
 while is ? in the dust of death. He robs the law of God of 
 its sanction, by quenching " the unquenchable fire ;" and 
 the Gospel of its consolation, by " counting the blood of 
 the covenant an unholy (a common) thing, and by denying 
 the Spirit of grace." He robs God of his peculiar charac- 
 ter, as a supreme, moral governor ; and man of his liberty 
 as a moral agent. In a word, he robs us of our immor- 
 tal soul, and of our Divine Saviour ; and what does he 
 leave us to fear or to hope ] 
 
 After these Socinian operations, what is left of Chris- 
 tianity to support even its existence ? It is not only dis- 
 membered, but embowelled, and robbed of its very vitals. 
 As a mere code of morals it may still subsist ; but, even 
 in this respect, its strength will be impaired, and its effective 
 force will be lost. It wants those striking demonstrations 
 of God's hatred to sin, which beget religious fear, and 
 
THE CONCLUSION. 389 
 
 those convincing proofs of his love to mankind, which are 
 the most powerful arguments for their love, gratitude, and 
 obedience to him, and which can be derived only from the 
 propitiatory death of its great Author. But as a covenant 
 of grace, established between God and his offending and 
 estranged creatures, it cannot possibly stand. If the moral, 
 or legal part of Christianity may continue after the subver- 
 sion of those doctrines which we have been called upon to 
 vindicate, the federal part of it, and all that is properly 
 Gospel in it, must needs be involved with them in their 
 ruin ; for that is all built upon the propitiation of Christ, 
 and his propitiation upon his miraculous birth and his 
 Divinity, which are therefore the foundation of the Chris- 
 tian religion. 
 
 But after all, let us not be understood as uttering the 
 language of despondency. The past experience of true 
 Christians of all denominations, is, to themselves at least, 
 an answer to all the sophistry of the " rational dis- 
 senters," and an antidote to all their refinements. They 
 may not be able to state with metaphysical precision the 
 doctrines which they hold, nor to answer all the cavils of 
 those who with a learned and imposing air impugn those 
 doctrines ; but they " know of whom they have learned 
 them," and have found them " the power of God unto sal- 
 vation." St. John and St. Paul will be acknowledged, 
 and their doctrine will be " received with meekness, as the 
 ingrafted word which is able to save the soul," when Mr. 
 G. and his Lectures are sunk into oblivion. 
 
 The ignorance and levity of some have prepared them 
 beforehand to fall into the snare which is laid for them. 
 To these, Socinianism and no religion are synonymous 
 terms. From such converts the cause of vice, immorality, 
 and profaneness will gain more than the cause of which 
 Mr. G. is the advocate. A while ago they paid but little 
 attention to the Bible, and after the first ferment is over, 
 they will pay as little to their new leader. It is the pro- 
 perty of Socinianism to quench all zeal but that of prose- 
 lytism to its own system : and of that zeal, in such a 
 cause, only a few refined spirits will be found possessed. 
 A false philosophy laid the foundation of this vacant 
 temple, and that philosophy only can raise the super- 
 structure. 
 
 33* 
 
390 INDEX TO THE SUBJECTS. 
 
 The decision of the important questions which are 
 discussed in these pages is closely connected with our 
 present and final happiness, as individuals. " To his own 
 master each of us stands or falls." Whether, therefore, 
 the reader be a teacher or a student of divinity ; refined 
 or vulgar ; converted from ignorance to Socinianism, or 
 perverted from Christianity ; lukewarm or zealous in the 
 cause he has espoused : whether he be in danger from 
 Mr. G.'s sophistry, inclining toward his opinions, or esta- 
 blished in them, it may not yet be too late for him to con- 
 sider that as the precepts of Christianity are the test of our 
 obedience, its doctrines are intended to be the test of our 
 docility ; that he is as much accountable to God for his 
 religious opinions, as for his moral actions ; and that 
 nothing but " the knowledge of the truth can make him 
 free." 
 
