' I ,' •' i
. .' --., - i J

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

TRACTS. VOL. VIII.

Zetidot.'IPub-Ushcd bj' R..3iin.tti\SrfEauls Chiu-ch l^d :

c:.^

TRACTS
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED
BY
THE UNITARIAJV SOCIETY
FOR PROMOTING
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
AND
THE PRACTICE OF VIRTUE.

VOL. VIIL

CONTAININO

PRECEPTS OF JE8l)S, THE GUIDE TO PEACE AND HAPPI
NESS ; WITH THREE DEFENCES.
Bt RAMMOHUN ROY.

ILonDon :
SOLD BY R. HUNTER, ST. PAUl/s CHURCHYARD;
D.EATON, 187 HIGH HOI.BORN ;
AND C. FOX AND CO., THREADNEEDLE-STREET.
1825.

THE
Preceptisf of ^t$u0
THE
GUIDE TO PEACE AND HAPPINESS,
EXTRACTED FROM THE
BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ASCRIBED TO THE FOUB EVANGELISTX.
TO WHICH ARE ADDED,
THE FIRST, SECOND, AND FINAL
APPEAL TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC
IN REPLY TO THE
OBSERVATIONS OF DR. MARSHMAN,
OF SERAMPORE.

By RAMMOHUN ROY.
'(¦-¦ d.y. «'• ; ' .^'n li -' '-- V ^
lu " ¦
EMBELLISHED WITH A PORTRAIT OF THE AUTHOR.

CALCUTTA. PRINTED .-
HonUon,
reprinted by THE I!NITARIAN SOCIETY. AND SOLD BY E. HUNTER,
72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD ; D.WID EATON, 187, HIGH
HOLBORN ; AND C. FOX AND CO., 33, THREAD-
NEEDLE STREET.

1824.

G. Smali.fikld, I'riiiter, Htmkneff.

PREFACE.

The works which are here presented to the
British public cannot fail to excite much in
terest from the circumstances and character of
the author. He has been for several years
well known by name and reputation, both in
India and in England ; but he has been known
only as a learned and philanthropic Brahmin,
the expounder of the religion, and the reformer
of the institutions of his Hindoo countrymen.
He now appears as a Christian professor, advo
cate, and controversialist.
Rammohun Roy[was born about the year
I78O, at Bordouan, in the province of Bengal.
The first elements of his education he received
under his paternal roo^ where he also ac
quired a knowledge of the Persian language,
He was afterwards sent to Patna to learn
Arabic; and here, through the medium of
Arabic translations of Aristotle and Euclid, he
studied logic and the mathematics. When he
had completed these studies he went to Cal*
eutta, to learn Sanscrit, the sacred language
of the Hindoo Scriptures; the knowledge of
a 2

IV PREFACE.
which was indispensable^o his caste and pro
fession as a Brahmin. About the year 1804
or 1805 he became possessed, by the death of
his father and of an elder and younger brother,
of the whole of the family property, which is
understood to have been very considerable.
He now quitted Bordouan, and fixed his resi
dence at Mourshedabad, where his ancestors
had chiefly lived. Shortly after his settlement
at this place he commenced his literary career
by the publication of a work in the Persian
language, with a preface in Arabic, which he
intituled, " Against the Idolatry of all Reli
gions." The freedom with which he animad
verted on their respective systends, gave great
Umbrage both to the Mahommedans and the
Hindoos, and created him so many enemies,
that he found it necessary to remove to Cal
cutta, where he again took up his residence
in the year 1814.
Two years previously to this period, he had
hegun to study the English language, but hfe
did hot then apply to it with much ardour or
•success. Being some years subsequently ap
pointed Dewan, or chief native officer in the
collection of the revenues, and the duties pf his
office affording him frequent opportunities of

PREFACE. V
mixing with English society, and of reading
English documents, he applied to it with in
creased attention, and very soon qualified him
self to speak and write it with considerable
facility, correctness, and elegance. He after
wards studied the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew
languages : of his proficiency in the two last
of these he has given very decisive evidence in
the tracts which are here published.
From his first work " Against the Idolatry
of all Nations," it is evident that he had been
led at an early period of life to regard with
disapprobation the monstrous and debasing
system of idolatry which was embraced by his
countrymen. A careful study of the Sacred
Writings of the Hindoos had also convinced
him that the prevailing notions respecting the
multiplicity of Deities, and the superstitious
devotion to the licentious and inhuman cus^
toms connected with them, were grounded upon
an utter ignorance, or gross perversion of their
religion. These original records appeared to
him to inculcate a system of pure Theism,
which maintained the existence of one sole
God, infinite in his perfections, and eternal in
his duration; and that it required from its
projfessors a mental rather than a corporeal

tn PREFACE*
worship, accompanied by strict and exemplary
virtue. Having embraced these views of the
Hindoo theology and morals, he became anxi
ous to reform the creed and practice of his
countrymen, and determined to devote his
talents and his fortune to this important and
honourable undertaking*
The body of Hindoo theology is comprised
in the Veds, which are writings of very high
antiquity. On account of their great bulk,
and the obscurity of the style in ^hich they
are composed, Yyas, a person of great celebrity
in Hindoo literature, was induced, about tw(>
thousand years ago, to draw up a compendious
abstract of the whole, accompanied with expla
nations of the more difficult passages. This
digest he intituled « The Vedant," or « The
Resolution of all the Veds," and it is generally
esteemed as of equal authority with the ori
ginal writings. This work Rammohun Roy
translated from the Sanscrit into the Bengalee
and Hindoo languages, for the information of
his countrymen. He also printed an abridg
ment of it in the same languages, which he
distributed gratuitously as extensively as cir
cumstances would admit. This abridgment
lie afterwards translated into English, in the

PREFACJE. VU
exjpectatibn, as be states in the Preface, of
proving to his European friends,- ^ that the
superstitious practices which deform the Hin*
doo religion, have nothing to do with the pui-e
spirit of its dictates." Towards the conclusion
ofthe, same preface he explains the reasons of
his proceedings, and intimates the personal
inconveniences to which he had exposed him
self by his benevolent zeal.
, " My constant reflections," he writes, " on
the inconvenient, or rather injurious rites, in^
troduced by the peculiar practice of Hindoo
idolatry, which, more than any other Pagan
worship, destroys the texture of society ; toge
ther with compassion for my countrymen, have
compelled me to use every possible effort to
awaken them from their dream of error ; and
by making them acquainted with the scriptures,
enable them to contemplate, with true devo
tion, the unity and omnipresence of nature's
God. By taking the piath which conscience
and sincerity direct, I, born a Brahmin, have
exposed myself to the complainings a,nd re-
Jyroaches even of some of my relations, whose
prejudices are strong, and whose temporal
advantage depends upon the present system.
But these^ however accumulated, I can tran-s

VIU PREFACE.
quilly bear ; trusting that a day will arrive
when my humble endeavours will be viewed
with justice — ^perhaps acknowledged with gra
titude. At any rate, whatever men may say,
I cannot be deprived of this consolation : my
motives are acceptable to that Being, who
beholds in secret, and compensates openly.*"
- After the publication of the Vedant, Ram-
KrC'hun Roy printed in Begalee and in English
some of the principal chapters of the Veds,
«' for the purpose of illustrating and confirm
ing the view he had taken of them." f
In the preface to one of these tracts, (the
J-
* See r" Translation of an Abridgment of the Vedant, or Re
solution of all the Veds j. the most celebrated and revered Work
of Brahminical Theology, establishing the Unity of the Supreme
Being, and that he alone is the Object of Propitiation and Wor
ship. By Rammohun Roy." Calcutta, 4to. I8I63 8vo. ISlSj
London, 4to. 1817-
, t The titles of these pamphlets are as follows : 1. " Trans
lation of the Cena Upanishad, one of the Chapters of the Sama
Veda, according to the Gloss of the celebrated Shancaracbarya j
establishipg the Unity and Sole Omnipotence of the Supreme
Being, and that he alone is the Object of Worship." Calcutta,
1816. 2. " Tranilation of the Ishopanishad, one of the Chapters
of the Yajur Veda ; according to the Commentary of the celebrated
^hankar-Acharya ; establishing tlie Unity and Incomprehensibility
of the Supreme Being ; and that his Worship ^lone can lead to
«ternal Beatitude." Calcutta, J 81 6. 3. "Translation of the
Moonduk-Opunis}iud of the Uthtuvu-Ved, according to the Gloss

PREFACE. IX
Ishopanishad,) after observing upon the supe
riority of the moral to the physical powers of
man, and intimating that sorrow and remorse
" can scarcely fail sooner or later to be the
portion of him who is conscious of having
neglected opportunities of rendering benefit to
his fellow-creatures," he again adverts to his
own case in the following terms : " From
considerations like these it has been, that I,
of the celebrated Shunkura-Charyu." Calcutta, 1819. 4. " Tran s-
lation of the Kuth-Opunishud, of the Ujoor-Ved, according to the
<51oss of the celebrated Sunkuracharyu." 1819.
His other publications on the subject of Hindoo Reformation,
consist of, 1. "A Defence of Hindoo Theism, in Reply to
the attack of an Advocate for Idolatry at Madras." Calcutta,
1817. 2. " A Second Defence of the Monotheistical System
of the Veds, in Reply to an Apology for the present State of
Hindoo Worship." Calcutta, 1817. 3. " Translation of a Con
ference between an Advocate and an Opponent of the Practice
of Burning Widows Alive, from the original Bungla." 1818. 4.
," A Second Conference between an Advocate and an Opponent
of the Practice of Burning Widows Alive, translated from the
original Bengalee." Calcutta, 1820. Dedicated to the Mar
chioness of Hastings. 5. " An Apology for the Pursuit of Final
Peatitude independently of Brahmunical Observances." Calcutta^
1820, 6. " Brief Remarks regarding Modern Encroachments on
the Ancient Rites of Females, according to the Hindoo Law of
Inheritance. Calcutta, printed at the Unitarian Press, 1822."
The translation of the " Vedant," and of the " Cena Upanishad,"
were reprinted jn London, in 1817. A review of some of these
pamphlets is inserted . in the Monthly Repository, Vol. XIV.
pp. 561^ &c.