 INDEX TO THE SUBJECTS. 
 
 Adam, made in the image of God, 274, 296 — his fall, 277 — conse- 
 quences of the fall of, 277, 300 — begat a son in his own image, 
 274 — posterity of, involved, 281 — reprieved with his posterity, 286 
 — state of, and his posterity under a reprieve, 286 — his loss, and 
 that of his posterity, 289 — and his posterity under a new covenant, 
 289— Scriptural objections answered, 293— philosophical objec- 
 tions answered, 295. 
 
 Advocate, Jesus Christ our, 180. 
 
 Atwv, and its derivatives, 205 — not indefinite, 209 — objections an- 
 swered, 210. 
 
 Analogy, what, 114 — trinity illustrated by, 115. 
 
 Angel, of Jehovah, Jesus Christ the, 126. 
 
 Angels, creation of, 37, 38— why so called, 38— fall of, 38— sin 
 of, 39. 
 
 Appearances, of the Word of God, under the Old Testament, 127. 
 
 Atheism, Socinianism allied to, 97. 
 
 Alhenagoras, 154. 
 
 Atonement, how made, 163 — what, 164 — objections to, answered, 
 166— death of Christ an, 171— of Christ, taught by the Divine 
 messengers, 184 — made by the human nature of Christ, 186 — 
 justice and mercy displayed by the, 186— whether a satisfaction, 
 188 — consistent with repentance, mutual forgiveness, and obe- 
 dience, 191 — of Christ, a purification, 195 — not made by the death 
 of the apostles, 197. See propitiation. 
 
 Attribute, the Holy Spirit not a mere, 97. See perfection. 
 
INDEX TO THE SUBJECTS. 391 
 
 Baptism, institution of, connected with the doctrine of the trinity, 
 61, 148. 
 
 Being, its image and operation, their analogy to the trinity, 117. 
 
 Benediction, in the name of Christ, 90 — in the name of the Holy 
 Spirit, 104 — in the name of the trinity, 143. 
 
 Breath, the Holy Spirit not properly a, 96. 
 
 Chastisement, distinguished from punishment, 200, 223. 
 
 Clemens, of Rome, 151 — of Alexandria, 154. 
 
 Creation, ascribed to Jesus Christ, 65 — a proof of his Godhead, 67. 
 
 Demons, possessing mankind, 40 — cast out, 40 — were spirits, 41 — 
 chief of, the devil, 42. 
 
 Depravity, hereditary, 265, 301. See Adam. 
 
 Devil, not known from reason, 15 — not infinite, 37 — chief of demons, 
 42 — disputation of, with Michael, 52 — judgment of, 54 — offices of, 
 ascribed to God, 55, — existence of, how connected with the doc- 
 trines of the Gospel, 57 — belief of, connected with Christian 
 duty, 58 — consistent with our responsibility, 58. 
 
 Distinction, between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, illustrated, 
 115 — consistent with unity, 119 — essential, necessary, and eternal, 
 119 — reasons for personal, 120— not only personal, 120, 122. 
 
 Ebionites, 314. 
 
 Emancipation, terms of, explained, 178. 
 
 Equality, of Christ with God, 76. 
 
 Eternity of future punishment, proved from the meaning of cuu>v 
 and i f s derivatives, 205 — from the general tenor of Scripture, 
 213 — objections to, answered, 223. 
 
 Eve, seduction of, by the devil, 43 — account of, not an allegory, 45. 
 
 Evil principle, absurdity of abstract, 46. 
 
 Father, union of Christ with, 72. 
 
 Figures, Scriptural, what, 95. 
 
 Forgiveness, of sins, not known from reason, 15 — of sins, through the 
 death of Christ, 173 — of injuries not inconsistent with the atone- 
 ment, 192. 
 
 Fulness, of God, dwelling in Christ, 71. 
 
 God, being of, not first known from reason, 13 — name of, given to 
 Christ, 76, 143 —term, used in a subordinate sense, 80 — Jesus 
 Christ the true, 81 — the great, 81 — the only- wise, 81 — the mighty, 
 82, 131, 135 — the supreme and ever-blessed, 84— the Holy Spirit 
 is, 108, 113 — the Holy Spirit not a being distinct from, 108 — the 
 Holy Spirit is called, 110, 132 — perfections of, ascribed to the 
 Holy Spirit, 110, 133 — word of, ascribed to the Holy Spirit, 112 
 — works of, ascribed to the Holy Spirit, 112, 133 — moral govern- 
 ment of, 198 — human passions ascribed to, 237. 
 Goodness, ascribed to the Spirit of God, 98. 
 
 Heathens, acknowledged their ignorance of Divine things, 11 — 
 could not ascertain the immortality of the soul, 18 — origin of 
 Divine knowledge among, 21. 
 Holiness, ascribed to the Spirit of God, 98. 
 Holy Ghost. See Spirit of God. 
 Ideas, origin of, 10. 
 
 JeJwvah, name of, ascribed to Christ, 90. 
 
 Jesus Christ, temptation of, 49 — pre-existence of, 62 — Creator of the 
 world, 65, 87, 135, 145 — Divine perfections ascribed to, Q8 t 145 — 
 
392 INDEX TO THE SUBJECTS. 
 
 Divine perfections, proof of Divinity of, 69 — Divine nature ascribed 
 to, 71 — fulness of God in, 71 — union of, with God, 72 — equality of, 
 with God, 74 — denominated God, 76. See God — the only Lord 
 God, 85 — the blessed and only potentate, 86 — forgives sins, 86, 
 145— judges, 86, 146— the living God, 86— the Holy One, 87— 
 Alpha and Omega, 87 — Lord of all, 87 — Lord of hosts, 87 — 
 searcheth the heart, 88 — quickeneth the dead, 88, 146 — the Lord 
 of peace, 88 — is honoured as the Father, 88 — is worshipped, 88, 
 140; the apostles bless in his name, 90; is Jehovah, 90, 131, 
 136 ; twofold nature of, 93 ; appearance of, under the Old Testa- 
 ment, 126; was known as the Son, under the Old Testament, 
 127 ; was proclaimed as the Son of God by John, 136; the phrase, 
 the Son of God, implied his Divinity, 139 ; Divinity of, demon- 
 strated by his miracles, 139 ; Divinity of, implied by the apostolic 
 system of doctrine, 145. See Son of God, Messiah, and Word of 
 God. 
 
 Ignatius, 152,308. 
 
 Immortality, of the soul, not known from reason, 18. 
 
 Inspiration of Scripture, importance of, 238 ; nature of, 241 ; as to 
 language, 249; proved, 251 ; of the Old Testament, 251 ; of the 
 New, 252 ; objections to, answered, 256 ; not always by sugges- 
 tion, 260, 264. 
 
 Intelligence, ascribed to the Spirit of God, 98. 
 
 Intercession, of Christ, 180. 
 
 Irenozus, 1 54, 309. 
 
 Job, temptation of, not an allegory, 47. 
 
 Judicial terms, explained, 180. 
 
 Justice, how satisfied by Christ, 188; of punishing the unbelieving, 190. 
 
 Justification, explained, 179 ; by faith and by works, distinguished, 
 193. 
 
 Justin Martyr, 153, 309. 
 
 Knowledge, Divine, not from reason, 11; viz. of God, 12; of the 
 devil, 15; of duration of future punishment, IS ; of the immor- 
 tality of the soul, 18 ; of a future resurrection, 20. 
 
 KoXaats explained, 201. 
 
 Law, design of, 161. 
 
 Man, See Adam. 
 
 Matter, form, and motion, their analogy to the trinity, 115. 
 
 Messiah, opinion of the Jews concerning, 135. See Jesus Christ. 
 
 Metaphor, what, 114. 
 