X PREFACE.
(although bom a Brahmin, and instructed in
my youth in all the principles of that sect,)
being thoroughly convinced of the lamentable
errors of my countrymen, have been stimulated
to employ every means in my power to im
prove their minds, and lead them to the know
ledge of a purer system of morality. Living
constantly amongst Hindoos of different sects
and profei^ions, I liave had ample opportuni
ties of observing the superstitious puerilities
into which they have been thrown by their self-
interested guides ; who, in defiance of the law
as well as of common sense, have succeeded
but too well in conducting them to the temple
of idolatry; and while tbey hide from; their
view the true substance of morality, have in
fused into their simple hearts a weak attach
ment for its mere shadow." After enumerating
some of the evils arising from the existing
theory and practice of Hindooism, and noticing
the encouragement held out by it to every
species of immorality and crime, he thus pro
ceeds : " My reflections upon these solemn
tniths have been most painful for many yeara
I have never ceased to contemplate with the
strongest feelings of regret, the obstinate adhe
rence of my countrymen to their fatal system

PREFACE. XI
of idolatry, enduring, for the sake of propi
tiating their supposed deities, the violation of
every humane and social feeling. And this in
various instances ; but more especially in the
dreadful acts of self-destruction, and the im
molation of the nearest relations, under the
delusion of conforming to sacred religious
rites. I have never ceased, I repeat, to con
template these practices with the strongest
feelings of regret, and to view in them the
moral debasement of a race who, I cannot
help thinking, are capable of better things;
whose susceptibility, patience, and mildness
of character, render them worthy of a better
destiny. Under these impressions, therefore,
I have been impelled to lay before them ge
nuine translations of parts of their scripture
which inculcates not only the enlightened wor
ship of one God, but the purest principles of
morality, accompanied with such notices as I
deemed requisite to oppose the arguments of
the Brahmins, in defence of their beloved sys
tem. Most earnestly do I pray, that the whole
may, sooner or later, prove efficient in pro*
diicing on the minds of Hindoos in general, a
conviction of the rationality of believing in and
adoring the Supreme Being only; together

Xll PREFACE.
with a complete perception and practice of
that grand and comprehensive moral principle
— Do unto others as you would be done hy^
Although he experienced much opposition
and discouragement in his work of reforma
tion, he had the gratification of witnessing in
many instances the beneficial effects of his
labours. " It is with no ordinary feelings of
satisfaction," he states in the preface to the Cena
Upanishad, " that I have already seen many
respectable persons of my countrymen, to the
great disappointment of their spiritual guides,
rise superior to their original prejudices, and
inquire into the truths of religion." And again
in his preface to the Kuth Opunishud, he
writes, " The great body of my countrymen,
possessed of good understandings, and not
much fettered with prejudices, being perfectly
satisfied of the truth of the doctrines contained
in this and in other works already laid by me
before them, and of the gross errors of the
puerile system of idol worship which they were
led to follow, have altered their religious con
duct in a manner becoming the dignity of
human beings." — " It seems to me," he remarks
in conclusion, " that I cannot better employ
TOy time than in an endeavour to illustrate and

PREFACE. Xlll
maintain truth, and to render service to my
fellow-labourers, confiding in the mercy of
that Being to whom the motives of our actions
and secrets of our hearts are well known."
The liberal views, and the devout and ami
able spirit which are displayed in these ex
tracts, and are indeed discernible in the whole
of the author's writings, may be well thought
to have disposed him to a candid examination
of the Christian revelation. From the perusal
of the New Testament, in his " long and un
interrupted researches into religious truth,"
he found, he asserts, " the doctrines of Christ
more conducive to moral principles, and better
adapted for the use of rational beings than any
other which had come to his knowledge."*
The docti'ine of the Trinity, however, which
appeared to his mind quite as objectionable as
the Polytheism of the Hindoos, presented an
insuperable obstacle to his conversion to Chris
tianity, as he found it professed by those with
whom he conversed. But as the system s6
fully approved itself, in other respects, to his
reason and his piety, his candour would not^
* Preface to the London edition of the Translation of the
Vedant. Monthly Repository, Vol. XIV. p. 562. :

xiv PREFACE."
on account of this single difficulty, allow him
at once to reject it as false. As the most likely
method of acquiring a correct knowledge of its
doctrines, he determined upon a careful pern-
sal of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in
their original languages. From this under
taking he arose with a firm persuasion, that
the doctrine of the Trinity was not inculcated
in them, and that the Christian religion was
true and divine.
Having now become upon deliberate and
rational conviction a Christian, he hastened to
communicate to his countrymen such a view
of the religion of the New Testament as he
thought best adapted to impress them with a
feeling of its excellence, and to imbue them
with its pure and amiable spirit. For this
purpose he compiled the first pamphlet in
serted in the present volume, vrhich he inti
tuled, *? The Precepts of Jesus the Guide to
Peace and Happiness," &c. To this work,
which consists entirely of extracts from the
moral discourses of our Lord, he prefixed an
*' Introduction," in which he stated his reasons
for omitting the doctrines and the historical
and miraculous relations which accompany

PREFACE. XV
th^ in the writings of the Evangeli^s, Soon
after the publication of this tract, there ap-
fpeared in " The Friend of India," * a periodi
cal work under the direction of the Baptist
Missionaries, an article animadverting upon it,
which was signed " A Christian Missionary,"
but written by the Rev. Mr. Schmidt. To this
paper, Dr. Marshman, the editor of the maga-
Thie, appended some *' Observations" of his
OWn,f in which he Styled the Compiler ofthe
" Precepts'," '"an intelligent Heathen, whose
iriind is as yet completely opposed to the grand
design of tlie Saviour's becoming incai'nate."
These *' .Observations" produced the second
bf "the following pamphlets, intituled " An
Appeal to the Christian Public in Defence of
the Precej^s of Jesus, by a Friend to Truth."
The writer is now known to have been Ram-r
mohian Roy himself. He complaiins in strong
terms, o^f the application to him of the term
Heaiiien, as ^ a violation of truth, charity, and
liberality ;" and also controverts some of Dr.
Marshmto's objections to the compilation, and
to his reasonings in the Introduction. In a

* No. XX. February 1820.
t London Edition of Dr. Marshraan's Papers, p. 1.

xvi preface.
subsequent number of the " Friend of India,"*
Dr. MarShman inserted a brief reply to this
« Appeal," in which he still denied to the
Author the title of « Christian," because, he
writes, " we belong to that class who think
that no one can be a real Christian without
believing the divinity and the atonement of
Jesus Christ, and the divine authority of the
whole of the Christian Scriptures," disclaim
ing, however, all intentions of using the term
" Heathen" in an invidious sense.
Dr. Marshman, in his first " Observations,"
had promised to " take up the subject" of
Rammohun Roy's work " more fully in the first
number of the Quarterly Series" of The Friend
of India, then in preparation. Accordingly,
there appeared in that publication some " Ob
servations on certain ideas contained in the
Introduction to The Precepts of Jesus the
Guide to Peace and Happiness."f In reply
to this paper, Rammohun Roy published the
third of the following pamphlets^ intituled,
«A Second Appeal to the Christian Public
in Defence of the Precepts of Jesus." To this
* No. XXIII, May 1820. Dr. Marshman's Papers, London
Edition, p. 5,
t Idem, p, 17, Friend of India, September 1820.

PREFACE. xvii
ti'act Dr. Marshman printed an elaborate an
swer in the fourth number of the Quarterly
Series of « The Friend of India."* In the
month of January 1823, the Author of the
" Precepts of Jesus" appeared once more be
fore the public in a Third and " Final Ap
peal" in defence of that work, and in reply to
the last Answer of Dr. Marshman. This tract
concludes the present volume.
. Dr. Marshman's friends having collected, and
printed in England, his Papers in this contro
versy ,f it was thought by many to be demand
ed by truth and justice, that Rammohun Roy's
pamphlets should also be given to the British
public, to enable them to form an accurate
judgment of the merits of both the parties in
the support of their respective tenets. As
there appeared no prospect of the work being
undertaken by any bookseller, the Unitarian
* December 1821. Dr. Marshman's Tracts, London Edition,
pp. 64, &x. The reader may be referred for some further parti
culars relating to Rammohun "Roy, to • the Monthly Repository,
Vol, XIII, pp. 229, 8m:.; XIV. pp. 561, &c.; XV. pp. 1, &c.j
XVI. pp. 477, &C.J XVII. pp. 682, &c.j and to Mr. Belsham's
Introduction to William Roberts's (of Madras) First Letter to
the Unitarian Society, 1818.
t The work is intituled, " A Defence of the Deity and Atone
ment of Jesus Christ, in Reply to Rammohun Roy, of Calcutta,
by Dr. Marshman, of Serampore." London, 1822.
b

xviii PREFACE.
Society were induced to become the publishers.
They are aware that, holding as they do the
strict and proper humanity of Christ as one of
their fimdamental tenets, they may possibly be
charged.with a dereliction of principle in thus
circulating, under theirauthority, a work which
maintams his pre-^xistence, and super-angelic
rank and dignity. But they rest their defence
upon the peculiar nature of the case, and upon
their anxiety tp give every possible publicity
to so learned and able a defence of the great
doctrine of the proper unity of God from the
pen of a Hindoo convert to the Christian faith.
In reprinting the following pamphlets, the
Calcutta editions have been stiietly followed,
except in a few instances, in which some obvi
ous typographical errors have been corrected ;
and even the principal of these corrections
have been inserted in brackets.
It is not intended in this Preface to enter
into a review of the controversy. Dr. Marsh
man has, however, made a remark, which, as
it refers to the Unitarian Society, we may be
permitted to notice. In raising an argument
for the Deity of Christ, upon the supposed ap
plication to him of the term " fellow" in the
English translation of Zechariah xiii. 7j he thus

PREFACE. xix
quotes Rammohun Roy's criticism upon that
text : " Unable to deny this, our author merely
hints in a note that 'n»D» Immithi, fellow, signi
fies one that lives near another ; ' therefore the
word, fellow, in the English translation is not
altogether correct, as justly observed by Arch
bishop Newcome in his Improved Version,'
lately published," adds Dr. Marshman, " by
the SociNiANS of England."* Dr. Marshman
has here allowed his zeal to outrun his know
ledge. The work quoted by Rammohun Roy
is not Archbishop Newcome's translation of
the New Testament, which formed the basis
of the " Improved Version," published by the
Unitarian Society; but that learned prelate's
" Attempt towards an Improved Version, &c.,
of the Twelve Minor Prophets ;" a production
well worthy of the perusal of every Biblical
student. It is with regret we observe that Dr. Marsh
man, who in general writes like a scholar and
a gentleman, has, in the passage above cited,
condescended to imitate the conduct of some
low bigots on this side of the water, iu desig
nating the Unitarians by the term " Socinians.
which, he must know, is not correctly descrip
* Dr. Marshman's Defence," &c. p, 133.

'i

XX PREFACE,
tive of their opinions, and is generally em
ployed as an epithet of reproach.
With almost the solitary exception of this
deviation from liberality, it affords us great
pleasure to be able to remark, that the contro
versy on both sides has throughout been con
ducted with a spirit of Christian candour and
fairness, which is highly honourable to the
able and learned disputants.

THOMAS REES,
Secretary to the Unitarian Society.

kenningtm, Feb. 12, 1824.

¦**-* It has been stated too broadly above, (pp. iii. iv.,) that
the knowledge of Sanscrit is indispensable to the caste and pro
fession of a Brahmin. There are many of the caste who are quite
ignorant of that language ; but the study of it is, nevertheless,
considered a necessary part of the education of every Brahmin
who makes any pretensions to learning, or engages professionally
in the interpretation of the Sacred Books of Hindoo Theology.
The title of Dewan{\>. iv.) is ^ven to the native officers, gene
rally, who are employed in the collection of the revenue, of whom
there is one in each district.
Bordouan is often written Burdwan, and Mourshedabad,
Moorshedahad.

THE

^vmpt& of ^tm$

GUIDE TO PEACE AND HAPPINESS ;

EXTRACTED FROM

THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,

ASCRIBED TO THE FOUR EVANGELISTS.

WITH
TRANSLATIONS INTO SUNGSCBIT AND BENGALEE.

nai!--,^iT-,oruv'nd, f^'ss a

calcutta:
printed at the baptist mission press, circular roap.
1820.

LONDON, REPRINTED :
1823.

CONTENTS. — ?— Page
The Precepts qf Jesus the Guide to Peace and
Iiappiness ; extracted from ihe Books of the
New Testament, ascribed to the Four Evan
gelists  I
An Appeal to the Christian Public, in Defence
ofthe " Precepts (f Jesus"  99
A Second Appeal to the Christian Public, in
Defence ofthe " Precepts qf Jesus"  131

... . . . . •*--
Page 217, line 6 : The author has inadvertently inserted the liame
of Consiantius instead of Cohstaiis. tt w&s thought' best to leave
the error uncorrected in the text, and to notice it here.

( XXV ).
introduction: — ?^
A-coNVicrioN' in the mind of its total ignorance
of ^e nature and of the specific attributes of the
GkSdhi^acl, and a sense of doubt respecting the real
esteende ofthe sdiul, give rise to feelings of great dis"
s£ttiSfe<Jtion with our limited powers,, as well as with
all htttean acquirements which fail; to inform us on
these interesting points.^On the other hand,, a notion
of the existence of a supreme; superintending; power,
the author and preserver of this harmonious system,
who has organized and who regulates such an infii-
nity of celestial and terrestrial objects ; and a due
e&timatiofl' of that law which teaches that man should
do Urnto others as he woOld wish to be done by,
reconcile us to human nature, and tend to render our
exifeteiAee agfeieable to oufselves and profitable to the
rest of mankind. The former of these sources of
satisfaction, viz. a belief in God, prevails generally ;
being derived either from tradition and instruction,^
©r from an attentive survey of the wonderfal skill
and contrivance disf)layed in the wo*ks of nature.
The latter^ although it is partially taught also in
every systerii of religion with which I am acquainted,
is principally inculcated by Christianity. This
esseritial characteristic ofthe Christian religion I was
for a long tittie uflable to distinguish as such, amidst

Xxvi INTRODUCTION.
the various doctrines I found insisted upon in the
writings of Christian authors, and in the conversation
of those teachers of Christianity with whom I have
had the honour of holding communication. Amongst
those opinions, the most prevalent seems to be, that
no one is justly entitled to the appellation of Chris
tian who does not believe in the divinity of Christ
and of the Holy Ghost, as well as in the divine nature
of God, the Father of all created beings. Many
allow a much greater latitude to the term Christian,
and consider it as comprehending all who acknow
ledge the Bible to contain the revealed will of God,
however they may differ from others in thieir inter
pretations of particular passages of scripture ; whilst
some require from him who claims the title of Chris
tian only an adherence to the doctrines of Christ, as
taught by himself, without insisting on implicit con
fidence in those of the Apostles, as being, except
when speaking from inspiration, like other men,.
liable to mistake and error. That they were so is
obvious from the several instances of differences of
opinion amongst the Apostles recorded in the Acts
and Epistles.*
["Voluminous works, written by learned men of
particular sects for the purpose of establishing the
truth, consistency, rationality, and priority of their
own peculiar doctrines, contain such a variety of

* Vide Acts, ch. xi, vers, 2, 3, ch. xv. vers, 2, 7 ¦ I Corin
thians, ch, i. ver, 12 ; Galatians, ch. ii. vers, 11— .13,

INTRODUCTION. XXVn
arguments, that I cannot hope to be able to adduce
here any new reasonings of sufficient novelty and
force to attract the notice of my readers. Besides,
in matters of religion particularly, men in general,
through prejudice and partiality to the opinions
which they once form, pay little or no attention to
opposite sentiments, (however reasonable they may
be,) and often turn a deaf ear to what is most con
sistent with the laws of nature, and conformable to
the dictates of human reason and divine revelation.
At the same time, to those who are not biassed by
prejudice, and who are, by the grace of God, open
to conviction, a simple enumeration and statement of
the respective tenets of different sects may be a suf
ficient guide to direct their inquiries in ascertaining
which of them is the most consistent with the sacred
traditions, and most acceptable to common sense. —
For these reasons I decline entering into any discus
sion on those points, and confine my attention at
: present to the task of laying before my fellow-crea
tures the words of Christ, with a translation from
the English into Sungskrit and the language of
Bengal. I feel persuaded that by separating from
the other matters contained in the New Testament
the moral precepts found in that book, these will be
more likely to produce the desirable effect of im
proving the hearts and minds of men of different
persuasions and degrees of understanding. For, his
torical and some other passages are liable to the
doubts and disputes of free-thinkers and antichris-

.XXviii .INTaODUOTION.
tians, especially miraculous rdala@ns, vv^hich arepiueh
less wonderful thanitheifabrieated/tiiJesTbantJed dowji
to . the nativesi of (Asia, * and< consequently swoujd.be
apbat -best to. carry! litdeiweightjvvithtthem. ' On- the
contrary, -moral doctruaes, tending evidently- to rthe
maintenance of the peace and-hacmony of mankind
at:large,-are beyjond: the breach of HasetaphysicaL per
version, and intelli^ble alike to the learned -and' to
the^unleanmed. :This .simple code -jef Eeligicaiand
.morality) is jso , admirably calculated ito elevatCi men's
ideas to high and liberal inotionsjof one Ggdj who
:has> equally itsuibjficted J all living. -creatures, without
distinction ;of cast, rank, or^ wealth, to change, dis-
-appointment, pain, jaodrldeath, ;;and ihas equally- ad
mitted: all totbeipaptakers d)f:4heijbountiful mercies
- which ohe jhas lavished^ over; nature, land ; is also . so
-well' fitted to regulatelfehe conduct of the buman race
-in Jkhe ^discharge.iof their- various* duties - to- God, i to
themselves, and to .society, r that ; I pannot but hope
the Jbest effects from its promtilgation in the present
ibrrn.^ *-,UgistJ4S^Ai»ed.fpr having -^WHllaw.ed.fhec^o.Qeap, when,it had
^ given hjm (ftffence, and having r^store4.it by urigiaiy evacuation : -at
his command, also, the Vindhyu .range, of mountains prostrated
itsdf, and so remains. 'ffVtlsOn's^Didtionary.J

THE
PRECEPTS OF JESUS,
THE
GUIDE TO PEACE AND HAPPINESS.

* And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a
mountain : and when he was set, his disciples came
unto him : and he opened his mouth, and taught
them, saying. Blessed are the poor in- spirit : for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they
that mourn : for they shall be comforted. Blessed
are the meek : for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after
righteousness : for they shall be filled. Blessed are
the merciful : for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed
are the pure in heart : for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers : for they shall be called
the children of God. Blessed are they which are
persecuted for righteousness' sake : for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall
revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all man
ner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice,
and be exceeding glad : for great is your reward in
* Matthew, Chap. v.
B

heaven : for so persecuted they the prophets which
were before you.
Ye are the salt of the earth : but if the salt have
lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted ? It is.
thenceforth good fbr nothing, but to be cast out, and
to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of
the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be
hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it
under a bushel, but on a candlestick ; and it giveth
light unto all that are in the house. Let your light
so shine before men, that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or
the Prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittie shall in no vnse pass
from the law, till all be flilfilled. Whosoever there
fore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men soj he shall be called the least
in the kingdom of heaven *. but whosoever shall do
tmd teach them, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom bf heaven. For I say unto you, That ex
cept your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness
of the Scribes and Pharisees^ ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old
time. Thou shalt not kill ; and whosoever shall kill
shall be in danger of the judgrhent : but I say unto
you. That whosoever is angry with his brother with
out a oaiiBP shall !»(» in irlnna-pi- nf tlip iiirlnpmp>nf . anfl

whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in
danger of the council : but whosoever shall say. Thou
fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if
thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remem
berest that thy brother hath aught against thee ;
leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way;
first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and
offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly,
whilst thou art in the way with him ; lest at any
time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the
judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into
prison. Verily I say unto thee. Thou shalt by no
means come out thence, till thou hast paid the utter
most farthing.
Ye have heard that it was said by thena of old
time. Thou shalt not conm^it adultery : but I say
unto you. That whosoever looketh on a woman to
lust after her hath committed adultery with her al
ready in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee,
pluck it out, and cast it from thee : for it is profit
able for thee that one of thy mepahers should perish,
and not that thy: whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast
it from thee : for it is profitable for thee that one of
thy members shpuld perish, and not that thy whole
body shpuld be cast into hell. It hath been said.
Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her
a writing of divorcement : but I say unto you. That
whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the
cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery :
b2

4
and whosoevex shall marry her that is divorced com
mitteth adultery.
Ye have heard that it hath been said. Thou shalt
love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I
say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray
for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you ; that ye may be the children of your Father
which is in heaven : for he maketh his sun to rise on
the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love
you, what reward have ye ? do not even the Publi
cans the same ? And if ye salute your brethren only,
what do ye more than others ? do not even the Pub
licans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
Father which is in heaven is perfect.
* Take heed that ye do not your alms before men,
to be seen of them : otherwise ye have no reward of
your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when
thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before
thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in
the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily
I say unto you. They have their reward. But when
thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy
right hand doeth : that thine alms may be in secret :
and thy Father which seeth in secret, himself shall
reward thee openly.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the

hypocrites are : for they love to pray standing in
the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that
they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you.
They have their reward. But thou, when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret;
and thy Father which seeth in secret, shall reward
thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repe
titions, as the heathen do : for they think that they
shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye
therefore like unto them : for your Father knoweth
what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
After this manner therefore pray ye : Our Father
which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy
kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is
in heayen. Give us this day our daily bread. And
forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. -And
lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil :
for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, for ever. Amen. For if ye forgive men their
trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you : but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, nei
ther will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites,
of a sad countenance : for they disfigure their faces,
that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say
unto you. They have their reward. But thou, when
thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face ;
that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy

Father who is in secret : and thy Father, who seeth
in secret, shall rewafd'thee bpenly.
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,
where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves
break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves
treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust
doth corrapt, and where thieves do not break through •
nor steal : for where your treasure is, there will your
heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if
therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall
be full of light. But If thine eye be evil, thy vyhole
body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light
that is in thee be darkness, how great is that dark
ness !
No man can serve two masters : for either he will
hate thel one, and love the other ; or else he will hold
to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve •
God and mammon. Therefore I say uritoyou. Take
no thought for ybur life, what ye shall eat, or what
ye shall drink ; nor yet for your bbdy^ what ye shall
put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the
body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air:
for they sow hot, heifher do they reap, nor gather
into bams ; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.
Are ye not much better than they ? Which of ybu
by taking tholight can add one cubit unto his sta
ture ? And why take ye thought fbr raiment?
Consider the lilies of the field, how thiey grow; they
toil not, neither do they spin : and yet I say unto

you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so
clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to
morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more
clothe you, O ye of little faith ? Therefore take no
thought, saying, What shall we eat? or. What shall
we . drink ? or. Wherewithal shall we be clothed ?
(for a^er all these things, do, the ^G^ntiles ,seek :) for
your heavenly Father knovpeth that ye have need of
all theae things. But seek ye first the kingdom of
God, and , his rightepus,ri§ss ; and all these things
shajl be added unto.ypu. Take therefore no thought
for the.morrpw: .for the, morrow shall take thought
for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is
the evil thereof.
* Judge not, that ye be not j^ydged. Fot with
what jvwigment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and
with what measure ye mete, it shall ,be measured to
ypu again. And why, behpldest thpu, the mote that
is in thy brpther's eye, ,but considerest not the beam
that is in thine oym eye ? Or hpw^ wilt thou say to
thy brother,. Let me pull out the mote put of thine
eye; and, behold, a beam ?"« in thine pwn eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out , the beaui out pf thine
pw^n eye ; and then shalt thpu see clearly to cast put
the mote out pf thy brpther's eye. , Give not that
which is holy unto j the dpgs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swjne, Iqstthey trample them under
* .Maj;thevr, Chap. yii.

their feet, and turn again and rend you. Ask, and it
shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock,
and it shall be opened unto you : for every one that
asketh receiveth ; and he that seeketh findeth ; and
to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what*
man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will
he give him a stone ? Or if he ask a fish, will he
give him a serpent ? If ye then, being evil, know
how to give good gifts unto your children, how much
more shall your Father which is in heaven give good
things to them that ask him? Therefore all things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the
Prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate : for wide is the gate,
and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and
many there be which go in thereat : because strait is
the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto
life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false
prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know
them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles ? Even so every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good
fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit,
is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by
their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king-

dom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is iii heaven. Many will say to me in
that day. Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy
name ? and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in
thy name done many wonderful works ? And then
will I profess unto them, I never knew you : depart
from xne, ye that work iniquity.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,
and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man,
which built his house upon a rock : and the rain
descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew,
and beat upon that house ; and it fell npt : for it was
founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth
these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be
likened unto a foolish man, which built his house
upon the sand : and the rain descended, and the
floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that
house ; and it fell : and great was the fall of it. And
it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings,
the people were astonished at his doctrine : for he
taught them as one having authority, and not as the
Scribes. * And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the
house, behold, many Publicans and sinners came and
sat down with him and his disciples. And when the
Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples. Why
eateth your Master with Publicans and sinners ? But
when Jesus heard that, he said unto them. They
* Matthew, Chap, ix, 10.