 Mind, discourse, and loisdom, or breath, their analogy to the trinity, 
 
 Miracles, demonstrated the Divine perfections of the Son of God, 
 and his union with the Father, 139, 147. 
 
 Miraculous conception, asserted by Matthew and Luke, 308 — con- 
 firmed by antiquity, 308 — by other parts of Scripture, 311 — con- 
 nected with other Scriptural doctrines, 313 — evidence against, 
 refuted, 315. 
 
 Mysteries, of the Gospel, 36 — not explained by Socinians, 382 — 
 created by Socinianism, 383. 
 
 Nature, Divine, ascribed to Christ, 70. 
 
 Nazarenes, 314. 
 
 Old Testament, doctrine of the trinity maintained by, 126. 
 
INDEX TO THE SUBJECTS. 393 
 
 Perfections, Divine, ascribed to Christ, 68— inseparable from Divine 
 nature, 70 — were manifested by the miracles of Jesus Christ, and 
 proved his Divinity, 139 — ascribed to the Holy Spirit, 110 — 
 prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, 112. 
 
 Person, the Holy Spirit a, 95. 
 
 Personal, affections, faculties, and offices, ascribed to the Holy Spirit, 
 101 — pronouns applied to the Holy Spirit, 103 — distinction of the 
 trinity, in the Old Testament, 126. 
 
 Personification, of the Holy Spirit, not merely grammatical, 95 — 
 figurative, what, 95 — of the Holy Spirit, proper, 96. 
 
 Persons, the analogy of three, to the trinity, 118. 
 
 Philosophy, consequences of blending it with the doctrines of revela- 
 tion, 30. 
 
 Phraseology, of the schools, of no importance to the support of 
 Divine Truth, 123, 149, 184. 
 
 Plea, of Jesus Christ, in behalf of men, 181. 
 
 Polycarp, J 52. 
 
 Power, Holy Spirit not a mere, 98 — ascribed to the Holy Spirit, 98. 
 
 Pre- existence, of Jesus Christ, 62. 
 
 Priesthood, of Christians, 175 — of Christ, 175. 
 
 Probation, this the only time of, 213. 
 
 Propitiation, the death of Christ a, 172. See atonement. 
 
 Punishment, duration of future, not ascertained from reason, 21 — 
 distinguished from chastisement, 200 — eternal, 203 — eternal, ac- 
 cords with the general tenor of Scripture, 212 ; how described, 
 215 ; does not imply annihilation, 218 ; remediless, 219 ; fire of, 
 unquenchable, 219 ; of Judas, 221; state of, final, 222; not to 
 purify, 223. 
 
 Ransom, 178. 
 
 Reason, not the source of Divine knowledge 9 ; the judge, but not the 
 rule of Divine truth, 23. 
 
 Reconciliation, Socinian explanation of, refuted, 165 ; by the death 
 of Christ, 173. 
 
 Redemption, by price, 178. 
 
 Repentance, insufficiency of, 17 ; consistent with atonement, 191. 
 
 Restoration, universal, considered, 227. 
 
 Resurrection, of the body, not ascertained from reason, 20 ; second, 
 explained, 224; first and second, 224. 
 
 Revelation, the only source of Divine knowledge, 9 ; not to be sub- 
 jected to the test of reason, 23. 
 
 Sacrifices, eucharistical, 162; piacular, 162; for sin, 162; Levitical 
 165; of Christ, 170; superiority pf the, of Christ, 174; of Chris- 
 tians, 175 ; origin of, 176. 
 
 Satan, the chief of demons, Beelzebub, the devil, 42 ; a spiritual 
 adversary, 53. 
 
 Satisfaction, of Christ, 184, 188. 
 
 Sin offerings, the nature of Levitical, 163 ; the death of Christ a, 170. 
 
 Socinianism, the rise and progress of, in the mind, 380 ; does not 
 explain the mysteries which it must acknowledge, 383 ; mysteries 
 created by, 384 ; undermines the credit of revelation, 386 ; destroys 
 the leading doctrines of the Gospel, 387. 
 
 Son of God, his union with the Father, 72 ; known as such under the 
 Old Testament, 130; peculiarity of the phrase, 137; implies the 
 
394 INDEX TO THE SUBJECTS. 
 
 union of Jesus Christ with the Godhead, 139; worshipped, 99> 
 140; meaning of the phrase among the Jews, 141. See Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Spirit of God, not the mere abstract power of God, 95 ; a person, 95 ; 
 not a figurative person, 96 ; not a mere breath, 96 ; denial of per- 
 sonality of, leads to Atheism, 97 ; attributes of spirit ascribed to, 
 98 ; intelligence of the, 98 ; volition of the, 99 ; personal affec- 
 tions, faculties, and offices, ascribed to the, 101 ; personal pronouns 
 applied to the, 103 ; not having an animated body, no objection 
 to the personality of the, 104; benediction in the name of the, 
 104; fellowship of the, no objection to the personality of the, 104; 
 certain expressions applied to the, 107 ; supposed ignorance of the. 
 107 ; given and sent, 108 ; not a creature, 108 ; is God, 108 ; not 
 a being distinct from God, 108 ; called God, 109 ; Divine perfec- 
 tions ascribed to the, 110 ; word of God ascribed to the, 112; works 
 of God ascribed to the, 112 ; Divine perfections prove the Divinity 
 of the, 112 ; worship due to the, 113 ; the phrase implies his Divi- 
 nity, 148; influence of, universal, 342 ; extraordinary influence of 
 the, 343 ; Socinian doctrine of the influence of, 344 ; influence of 
 the, the privilege of all, 345 ; illumination by the, 352 ; holiness by 
 the, 358 ; repentance by the, 360 ; a sinner comes to Christ by the, 
 360 ; to the Father by the, 360 ; regeneration by the, 362 ; man 
 inhabited by the, 364 ; sanctification by the, 365 ; obedience pro- 
 duced by the, 366 ; the fruit of the, 368 ; the consolations of the, 
 370 ; peace, 370 ; joy, 371, 374 ; hope, 372 ; objections to the or- 
 dinary influence of the, answered, 375. 
 
 Sim, its light, and vital influence, their analogy to the trinity, 116. 
 
 Temptation, of Eve, of Job, of Jesus, of mankind, from the devil, 43, 
 46, 49, 54. 
 
 Terms, the use of different, relative to the death of Christ, 195. 
 
 Tertullian, 154, 309. 
 
 Theophilus, 154. 
 
 Trinity, the doctrine of, 1 13 ; the unity of, 119; distinction of, essential, 
 necessary, and eternal, 119; necessity for a personal distinction of, 
 120; why a mystery, 122 ; doctrine of the, maintained in the Old 
 Testament, 126; Jews held the doctrine of the, 134; use of the 
 doctrine of the, 155. 
 
 Union, of the Father with the Son, 72. 
 
 Unitarian societies, constitution of, 32 ; disagreements of, 33. 
 
 Unity, Divine, 59. 
 
 Use, of the doctrine of the trinity, 155. 
 
 Volition, ascribed to the Holy Spirit, 99, 
 
 Wickedness, of mankind, universal, 265 ; of the Jews, 266 ; of the 
 Gentiles 263 ; how accounted for, 269 ; Scriptural method of ac- 
 counting for the, 272. 
 
 Wisdom, the folly of human, in things Divine, 26. 
 
 Word, of God, world created by, 66 ; Divinity of the, 76, 146; how 
 distinguished from the Father, 116 ; manifestations of the, under 
 the Old Testament, 127 ; Jews held the doctrine of the, 135. See 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Worship, Divine, paid to Jesus Christ, 88, 140; due to the Holy 
 Spirit, 113. 
 