10
that be whole need not a physician, but they that are
sick. :But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will
have mercy, and not sacrifice : I am not come to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Then came
to him the disciples of John, saying. Why do we and
the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? And
Jesus said unto them. Can the children of the bride
chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with
them ? iBut the days, will come, when the; bridegroom
shall be taken: from them, and then shall <hey fast.
No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old
garment, for that. which is put in to fill it up taketh
from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Nei
ther do men put new wine into old bottles : else the
bottles: ibreak,. and the wine runneth out, and the bot
tles perish ; .but they, .put new wine into new bottles,
arid both are preserved.
* Behold,. L send you forth, as : eheep in the midst
of wolves: > be ye therefore wise as serpents, and
harmless as 'doves. But beware of men : for they
wiU ^deliver you up to the councils,, and they will
scourge you in their synagogues : and ye shall he
brought before governors, ^nd, kings, for my sake, for
a testimony against them and the jGentdes. But
when they deliver you up, take no thpught how or
whatye shall speak: for itshall.be given you in that
same hour what ye shall speak. For it issnot ye that
speak, but the Spirit, of your, Father whi$jh speaketh
*. Matthew, Chap. X, 16.

11
in you. And the brother shall deliver up the bro
ther to death, and the father the child : and the chil
dren shall rise up against their parents, and cause
them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of
all men for my name's sake : but he that endureth to
the end shall be saved. But when they persecute
jda. in this city, flee ye into another : for verily I say
tmto ybu. Ye shall not have gone over the cities of
Israel, till the Son of man be come. The disciple is
not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master,
and the servant as his lord. If they have called the
master ofthe house Beelzebub, how much more shall
M^ Ca?^ them of his household? Fear them not
therefore ; for there is nothing covered, that shall
not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
What I tell you in darkness, #Aa# speak ye in light:
arid what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the
housetops. And fear not them "which kill the bbdy,
but are not able tb kill the soul : but rather feais him
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of
them shall not fall on the ground without your
' Father. But the very hairs of your head are all
numbered. -Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more
value than many sparrows. Whosoever therefore
shall confess me before men, him will I confess also
befbre my Father which is in heaven. But whoso
ever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny
before my Father which is in heaven . Think not that

12
1 come to send peace on earth : I came not to send
peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at
variance against his father, and the daughter against
her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mo
ther-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his
own household. He that loveth father or mother
more than me, is not worthy of me : and he that
loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of
me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth
after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his
life shall lose it : and he that loseth his life for my
sake shall find it. He that receiveth you receiveth
me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent
me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a"
prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he
that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righ
teous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these
little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a
disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise
lose his reward.
* At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank
thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, be
cause thou hast hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even
so. Father : for so it seemed good in thy sight. All
things are delivered unto me of my Father : and no
man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither
* Matthew, Chap. xi. 25.

13
knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto
me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and
learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart : and
ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is
easy, and my burden is light.
* At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day
through the corn ; and his disciples were an hungered,
and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But
when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Be
hold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do
upon the Sabbath-day. But he said unto them, Have
ye not read what David did, when he was an hunger
ed, and they that were with him ; how he entered into
the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which
was not lawfiil for him to eat, neither for them which
were with him, but only for the priests ? Or have ye
not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath-days
the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and
are blameless ? But I say unto you. That in this
place is one greater than the temple. But if ye
had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy,
and not sacrifice^ ye would not have condemned the
guiltless^ For the Son of man is Lord even ofthe
Sabbath-day. And when he was departed thence, he went into
their synagogue : And, behold, there was a man
* Matthew, Chap. xii.

14
which had his hand withered. And they asked him,
saying. Is it lawfiil tp heal on the Sabbath-days ?
that they might accuse him. And he said unto them,
What man shall there be ampng ypu, that shall hiave
one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-
day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out ? How
much then is a man better than a sheep ! Where
fore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbjath-days.
Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand.
And he stretched it forth ; and it was restored whole,
like as the other.
* He that is not with me is against me ; and he
that gathered! not with me scattereth abroad.
Wherefore I say unto you. All manner of siii and
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blas
phemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven
unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but who
soever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
world tb come. Either make the tree good, and hi?
fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his
finiit corrupt : for the tree is known by his fruit. O
generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak
good things ? for out of the abundance of the heart
the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good
treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things : and
an evil man put of the evil treasure bringeth forth
* Matthew, Chap. xii. 30.

15
evil things. But I say unto you. That every idle
word that men shall speak, they shall give account
thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words
thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned.
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his
mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to
speak with him. Then one said unto him. Behold,
thy mother and brethren stand without, desiring to
speak with thee. But he answered and said unto
him that told him. Who is my mother ? and who
are nay brethren ? And he stretched forth his hand
toward his disciples, and said. Behold my mother
and my brethren ! For whosoever shall do the vnll
of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my
brother, and sister, and mother.
* The same day went Jesus out of the house, and
sat by the sea-side. And great multitudes were ga
thered together unto him, so that he went into a ship,
and sat ; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
And he spake many things unto them in parables,
saying. Behold^ a sower went forth to sow ; and
when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and
the fowls came and devoured them up : some fell
upon stony jplabes, where they had not much earth :
and forthvpith they sprung up, because they had no
deepness of earth: and when the sun was up, they
were scorched ; and because they had no root, they
* Matthew, Chap. xiii.

16
withered away. And some fell among thorns ; and
the thorns sprung up, and choked them : but other
fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an
hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who
hath ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples
came, and said unto him. Why Jspeakest , thou unto
them in parables ? He answered and said, unto them.
Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven, but.tb them it is not given.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he
shall have m^ore abundance : but whosoever hath
not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Therefore speak I to them in parables : because they
seeing, see not ; and hearing they hear not, neither
do they understand. And in them is folfiUed the
prophecy of Esaias, . which saith. By hearing ye
shall hear, and shall not understand ; and seeing ye
shall see, and shall not perceive: for this people's
heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hear
ing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any
time they should see with their eyes, and hear with
thdr ears, and should understand with their htdxt,
and should be converted, and I should heal them.
But blessed are your eyes, [for they see : and your
ears,] for they hear. For verily I say unto you.
That many prophets and righteous men have desired
to see those things which ye see, and have not seen
them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and
have not heard them. Hear ye therefore the parable
ofthe sower. When any pne heareth the wprd of

17
the kingdom, and understandeth if not, then cometh
the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was
sown in his heart. This is he which received seed
by the way side. But he that received the seed into
stony places, the same is he that heareth the word,
and anon with joy receiveth it : yet hath he not root
in himself, but dureth for a while ; for when tribula
tion or persecution ariseth because of the word, by
and by he is offended. He also that received seed
among the thorns is he that heareth the word ; and
the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches,
choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But
he that received seed into the good ground, is he that
heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also
beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundred
fold, some sixty, some thirty. Another parable put
he forth unto them, saying. The kingdom of heaven
is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his
field : but while men slept, his enemy came and
sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought
forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the ser
vants of the householder came and said unto him. Sir,
didst not thou sow good seed in thy field ? From
whence then hath it tares ? He said unto them. An
enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him.
Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up ?
But he said. Nay ; lest while ye gather up the tares,
ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both
grow together until the harvest : and in the time of

harvest I will say to the reapers. Gather ye together
first the tares, and bind them in bundles to bura
them : but gather the wheat into my barn. Ano-.
ther parable put he forth unto them, saying. The
kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed,
which a man took, and sowed in his field: which
indeed is the least of all seeds ; but when it is grown,
it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree,
so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the
branches thereof Another parable spake he unto
them ; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven,
which a woman took, and hid in three measures of
meal, till the whole was leavened. All these things
spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables ; and
without a parable spake he not unto them : that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,
saying, I will open my mouth in parables ; I will
utter things which have been kept secret from the
foundation of the world. Then Jesus sent the mul
titude away, and went into the house : and his dis
ciples came unto him, saying. Declare unto us the
parable of the tares of the field. He answered and
said imtp them. He that soweth the good seed is the
Son of man : the field is the world ; the good see?}
are the children of the kingdom ; but the tares are
the children of the wicked one: the enemy that
?owed them is the devil ; the harvest is the end of
the world; and the reapers are the angels. As
therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the
fire ; so shall it be in the end of this worldi The

19
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 : there shall be wailing and gnashing
of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the
sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears
to hear, let him hear.
* Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees, which
were of Jerusalem, saying. Why do thy disciples
transgress the tradition of the elders ? for they wash
not their hands when they eat bread. But he an
swered ,and said unto them. Why do you also trans
gress the commandment of God by your tradition ?
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and
mother : and. He that curseth father or mother, let
him die the death. But ye say. Whosoever shall say
to his father or his mother. It is a gift, by whatsoever
thou mightest be profited by me ; and honour not
his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus
have ye made the commandment of God of none
effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did
Esaias prophesy of you,, saying. This people draweth
nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me
with their lips ; but their heart is far from me. But
in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines
the commandments of men. And he called the
multitude, and saiduntothem. Hear and understand:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man ;
* Matthew, Chap. xv.
c 2

20
but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth
a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him',
Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after
they heard this saying ? But he answered and said.
Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not
planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone : they
be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead
the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Then an
swered Peter and said unto him. Declare unto us this
parable. And Jesus said. Are ye also yet without
understanding ? Do not ye yet understand, that what
soever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly,
and is cast out into the draught ? But those things
which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the
heart; and they defile the man. For out of the
heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, for
nications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies : these
are the things which defile a man : but to eat with
unwashen hands defileth not a man.
* And when his disciples were come to the other
side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus
said unto them. Take heed and beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they
reasoned among themselves, saying. It is because we
have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived,
he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye
among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread ?
How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it
* Matthew, Chap. xvi. 5.

21
not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware
of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees ?
Then understood they how that he bade them not
beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of
the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
When Jesus came into the coasts of Ceesarea Phi
lippi, he asked his disciples, saying. Whom do men
say that I the Son of man am ? And they said.
Some say that thou art John the Baptist : some,
Elias ; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them. But whom say ye that I am ?
And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art Christ,
the Son ofthe living God. And Jesus answered and
said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also
unto thee. That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they
should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and
suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and
Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third
day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke
him, saying, Be it far from thee. Lord : this shall

22'
not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto
Peter, Gel thee behind me, Satan: thou art an
offence unto me : for thou savourest not the things
that be of God, but those that be of men. Then
said Jesus unto his disciples. If any man will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross,
and follow me. For whosoever wall save his life shall
lose it : and whosoever will lose his life for my sake
shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall
gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or
what shall a man give in exchange for his sotil ? For
the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father
with his angels ; and then he shall reward every man
according to his works. Verily I say unto you.
There be some standing here, which shall not taste
of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom. * At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus,
saying. Who is the greatest in the kingdom of hea
ven ? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and
set him in the midst of them, and said. Verily I say
unto you. Except ye be converted, and become as
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself
as this little child, the same is greatest in the king
dom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such
little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso
shall offend one of these little ones which believe in
Matthew, Cliap. xviii.