INDEX TO THE TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, 
 
 MORE OR LESS ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 Gen. i, 1 126, 134 
 
 i, 2 115, 133 
 
 26 126, 296 
 
 27 274 
 
 31 296 
 
 iii, 6 285 
 
 14, 15 282 
 
 17,19 ..286 
 
 22 126 
 
 23,24 289 
 
 v, 3 274 
 
 xv, 1,2 127 
 
 xviii, 17 127 
 
 xxii, 1, 2, 12, 15 
 
 . 18 127,128 
 
 xxviii, 13,20,22 128 
 xxxi), 24-30.... 128 
 
 Exod. iii 129 
 
 vii, 1 80 
 
 xxiii, 21 129 
 
 Lev. i, 3 166 
 
 iv, 13-21 163 
 
 Num. xix, 1,3,4, 9. 195 
 
 Josh.v, 13-15 129 
 
 Judg. vi, 12 129 
 
 xv, 14 133 
 
 Jobi..., 46 
 
 xi, 12 273 
 
 xix, 26 130 
 
 xlii, 1 177 
 
 Psalm ii, 7, 12.... 130 
 
 xxxvi, 9 117 
 
 xlv 130 
 
 Ixxxii, 1. 80 
 
 xcvii, 7 80 
 
 Prov. xxx, 4 131 
 
 Eccles. vii, 29 296 
 
 Isaiah vii, 14 311 
 
 viii, 13, 14 92 
 
 ix, 6 82 
 
 xi, 1,2, 10 131 
 
 xii,2,...; 131 
 
 xxxiv, 16 134 
 
 Isa. xl,3, 5, 9, 11.. 132 
 
 13, 14 Ill 
 
 xliv, 24 112 
 
 xlv, 18, 21-25.... 92 
 xlviii, 12-16..,. 133 
 
 liv,6 92 
 
 Jer. i, 5 293 
 
 xxiii, 5, 6... 91, 132 
 136 
 
 xxxiii, 15,16 91 
 
 Ezek. viii, 13 133 
 
 Dan. ix, 24 172 
 
 Joel ii, 28, 29 346 
 
 Mic. v, 2 119 
 
 Zech. xii, 1, 10 
 
 xiii, 7 132 
 
 Mai. iii, 4 . 91 
 
 iv, 2 116 
 
 Matt, i, ii 308 
 
 i, 1-17, 19 321 
 
 21-25 323 
 
 23 76,312 
 
 ii 324 
 
 iii, 12 215,219 
 
 iv, 3 141 
 
 5-11 42, 49 
 
 v,26 225 
 
 vi, 13 58 
 
 ix, 18 262 
 
 xii, 26 42 
 
 28 148 
 
 xiii, 30 215 
 
 xiv, 32, 33 140 
 
 xvii, 5 121 
 
 xix, 17 80 
 
 xx, 23 76 
 
 xxv, 41 54 
 
 46 201 
 
 xxvi, 24 221 
 
 63-66 141 
 
 xxvii, 40 141 
 
 xxviii, 19.,. 61, 148 
 Markii, 7 86 
 
 Mark ix, 43, 44... 219 
 x, 15 ..294 
 
 Luke i, ii. .. 308 
 
 i, 3 259 
 
 15 293 
 
 35 112, 139 
 
 ii, 1-5 330 
 
 41,42 332 
 
 iii, 1 336 
 
 23 321,341 
 
 iv, 41 141 
 
 x, 17, 18, 20..... 53 
 xvi, 24 226 
 
 Johni, 1 76, 117 
 
 i, 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 
 
 30 65 
 
 3, 10, 14 66 
 
 14 147 
 
 16 72 
 
 ii,ll 139 
 
 iii, 3-6 362 
 
 6 273 
 
 13,31 62 
 
 16 120, 137 
 
 35 121 
 
 v, 17, 18 141 
 
 18, 19, 31, 33, 
 
 36, 37 142 
 
 23 89 
 
 39 25 
 
 viii, 58 64 
 
 ix,38 140 
 
 x,30 72 
 
 30-38 80 
 
 33-36 141 
 
 36-38 142 
 
 37,38 74 
 
 xi, 25, 27 140 
 
 xii,41 87 
 
 xiii, 3 62 
 
 xiv, 5-10 73 
 
 xv, 13, 14 245 
 
 xvi, 15 121 
 
396 
 
 INDEX TO THE TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 Johnxvi, 28 62 
 