23
me, it were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in
the depth of the sea.
Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must
needs be that offences come ; but woe to that man
by whom the offence cometh ! Wherefore if thy hand
or thy foot offend thee. Cut them off, and cast them
from thee : it is better for thee to enter into life halt
or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet
to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye
offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee : it is
better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather
than having two eyes to be cast into hell-fire. Take
heed that ye despise not one ofthese little ones ; for
I say unto you. That in heaven their angels do always
behold the face of my Father, which is in heaven.
For the Son of man is come to save that which was
lost. How think ye ? If a man have an hundred
sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not
leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the moun
tains, and seeketh that which is gone astray ? And if
so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoic
eth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine
w;hich went not astray. Even so it is not the will of
your Father which is iri heaven, that one of these
little ones should perish. Moreover, if thy broths
shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault
between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee,
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not
hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that

24
in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear
them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to
hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen
man and a publican. Verily I say unto you. What
soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you. That
if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any
thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of
my Father which is in heaven. For where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I
in the midst of them.
Then came Peter to him, and said. Lord, how oft
shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him ?
Till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not
unto thee, Until seven times : but. Until seventy
times seven. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven
likened unto a certain king, which would take ac
count of his servants. And when he had begun to
reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him
ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not
to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his
wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment
to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and
worshipped him, saying. Lord, have patience with
me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that
servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him,
and forgave him the debt. But the same servant
went out, and found one of his fellow-servants, which

25
owed him an hundred pence : and he laid hands on
him, and took kim by the throat, saying, Pay me
that thou owest. And his fellow-servant fell down
at his feet, and besought him, saying. Have patience
with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would
not: but went and cast him into prison, till he
should pay the debt. So when his fellow-servants
saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came
and told unto their lord all that was done. Then
his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him,
O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt,
because thou desiredst me : shouldest not thou also
have had compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as
I had pity on thee ? And his lord was wroth, and
delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay
all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my
heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your
hearts forgive not every one his brother their tres
passes. * The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting
him, and saying unto him. Is it lawfiil for a man to
put away his wife for every cause ? And he answered
and said unto them. Have ye not read, that he which
made them at the beginning made them male and
female, and said. For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and
they twain shall be one flesh ? Wherefore they are
no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
* Matthew, Chap, xix, 3.

26
hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They
say unto him. Why did Moses then command to
give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away ?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness
of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives :
but from the beginning it was not so. And I say
unto you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, com
mitteth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is
put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say
unto him. If the case of the man be so with his wife,
it is not good to marry. But he said unto them. All
men cannot receive this sajang, save they to whom it
is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were
so born from their mother's womb : and there are
some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men :
and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that
is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Then were there brought unto him littie children,
that he should put his hands on them, and pray : and
the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said. Suffer
little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
me : for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he
laid his hands on them, and departed thence. And,
behold, one came and said unto him. Good Master,
what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal
life ? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me
good ? there is none good but one, that is, God : but
if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

27
He saith unto him. Which ? Jesus said, Thou shalt
do no murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou
shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Honour thy father and thy mother : and. Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man
saith unto him, All these things have I kept from
my youth up : what lack I yet ? Jesus said unto
him. If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou
hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have trea
sure in heaven : and come and follow me. But
when the young man heard that saying, he went
away sorrowftil : for he had great possessions. Then
said Jesus unto his disciples. Verily I say unto you.
That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom
of heaven. And again I say unto you. It is easier for
a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When
his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed,
saying, Who then can be Kived ? But Jesus beheld
them, and said unto them. With men this is impos
sible ; but with God all things are possible. Then
answered Peter and said unto him. Behold, we have
forsaken all, and followed thee ; what shall we have
therefore ? And Jesus said unto them. Verily I say
unto you. That ye which have followed me, in the
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the
throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of IsraeL And
every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or

28
lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred
fold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many
that are first shall be last ; and the last shall be
first. * For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man
that is an householder, which went out early in the
morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And
when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny
a-day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went
out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle
in the market-place, and said unto them ; Go ye also
into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give
you. And they went their way. Again he went
out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.
And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found
others standing idle, and saith unto them. Why
stand ye here all the day idle ? They say unto him.
Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them.
Go ye also into the vineyard ; and whatsoever is
right, that shall ye receive. So when even was
come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward.
Call the labourers, and give them their hire, begin
ning from the last unto the first. And when they
came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they
received every man a penny. But when the first
came, they supposed that they should have received
more ; and they likewise received every man a penny.
And when they had received it, they murmured
* Matthew, Chap. xx.

29
against the goodman of the house, saying, These last
have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made
them equal unto us, which have borne the burden
and heat of the day. But he answered one of them,
and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not
thou agree with me for a penny ? Take that thine
is, and go thy way : I will give unto this last, even
as unto thee. Is it not lawfol for me to do what I
will with mine own ? Is thine eye evil, because I
am good ? So the last shall be first, and the first
last : for many be called, but few chosen.
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's chil
dren with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a
certain thing of him. And he said unto her. What
wilt thou? She saith unto him. Grant that these
my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and
the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus
answered and said. Ye know not what ye ask. Are
ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and
to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with ? They say unto him. We are able. And he
saith unto them. Ye shall drink indeed of my cup,
and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with : but to sit on my right hand, and on my left,
is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for
whom it is prepared of my Father, And when the
ten heard it, they were moved with indignation
against the two brethren. But Jesus called them
unto him, and said. Ye know that the princes of the
Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that

30
are great exercise tiuthority upon them. But it shalt
not be so among you : but whosoever will be great
among you, let him be your minister ; and whoso
ever will be chief among you, let him be your
servant: even as the Son of man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life
a ransom for many.
* And when he was come into the temple, the
chief priests and the elders of the people came unto
him as he was teaching, and said. By what authority
doest thou these things ? and who gave thee this au
thority } And Jesus answered and said unto them,
I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I
in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these
things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from
heaven, or of men ? And they reasoned with them
selves, sa)nng. If we shall say. From heaven ; he will
say unto us. Why did ye not then believe him ? But
if we shall say. Of men ; we fear the people ; for all
hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus,
and said. We cannot tell. And he said unto them.
Neither tell I you by what authority I dp them
things. But what think ye ? A certain man had
two sons; and he came to the first, and said. Son,
go work to-day in my vineyard. He answered and
said, I will not : but afterward he repented, and went.
And he came to the second, and said likewise. And
he answered and said, I gp, sir ; and went not.
* Matthew, Chap. xxi. 23.

31
Whether of them twain did the will of his father ?
They say unto him. The first. Jesus saith unto
them. Verily I say unto you. That the publicans and
the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness,
and ye beUeved him not : but the pubUcans and the
harlots believed him : and ye, when ye had seen it,
repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
Hear another parable : There was a certain house
holder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it
round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built
a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into
a tar country : and when the time of the fruit drew
near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that
they might receive the fruits of it. And the husband
men took his servants, and beat pne, and killed
anpther, and stoned another. Again, he sent other
servants more than the first : and they did unto them
likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son,
saying. They will reverence my son. But when the
husbandmen saw the son, they said among therh-
selves. This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and
let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught
him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh,
what will he do unto those husbandmen ? They say
unto him. He will miserably destroy those wicked
men, and will let out his vineyard unto other hus
bandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their
seasons, Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read

32
in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders re
jected, the same is become the head of the corner :
this is the Lord's doing, and it is mai-vellous in our
eyes ? Therefore say I unto you. The kingdom of
Gt)d shall be taken from you, and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever
shall fall on this stone «hall be broken : but on
whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to
powder. * The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain ''
king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent
forth his servants to call them that were bidden to
the wedding : and they would not come. Again, he
sent forth other servants, saying. Tell them which
are bidden. Behold, I have prepared my dinner : my
oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are
ready: come unto the marriage. But they made
light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, and
another to his merchandise : and the remnant took
his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew
them. But when the king heard thereof, he was
wroth : and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed
those murderers, and burned up their city. Then
saith he to his sei"vants. The wedding is ready, but
they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye
therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall
find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went
out into the highways, and gathered together all as
* Matthew, Chap, xxii, 2.

33
many as they found, both bad and good: andthe
wedding was furnished with guests. And when the
king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man
which had not on a wedding garment : and he saith'
unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not
having a wedding garment ? And he was speechless.
Then said the king to the servants. Bind him hand
and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer
darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of
leeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.
Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how
they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent
out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,
saying. Master, we know that thou art true, and
teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou
for any man : for thou regardest not the person of
men. Tell us therefore, what thinkest thou ; Is it
lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not ? But Jesus
perceived their wickedness, and said. Why tempt ye
me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money.
And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith
unto them. Whose is this image and superscription ?
They say unto him, Csesar's. Then saith he unto
them. Render therefore unto Csesar the things which
are Caesar's ; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard these words, they marvelled,
and left him, and went their way.
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which
say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
D

34
saying, Master, Moses said. If a man die, having no
children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise
up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us
seven brethren : and the first, when he had married
a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife
unto his brother : likewise the second also, and the
third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman
died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife
shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Jesus answered and said unto them. Ye do err, not
knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For
in the resuiTectipu they neither marry, nor are given
in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
©ut as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye
npt read that which was sppken 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. And when the
multitude heard this, they were astonished at his
dpctrine. But when the Pharisees had heard that he had
put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered to
gether. Then one of them, who was a Lawyer,
asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the
law? Jesus said unto him. Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and
great commandment. And the second is like unto

35
it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On
these two commandments hang all the Law and the
Prophets. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus
asked them, saying. What think ye of Christ ? whose
son is he ? They say unto him. The Son of David.
He saith unto them. How then doth David in spirit
call him Lord? saying. The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
enemies thy footstool. If David then call him Lord,
how is he his son ? And no man was able to answer
him a word, neither durst any man from that day
forth ask him any more questions.
* Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his
disciples, saying. The Scribes and the Pharisees sit
in Moses' seat : all therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do ; but do not ye after
their works : for they say, and do not. For they
bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and
lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves
will not move them with one of their fingers. But
all their works they do for to be seen of men : they
make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the bor
ders of their garments, and love the uppermost
rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
and greetings in the markets, and to be called of
men. Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi :
for one is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are
* Matthew, Chap, xxiii.
d2

36
brethren. And call no man your father upon the
earth : for one is your Father, who is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters : for one is your Master,
even Christ. But he that is greatest among you
shall be ybur servant. And whosoever shall exalt
himself shall be abased ; and he that shall humble
himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you. Scribes
and Pharisees, hjrpocrites ! for ye shut up the king
dom of heaven against men : for ye neither go in
yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering
to go in. Woe unto you. Scribes and Pharisees,
h3^crites ! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a
pretence make long prayer : therefore ye shall receive
the greater damnation. Woe unto you. Scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and land
to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye
make him twofold more the child of hell than your
selves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say.
Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing ;
but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple,
he is a debtor. Ye fools and blind : for whether is
greater, the goldy or the temple that sanctifieth the
gold ? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it
is nothing ; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that
is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind : for
whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sancti
fieth the gift ? Whoso therefore shall swear by the
altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And
whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and
by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall

37
swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God,
and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe unto you.
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye pay tithe
of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the
weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and
faith : these ought ye to have done, and not to leave
the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at
a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you. Scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye make clean the
outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they
are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pha
risee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and
platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Woe unto you. Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed
appear beautifiil outward, but are within full of dead
meds bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also
outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye
are full of h3rpocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you.
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! because ye build
the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepul
chres of the righteous, and say. If we had been in
the days of our fathers, we would not have been
partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye
are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape
the damnation of hell ? Wherefore, behold, I send
unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes : and

38
some of them ye shall kill and crucify ; and some of
them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and per
secute ^Aem from city to city: that upon you may
come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between
the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you.
All these things shall come upon this generation. O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets,
and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how
often would I have gathered thy children together,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings, and ye would not ! Behold, your house is
left unto you desolate. For I say unto you. Ye shall
not see me henceforth, till ye shall say. Blessed is
he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
* Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour
your Lord doth come. But knowJ;his, that if the
- good man of the house had knovra in what watch the
thief would come, he would have watched, and would
not have suffered his house to be broken up. There
fore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye
think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a
faithfol and wise servant, whom his lord hath made
ruler over his household, to give them meat in due
season ? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord
when he cometh shall find sp doing, i ¦ Verily I say
unto you. That he shall make him ruler over all his
* Matthew, Chap. xxiv. 42.