 30-32 143 
 
 xvii, 5 63 
 
 xx, 28 77 
 
 30,31 140 
 
 Acts i, 2 117 
 
 ii, 38 185 
 
 v, 3,4 ..110 
 
 31 145, 360 
 
 x,22 89 
 
 xi, 18 360 
 
 xv, 28 99 
 
 xix, 3 61 
 
 Rom. i, 19-23 22 
 
 iii, 19-31 194 
 
 23-26 196 
 
 25 172, 176 
 
 v, 10 .....173 
 
 12-21 227,283 
 
 viii, 3 186 
 
 12-23 227 
 
 27 99 
 
 32 13S 
 
 ix, 5 84 
 
 x, 13..... 145 
 
 xii, 1 175 
 
 xiv, 4-6 26 
 
 ICor. i, 2 145 
 
 ii, 9-11 98 
 
 vi,3 54 
 
 19 110 
 
 vii, 25-40 248 
 
 x, 14-16 25 
 
 xi, 3 72 
 
 11 112 
 
 xii, 6-11 117 
 
 8-11 Ill 
 
 11 101 
 
 1 Cor. xiii, 12.... 1 14 
 xv, 47 62 
 
 2 Cor. i, 24 258 
 
 iii, 12, 13 36 
 
 17 355 
 
 iv, 2-4 36 
 
 6.... 145 
 
 v,21 170 
 
 vii, 1 366 
 
 Eph.i, 10 228 
 
 . ii,3 232 
 
 18-22 365 
 
 iii, 9 229 
 
 17-19 71 
 
 20 353 
 
 iv, 7 72 
 
 22-24 296 
 
 24 145 
 
 v, 5 79 
 
 23 73 
 
 Phil, ii, 6 76, 115 
 
 iii, 21 146,230 
 
 Col. i, 13-17 67 
 
 15 117 
 
 16 37 
 
 19 71, 120 
 
 20-23.... v 2° % 
 
 ii, 9 71, Yzkj 
 
 iii, 9, 10 296 
 
 1 Thess. v, 19 349 
 
 1 Tim. ii, 4 229 
 
 iii, 16 78 
 
 vi, 15 86 
 
 2 Tim. iii, 15, 16.. 251 
 
 iv, 1 146 
 
 Tit. ii, 10 79 
 
 13 81 
 
 iii, 4, 6 79 
 
 Hebrews i, 2, 3, 
 
 8-12 66 
 
 3 117, 121 
 
 ii, 17 172 
 
 vi,4-8 216 
 
 x,5-7 63 
 
 10 64 
 
 13, 14 195 
 
 xiii, 11, 12 195 
 
 15 175 
 
 Jannes v, 4 87 
 
 1 Pet. i,17-19.... 196 
 ii, 5 175 
 
 2Pet.i, 1 79 
 
 4 72 
 
 ii, 1 86 
 
 4 39 
 
 1 Johnii, 1 180 
 
 2 172 
 
 18-22 147 
 
 iv, 1,3 24 
 
 3 147 
 
 8 295 
 
 10 172 
 
 v, 13 147 
 
 19 57 
 
 20, 81,147 
 
 Jude 4 85 
 
 6 38 
 
 9 52 
 
 24,25 81 
 
 Rev. i, 8 87 
 
 14 104 
 
 iv, 11 87 
 
 13 228 
 
 xiv, 9-11 204 
 
 xix, 13 117 
 
 xx, 6-15 224 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: May 2006 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
 (724)779-2111