39
goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his
heart. My lord delayeth his coming ; and shall begin
to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with
the drunken ; the lord of that servant shall come in
a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour
that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder,
and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites :
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
* Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened
unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went
forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them
were wise, and five were foolish. They that were
foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them :
but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered
and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made.
Behold, the bridegroom cometh ; go ye out to meet
him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed
their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise.
Give us of your oil ; for our lamps are gone out.
But the wise answered, saying. Not so ; lest there
be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to
them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 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 virgins, saying. Lord, Lord, open to us. But
he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know
* Matthew, Chap, xxv.

40
you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the
day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into
a far country, who called his own servants, and deli
vered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave
five talents, to another two, and to another one ; to
every man according to his several ability ; and
straightway took his journey. Then he that had re
ceived the five talents went and traded with the same,
and made them other five talents. And likewise he
that had received two, he also gained other two. But
he ^ that had received one went and digged in the
earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time
the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth
with them. And so he that had received five talents
came and brought other five talents, saying. Lord,
thou deliveredst unto me five talents : behold, I have
gained besides them five talents more. His Ibrd said
unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant:
thou hast been faithfiil over a few things, I will make
thee ruler over many things : enter thou into the joy
of thy lord. He also that had received two talents
came and said. Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two
talents : behold, I have gained two other talents be
sides them. His Ibrd said unto him. Well done,
good and faithfol servant ; thou hast been faithful
over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many
things : enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then
he which had received the one talent came and said.
Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping

41
where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou
hast not strawed : and I was afraid, and went and
hid thy talent in the earth : lo, there thou hast that
is thine. His lord answered and said unto him,'
Thou wicked and slothfol servant, thou knewest that
I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have
not strawed : thou oughtest therefore to have put my
money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I
should have received mine own with usury. Take
therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him
which hath ten talents. For unto eveiy one that
hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance :
but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even
that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable
servant into outer darkness : there shall be weeping
and gnashing of teeth. When the Son of man shall
come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him,
then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : and
before him shall be gathered all nations : and he
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd
divideth Ms sheep from the goats : and he shall set
the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the
left. Then shall the King say unto them on his
right hand. Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of
the world : for I was an hungered, and ye gave me
meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink : I was
a stranger, and ye took me in : naked, and ye
clothed me : I vras sick, and ye visited me : I was
in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the

42
righteous answer him, saying. Lord, when saw we
thee an hungered, and fed thee P or thirsty, and gave
thee drink ? When saw we thee a stranger, and took
thee in ? or naked, and clothed thee P Or when saw
we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee ? And
the King shall answer and say unto them. Verily I
say unto you. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one
of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it
unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the
left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlast
ing fire, prepared for the devil and his angels : for I
was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat : I was
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink : I was a stranger,
and ye took me not in : naked, and ye clothed me
not : sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying. Lord, when
saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or
naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister
unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying.
Verily I say unto you. Inasmuch as ye did it not to
one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And
these shall go away into everlasting punishment : but
the righteous into life eternal.
* And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat
in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also
together with Jesus and his disciples : for there were
many, and they followed him. And when the
Scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans
* Mark, Chap. ii. 15.

43
and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it
that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sin
ners ? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them.
They that are whole have no need of the physician,
but they that are sick : I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners to repentance. And the disciples of John
and of the Pharisees used to fast : and they come and
say unto him. Why do the disciples of John and ofthe
Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not ? And Jesus
said unto them. Can the children of the bride-cham
ber fast, while the bridegroom is with them ? As long
as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot
fast. But the days will come, when the bridegroom
shall be taken away from them, and then shall they
fast in those days. No man also seweth a piece of
new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece
that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the
rent is made worse. And no man putteth new wine
into old bottles : else the new wine doth burst the
bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will
be marred : but new wine must be put into new bot
tles. And it came to pass, that he went through the
corn-fields on the Sabbath-day ; and his disciples
began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And
the Pharisees said unto him. Behold, why do they on
the Sabbath-day that which is not lawfol ? And he
said unto them, Have ye never read what David did,
when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they
that were with him ? How he went into the house of

44
God in the days of Abiathar the High Priest, and did
eat the shew-bread, which is not lawfol to eat but for
the Priests, and gave also to them which were with
him? And he said unto them. The Sabbath was
made for man, and not man for the Sabbath : there
fore the Son of man is Lord also ofthe Sabbath.
* There came then his brethren and his mother,
and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto
him. Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without
seek for thee. And he answered them, saying. Who
is my mother, or my brethren ? And he looked round
about on them, and said. Behold my mother and my
brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God,
the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
-^ And he taught them many things by parables,
and said unto them in his doctrine. Hearken ; Behold,
there went out a sower to sow : and it came to pass,
as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls
of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell
on stony ground, where it had not much earth : and
immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of
earth : but when the sun was up, it was scorched ;
and because it had no root, it withered away. And
some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and
choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell
on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up
and increased : and brought forth, some thirty, and
* Mark, Chap, iii. 31. t Mark, Chap. iv. 2.

45
some sixty, and some an hundred. And he said
unto them. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
And when he was alone, they that were about him
with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he
said unto them. Unto you it is given to know the
mystery of the kingdom of God : but unto them that
are without, all these things are done in parables :
That seeing they may see, and not perceive ; and
hearing they may hear, and not understand ; lest at
any time they should be converted, and their sins
should be forgiven them. And he said unto them.
Know ye not this parable ? and how then will ye
know all parables ? The sower soweth the word.
And these are they by the way side, where the word
is sown ; but when they have heard, Satan coineth
immediately, and taketh away the word that was
sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise
which are sown on stony ground ; who, when they
have heard the word, immediately receive it with
gladness : and have no root in themselves, and so
endure but for a time : afterward, when affliction or
persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately
they are offended. And these are they which are
sown among thorns ; such as hear the word, and the
cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches,
and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the
word, and it becometh unfruitful. And these are
they which are sown in good ground ; such as hear
the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some
thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred. And

46
he said unto them. Is a candle brought to be put
under a bushel, or under a bed, and not to be set on
a candlestick ? For there is nothing hid, which shall
not be manifested ; neither was any thing kept secret,
but that it should come abroad. If any man have
ears to hear, let him hear. And he saith unto them,
Take heed what ye hear : with what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you : and unto you
that hear shall more be given. For he that hath, to
him shall be given : and he that hath not, from him
shall be taken even that which he hath. And he
said. So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should
cast seed into the ground ; and should sleep, and rise
night and day, and the seed should spring and grow
up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth
forth fruit of herself ; first the blade, then the ear,
after that the full corn in the ear. But when the
fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the
sickle, because the harvest is come. And he said,
Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God ? or
with what comparison shall we compare it ? It is
like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown
in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the
earth : but when it is sown, it groweth up, and be-i
cometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great
branches ; so that the fowls of the air may lodge
under the shadow of it.
* Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him,
* Mark, Chap. vii. [5.] 6.

47
Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradi
tion of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen
hands ? He answered and said unto them. Well hath
Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is writ
ten. This people honoureth me with their lips, but
their heart is far from me. Howbeit, in vain do they
worship me, teaching ybr doctrines the command
ments of men. For, laying aside the commandment
of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing
of pots and cups : and many other such like things
ye do. And he said unto them. Full well ye reject
the commandment of God, that ye may keep your
own tradition. For Moses said. Honour thy father
and thy mother ; and. Whoso curseth father or mo
ther, let him die the death : but ye say. If a man
shall say to his father or mother. It is Corban, that
is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be pro
fited by me ; he shall be free. And ye suffer him
no more to do aught for his father or his mother ;
making the word of God of none effect through your
tradition, which ye have delivered : and many such
like things do ye. And when he had called all the
people unto him, he said unto them. Hearken unto
me every one of you, and understand : there is
nothing from without a man, that entering into him
can defile him : but the things which come out of
him, those are they that defile the man. If any man
have ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was
entered into the house from the people, his disciples
asked him concerning the parable. And he saith

48
unto them, Are ye so without understanding also ?
Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from
without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him ;
because it entereth not into his heart, but into the
belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all
meats ! And he said. That which cometh out of the
man, that defileth the man. For from within, out
of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,
fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wicked
ness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy,
pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from
within, and defile the man,
* And when he had called the people unto him
with his disciples also, he said unto them. Whosoever
will come after me, let him deny himself, and take
up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will
save his life shall lose it ; but whosoever shall lose
his life for my sake and the Gospel's, the same shall
save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall
gain the whole world, and lose his own soul ? Or
what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of
my words in this adulterous and sinfol generation ;
of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when
he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy
angels. ¦jf And he came to Capernaum : and being in the
house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed
* Mark, Chap. viii. 34. t Mark, Chap. ix. 33.

49
among yourselves by the way ? But they held their
peace: for by the way they had disputed among
themselves, who should be the greatest. And he sat
down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them. If
any man desire to be first, ^Ae same shall be last of
all, and servant of all. -And he took a child, and set
him in the midst of them : and when he had taken
him into his arms, he said unto them. Whosoever
shall receive one of such children in my name, re
ceiveth me : and whosoever shall receive me, receiv
eth not me, but him that sent me.
And John answered him, saying. Master, we saw
one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth
not us : and we forbad him, because he followeth not
us. But Jesus said. Forbid him not : for there is no
man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can
lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against
us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a
cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong
to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his
reward. And whosoever shall offend one of these
httle ones that believe in me, it is better for him that
a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were
cast into the sea. And 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. And if thy
foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast

50
into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched :
where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it
out : it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of
God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast
into hell fire : where their worm dieth not, and the
fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted
with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
Salt is good: but if the salt have lost its saltness,
wherewith will ye season it ? Have salt in yourselves,
and have peace one with another.
* And they brought young children to him, that
he should touch them : and his disciples rebuked
those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it,
he was much displeased, and said unto them. Suffer
the little children to come vmto me, and forbid them
not ; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I
say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the king
dom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
And he took them up in his arms, put his hands
upon them, and blessed them.
And when he was gone forth into the way, there
came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked
him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inhe
rit eternal life ? And Jesus said unto him. Why call
est thou me good ? there is none good but one, that
is, God, Thou knowest the commandments. Do not
commit adultery. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not
* Mark, Chap. x. 13.

51
bear false witness. Defraud not. Honour thy father
and mother. And he answered and said unto him.
Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said
unto him. One thing thou lackest : go thy way,
sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and
come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he
was sad at that saying, and went away grieved : for
he had great possessions. And Jesus looked round
about, and saith unto his disciples. How hardly shall
they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God !
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But
Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them. Chil
dren, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to
enter into the kingdom of God ! It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And
they were astonished out of measure, saying among
themselves. Who then can be saved ? And Jesus
looking upon them saith. With men it is impossible,
but not with God : for with God all things are pos
sible. Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we
have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus
answered and said. Verily I say unto you. There is
no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters,
or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands,
for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive
an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and bre
thren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and
e2

52
lands, with persecutions ; and in the world to come
eternal life. But many that are first shall he last;
and the last first.
* And James and John, the sons of Zebedee,
come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou
shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And
he said unto them. What would ye that I should do
for you ? They said unto him. Grant unto us that we
may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy
left hand, in thy glory. But Jesus said unto them.
Ye know not what ye ask : can ye drink of the cup
that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism
that I am baptized with ? And they said unto him.
We can. And Jesus said unto them. Ye shall in
deed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the
baptism that I am baptized with shall ye be bap
tized : but to sit on my right hand and on my left
hand is not mine to give ; but it shall be given to
them for whom it is prepared. And when the ten
heard it, they began to be much displeased with
James and John. But Jesus called them to him,
and saith unto them. Ye know that they which are
accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship
over them ; and their great ones exercise authority
upon them. But so shall it not be among you : but
whosoever will be great among you, shall be your
minister : and whosoever of you will be the chiefest,
shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man
* Mark, Chap. x. 35.

53
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and
to give his life a ransom for many.
* Therefore I say unto you. What things soever
ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them,
and ye shall have them. And when ye stand pray
ing, forgive, if ye have aught against any : that your
Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your
trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will
your Father which is in heaven forgive your tres
passes. -f- Arid they send unto him certain of the Phari
sees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
And when they were come, they say unto him. Mas
ter, we know that thou art true, and carest for no
man : for thou regardest not the person of men, but
teachest the way of God in truth : Is it lawfol to
give tribute to Csesar, or not ? Shall we give, or shall
we not give ? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said
unto them. Why tempt ye me ? Bring me a penny,
that I may see it. And they brought it. And he
saith unto them. Whose is this image and super
scription ? And they said unto him, Caesar's. And
Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Csesar
the things that are Csesar's, and to God the things
that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Then
come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no
resurrection : and they asked him, saying. Master,
Moses wrote unto us. If a man's brother die, and
* Mark, Chfip, xi, 24. t Mark, Chap. xii. 13.

64
leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that
his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed
unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren :
and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
And the second took her, and died, neither left he
any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven
had her, and left no seed : last of all the woman died
also. In the resurrection, therefore, when they shall
rise, whose wife shall she be of them ? for the seven
had her to vrife. And Jesus answering said unto
them. Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not
the Scriptures, neither the power of God ? For when
they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor
are given in marriage ; but are as the angels which
are in heaven. And as totiching the dead, that they
rise : have ye nbt read in the book of Moses, how in
the bush God spake unto him. Saying, I am the God
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob ? He is not the God of the dead, but the God
of the living : ye therefore do greatly err. And one
of the Scribes came, and having heard them reason
ing together, and perceiving that he had answered
them well, asked him. Which is the first command
ment of all ? And Jesus answered him. The first of
all the commandments is. Hear, O Israel ; The Lord
our God is one Lord : and thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind, arid with all thy strength:
this is the first commandment. And the second is
like, namely this. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as

55
thyself. There is none other commandment greater
than these. And the Scribe said unto him. Well,
Master, thou hast said the truth : for there is one
God ; and there is none other but he : and to love
him with all the heart, and "with all the understand
ing, and with all the soul, and with all the strength,
and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all
whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices. And when
Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto
him. Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.
Arid no man after that durst ask him any questum.
* And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and
beheld how the people cast money into the treasury :
and many that were rich cast in much. And there
came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two
mites, which jnake a fantihing. And he called unto
him his disciples, and saith unto them. Verily I say
unto you. That this poor widow hath cast more in,
than all they which have cast into the treasury : for
all they did cast in of their abundance ; but she of
her want did cast in all that she had, even all her
living. •f- And he came to Nazareth, where he had been
brought up : and, as his custom was, he went into
the syiaagogue on the sahbath-day, and stood up for
to read. And there was delivered unto him the book
of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened
the book, he found the place where it was written,
* Mark, Chap. xi. [xii.] 41. t Luke, Chap. iv. 16.

56
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor ; he
hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he
closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister,
and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were
in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he
began to say unto them. This day is this scripture
fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and
wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out
of his mouth. And they said. Is not this Joseph's
son ? And he said unto them. Ye will surely say unto
me this proverb. Physician, heal thyself : whatsoever
we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in
thy country. And he said. Verily I say unto you.
No prophet is accepted in his own country. But I
tell you of a truth, many widbws were in Israel in
the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up
three years and six mbnths, when great famine was
throughout all the land : but unto none of them was
Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a
woman that was a widow. And many leapers were
in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet ; and
none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the
Syrian, * But their Scribes and Pharisees murmured
* Luke, Chap. vi. [v.] 30,

57
against his disciples, saying. Why do ye eat and
drink with publicans and sinners ? And Jesus an
swering said unto them. They that are whole need
not a physician ; but they that are sick. I came not
to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. And
he spake also a parable unto them ; No man putteth
a piece of a new garment upon an old ; if otherwise,
then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that
was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles ; else
the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled,
and the botties shall perish. But new wine must be
put into new bottles ; and both are presei-ved. No
man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth
new : for he saith. The old is better.
* And it came to pass on the second sabbath after
the first, that he went through the corn fields ; and
his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat,
rubbing them in their hands. And certain of the
Pharisees said unto them. Why do ye that which is
not lawfol to do on the sabbath-days ? And Jesus
answering them said. Have ye not read so much as
this, what David did, when himself was an hungered,
and they which were with him ; how he went into
the house of God, and did take and eat the shew
bread, and gave also to them that were with him;
which it is not lawfol to eat but for the Priests alone ?
* Luke, Chap. vi. 1.

58
And he said unto them. That the Son of man is
Lord also of the sabbath.
And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that
he entered into the synagogue and taught : and there
was a man whose right hand was withered. And
the Scribes and Pharisees watched him, whetJher he
would heal on the sabbath-day ; that they might
find an accusation against him. But he knew their
thoughts, and said to the man which had the wither
ed hand. Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And
he arose and stood forth. Then said Jesus unto
them, I will ask you one thing ; Is it lawfol on the
sabbath-day to do good, or to do evil ? to save life,
or to destroy it ?
* And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and
said. Blessed be ye poor^ for yours is the kingdom
of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now : for ye
shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now : for
ye i^hall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall
hate you, and when they shall separate you from
their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out
your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Re
joice ye in that day, and leap for joy : for, behold,
your reward is great in heaven : for in the Uke man
ner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe
unto you that are rich! for ye have received your
consolation. Woe unto you that are full ! for ye
* Luke, Chap. vi. 20.

59
shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now ! for
ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all
men shall speak well of ypu ! for so did their fathers
to the false prophets. But I say unto you which
hear. Love your enemies, do good to them which
hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for
them which despitefully use you. And unto him
that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the
other ; and him that taketh away thy cloke, forbid
not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that
asketh of thee ; and of him that taketh away thy
goods, ask them not again. And as ye would that
men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
For if ye love them which love you, what thank
have ye ? for sinners also love those that love them.
And if ye do good to them which do good to you,
what thank have ye ? for sinners also do even the
same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to
receive, what thank have ye ? for sinners also lend to
sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your
enernies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing
again ; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall
be the children of the Highest : for he is kind unto
the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore
merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge
not, and ye shall not be judged : condemn not, and
ye shall not be condemned : forgive, and ye shall be
forgiven : give, and it shall be given unto you ; good
measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and
running over, shall men give into your bosom. For

60
with the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall
be measured to you again. And he spake a parable
unto them. Can the blind lead the blind ? shall they
not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not
above his master : but every one that is perfect shall
be as his master. And why beholdest thou the mote
that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the
beam that is in thine own eye ? Either how canst
thou say to thy brother. Brother, let me pull out the
mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest
not the beam that is in thine own eye ? Thou hypo
crite! cast out first the beam out of thine own eye,
and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote
that is in thy brother's eye. For a good tree bringeth
not forth corrupt fruit ; neither doth a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by
its own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs,
nor pf a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good
man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth
forth that which is good ; and an evil man out of the
evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is
evil : for of the abundance of the heart his mouth
speaketh. And why call ye me. Lord, Lord, and
do not the things which I say ? Whosoever cometh
tp me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I
will shew you to whom he is like : he is like a man
which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the
foundation on a rock : and when the flood arose, the
stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could
not shake it ; for it was founded upon a rock. But

61
he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that
without a foundation built an house upon the earth ;
against which the stream did beat vehemently, and
immediately it fell ; and the ruin of that house was
great. * And one of the Pharisees desired him that he
would eat with him. And he went into the Phari
see's house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a
woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she
knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house,
brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at
his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his
feet with tears, and did wdpe them with the hairs of
her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with
the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had
bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying.
This man, if he were a prophet, would have known
who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth
him ; for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said
unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee.
And he saith. Master, say on. There was a certain
creditor which had two debtors : the one owed five
hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they
had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.
Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most ?
Simon answered and said, I suppose that he to whom
he forgave most. And he said unto him. Thou hast
rightly judged. And he turned to the woman, and
* Luke, Chap. vii. 36.

62
said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman ? I entered
into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my
feet : but she hath washed my feet with tears, and
wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest
me no kiss : but this woman since the time I came
in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. Mine head with
oil thou didst not anoint : but this woman hath
anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say
unto thee. Her sins, which are many, are forgiven ;
for she loved much : but to whom little is forgiven,
the same loveth little. And he said unto her. Thy
sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with
him began to say within themselves. Who is this that
forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman.
Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in peace.
* And when much people were gathered together,
and were come to him out of every city, he spake by
a parable : A sower went out to sow his seed : and
as he sowed, some fell by the way side ; and it was
trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
And some fell upon a rock ; and as soon as it was
sprung up, it vrithered away, because it lacked mois
ture. And some fell among thorns ; and the thorns
sprang up with it, and choked it. And other fell on
good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hun
dredfold. And when he [had] said these things, he
cried. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And
his disciples asked him, saying. What might this
* Luke, Chap. viii. 4.

63
parable be ? And he said. Unto you it is given to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of God : but to
others in parables ; that seeing they might not see,
and hearing they might not understand. Now the
parable is this : The seed is the word of God. Those
by the way side are they that hear ; then cometh the
devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts,
lest they should believe and be saved. They on the
rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the
word with joy ; and these have no root, which for a
while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
And that which fell among thorns are they, which,
when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with
cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring
no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground
are they, which in an honest and good heart, having
heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with
patience. No man, when he hath lighted a candle,
covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed ;
but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter
in may see the light. For nothing is secret, that
shall not be made manifest ; neither any thing hid,
that shall not be known and come abroad. Take
heed therefore how ye hear : for whosoever hath, to
him shall be given ; and whosoever hath not, from
him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to
have. Then came to him his mother and his brethren,
and could not come at him for the press. And it
was told him by certain which said. Thy mother and

64
thy brethren stand without, desiring, to see thee.
And he answered and said unto them. My mother
and my brethren are these which hear the word of
God, and do it.
* Then there arose a reasoning among them,
which of them should be greatest. And Jesus, per
ceiving the thought of their heart, took a. child, and
set him by him, and said unto them. Whosoever
shall receive this child in my name receiveth me:
and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that
sent me : for he that is least among you all, the same
shall be great. And John answered and said. Mas
ter, we saw one casting out devils in thy name ; and
we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
And Jesus said unto him. Forbid him not : for he
that is not against us, is for us.
And it came to pass, when the time was come that
he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to
go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face:
and they went, and entered into a village of the Sa
maritans, to make ready for him. And they did not
receive him, because his face was as though he would
go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James
and John saw this, they said. Lord, . wilt thou that
we command fire to come down from heaven, and
consume them, even as Elias did ? But he turned,
and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of For the Son of man is
* Luke, Chap, ix, 46.

65
not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.
And they went to another village.
And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way,
a certain man said unto him. Lord, I will follow thee
whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him.
Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests ;
but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
And he said unto another. Follow me. But he said.
Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Jesus said unto him. Let the dead bury their dead :
but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And
another also said. Lord, I will follow thee ; but let
me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at
my house. And Jesus said unto him. No man
having put his hand to the plough, and looking back,
is fit for the kingdom of God.
* After these things, the Lord appointed other
seventy also, and sent them two and two before his
face into every city and place, whither he himself
would come. Therefore said he unto them. The
harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few :
pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he
would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go
your ways : behold, I send you forth as lambs among
wolves. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes :
and salute no man by the way. And into whatso
ever house ye enter, first say. Peace be to this house.
And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall
* Luke, Chap. x. 1.
F

66
rest upon it : if not, it shall turn to you again. And
in the same house remain, eating and drinking such
things as they give: for the labourer is wprthy of
his hire. Go not from house to house. And into
whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive ypu, eat
such things as are set before you : and heal the sick
that are therein, and say unto them. The kingdpm
of God is come nigh unto you. But into whatso
ever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your
ways out intp the streets of the same, and say. Even
the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we
do wipe off against you : notwithstanding, be ye sure
of this, tljat the kingdom of Gpd is come nigh unto
you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tole
rable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Woe
unto thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida I for
if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and
Sidon, vyhich have been done in you, they had a
great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and
ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and
Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou,
Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be
thrust down to hell. He that heareth you, heareth
me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me ; and
he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
* And, behold, a certain Lawyer stood up, and
tempted him, saying, Master, ^hat shall I do to
inherit eternal life ? He said unto him. What is
* Luke, Chap. x. 25.

67
written in the law ? how readest thou ? And he an
swering said. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
strength, and with all thy mind ; and thy neighbour
as thyself. And he said unto him. Thou hast an
swered right : this do, and thou shalt live. But he,
willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who
is my neighbour ? And Jesus answering said, A cer
tain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and
fell among thieves, which stripped him of his rai
ment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him
half dead. And by chance there came down a cer
tain Priest that way : and when he saw him, he
passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite,
when he was at the place, came and looked on him,
and passed by on the other side. But a certain Sa
maritan, as he journeyed, came where he was : and
when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and
went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in
oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and
brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And
on the morrow when he departed, he took out two
pence, and gave them, to the host, and said unto him.
Take care of him ; and whatsoever thou spendest
more, when I come agaiu, I will repay thee. Which
now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour
unto him that fell among the thieves ? And he said.
He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus
unto him. Go, and do thou likewise.
f2

68
* Now it came to pass, as they went, that he en
tered into a certain village : and a certain woman
named Martha received him into her house. And
she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus'
feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cum
bered about much serving, and came to hira, and
said. Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath
left me to serve alone? Bid her therefore that she
help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her,
Martha, Martha,- thou art carefol and troubled about
many things : but one thing is needful : and Mary
hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken
away from her.
¦jf And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in
a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples
said unto him. Lord, teach us to pray, as John also
taught his disciples. And he said unto them. When
ye pray, say. Our Father which art in heaven, hal
lowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will
be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by
day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins ; for
we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation ; but deliver us from
evil. And he said unto them. Which of you shall
have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight,
and say unto him. Friend, lend me three loaves ; for
a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and
* Luke, Chap. x. 38. t Luke, Chap. xi. 1.

69
I have nothing to set before him ? And he from
within shall answer and say. Trouble me not : the
door is now shut, and my children are with me in
bed ; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you,
Though he will not rise and give him, because he is
his friend, yet because of his importunity he will
rise and give him as many as he needeth. And I
say unto you. Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek,
and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened
unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth ; and
he that seeketh findeth ; and to him that knocketh
it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any
of you that is a father, will he give him a stone ? Or
if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent ?
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scor
pion? If ye, then, being evil, know how to give
good gifts unto your children ; how much more
shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to
them that ask him !
* And it came to pass, as he spake these things,
a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice,
and said unto him. Blessed is the womb that bare
thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he
said. Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word
of God, and keep it
¦|- No man, when he hath lighted a candle, put
teth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but
on a candlestick, that they which come in may see
* Luke, Chap, xi, 27. t Luke, Chap. xi. 33.

70
the light. The hght of the body is the eye : there
fore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is
foil of light ; but when thine eye is evil, thy body
also iy. full of darkness. Take heed therefore that
the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy
whole body therefore be foil of light, having no part
dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the
bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.
And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him
to dine with him : and he went in, and sat down to
meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled
that he had not first washed before dinner. And the
Lord said untb him. Now do ye Pharisees make
clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but
your inward part is fidl of ravening and wickedness.
Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without
make that which is within also ? But rather give
alms of such things as you have; and, behold, all
things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pha
risees ! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of
herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God :
these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the
other undone. Woe unto you, Pharisees ! for ye
love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and
greetings in the markets. Woe unto you. Scribes
and Pharisees, h3q)ocrites ! for ye are as graves
which appear not, and the men that walk over them
are not aware qf them. Then answered one of the
Lawyers, and said unto him. Master, thus saying,
thou reproachest us also. And he said. Woe unto

71
you also, ye Lawyers ! for ye lade men with burdens
grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the
burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you !
for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your
fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye
allow the deeds of your fathers : for they indeed
killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. There
fore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them
prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall
slay and persecute : that the blood of all the pro
phets, which was shed from the foundation of the
world, may be required of this generation ; from the
blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which
perished between the altar and the temple : verily I
say unto you. It shall be required of this generation.
Woe unto you. Lawyers ! for ye have taken away
the key of knowledge : ye entered not in yburselves,
and them that were entering in ye hindered.
* In the mean time, when there were gathered
together an innumerable multitude of people, inso
much that they trode one upon another, he began to
say unto his disciples first of all. Beware ye ofthe lea
ven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there
is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed ; nei
ther hid, that shall not be known. Therefore what
soever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in
the light ; and that which ye have spoken in the
ear in closets, shall be proclaimed upon the house-
¦* Luke, Chap. xii. 1.

72
tops. And I say unto you, my friends. Be not afraid
of them that kill the body, and after that have no
more that they can do. But I will forewarn you
whom ye shall fear : Fear him, which after he hath
killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto
you. Fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two
farthings? and not one of them is forgotten before
God : but even the very hairs of your head are
all numbered. Fear not, therefore : ye are of
more value than many sparrows. Also I say
unto you. Whosoever shall confess me before men,
him shall the Son of man also confess before the
angels of God : but he that denieth me before
men, shall be denied before the angels of God.
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son
of man, it shall be forgiven him : but unto him that
blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
be forgiven. And when they bring you unto the
synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take
ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or
what ye shall say : for the Holy Ghost shall teach
you in the same hour what ye ought to say. And
one pf the company said unto him. Master, speak to
my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge
or a divider over you ? And he said unto them. Take
heed, and beware of covetousness : for a man's life
consisteth not in the abundance of the things which
he possesseth. And he spake a parable unto them,
saying. The ground of a certain rich man brought

73
forth plentifully: and he thought within himself,
saying. What shall I do, because I have no room
where to bestow my fruits ? And he said, This w'ill
I do : I will pull down my barns, and build greater ;
and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
And I will say to my soul. Soul, thou hast much
goods laid up for many years ; take thine ease, eat,
drink, and be merry. But God said unto him. Thou
fool ! this night thy soul shall be required of thee :
then whose shall those things be, which thou hast
provided ? So is he that layeth up treasure for him
self, and is not rich towards God. And he said unto
his disciples. Therefore I say unto you. Take no
thought for your life, what ye shall eat ; neither for
the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more
than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Con
sider the ravens : for they neither sow nor reap ;
which neither have storehouse nor barn ; and God
feedeth them : how much more are ye better than
the fowls ! And which of you with taking thought
can add to his stature one cubit ? If ye then be not
able to do that thing which is least, why take ye
thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they
grow : they toil not, they spin not ; and yet I say
unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the
grass, which is to-day in the field, and to-morrow is
cast into the oven ; how much more will he clothe
you, O ye of little faith ! And seek not ye what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of

74
doubtfol mind. For all these things do the nations
of the world seek after : and your Father knoweth
that [ye] have need of these things. But rather
seek ye the kingdom of God ; and all these things
shall be added unto you. Fear not, littie flock ; for
it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the king
dom. Sell that ye have, and give alms ; provide
yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the
heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth,
rieither moth corrupteth. For where your treasure
is, there will your heart be also. Let your loins be
girded about, and your lights burning ; and ye
yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord,
when he will return from the wedding ; that when
he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him
immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the
lord, when he cometh, shall find watching : verily I
say unto youj, that he shall gird himself^ and make
them to sit down to meat, and will come forth
and serve them. And if he shall come in the
second watch, or come in the third watch, and
flnd them so, blessed are those servants. And this
know, that if the good man of the house had
known what hour the thief would come, he would
have watched, and not have suffered his house to be
broken through. Be ye therefore ready also : for
the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think
not. Then Peter said unto him. Lord, speakest thou
this parable unto us, or even to all ? And the Lord
said. Who then is that faithful and wise steward.

75
whom his lord shall make ruler over his household,
to give them their portion of meat in due season ?
Blessed is that servant, whom his lord, when he
cometh, shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto
you, that he will make him ruler over all that he
hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My
lord delayeth his coming ; and shall begin to beat
the men-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink,
and to be drunken ; the lord of that servant will come
in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour
when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder,
and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and
prepared not himself, neither did according to his
will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he
that knew not, and did commit things worthy of
stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto
whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much
required : and to whom men have committed much,
of him they will ask the more. I am come to send
fire on the earth : and what will I, if it be already
kindled ? but I have a baptism to be baptized with ;
and how am I straitened till it be accomplished !
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth ?
I tell you. Nay ; but rather division : for from hence
forth there shall be five in one house divided, three
against two, and two against three. The father shall
be divided against the son, and the son against the
father; the mother against the daughter, and the
daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law

76
against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-
law against her mother-in-law. And he said also to
the people. When ye see a cloud rise out of the west,
straightway ye say. There cometh a shower ; and so
it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say.
There will be heat ; and it cometh to pass. Ye
hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of
the earth ; but how is it that ye do not discern this
time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not
what is right ? When thou goest with thine adver
sary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give
diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him ;
lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver
thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into pri
son. I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till
thou hast paid the very last mite.
* There were present at that season some that
told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had
mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering
said unto them. Suppose ye that these Galileans
were sinners above all the Galileans, because they
suffered such things ? I tell you. Nay ; but, except
ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those
eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and
slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all
men that dwelt in Jerusalem ? I tell you. Nay : but,
except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. He
spake also this parable ; A certain man had a fig-
* Luke, Chap. xiii. 1 .

77
tree planted in his vineyard : and he came and sought
fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto
the dresser of his vineyard. Behold, these three years
I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none :
cut it down ; why cumbereth it the ground ? And he
he answering said unto him. Lord, let it alone this
year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it : and
if it bear fmit, well : and if not, then after that thou
shalt cut it down.
* And the ruler of the synagogue answered with
indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the
sabbath-day, and said unto the people. There are six
days in which men ought to work : in them there
fore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath-day.
The Lord then answered him, and said. Thou hypo
crite ! doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose
his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to
watering ? And ought not this woman, being a daugh
ter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these
eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the
sabbath-day ? And when he had said these things,
all his adversaries were ashamed : and all the people
rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by
him. Then said he. Unto what is the kingdom of God
like ? and whereunto shall I resemble it ? It is like a
grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast
into his garden ; and it grew, and waxed a great
* Luke, Chap. xiii. [14,] 17.

78
tree ; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches
of it. And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken
the kingdom of God ? It is Uke leaven, which a
woman took and hid 'in three measures of meal, till
the whole was leavened.
Then said one unto him. Lord, are there few that
be saved? 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 ye are : then shall ye begin to say. We
have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast
taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I
know you not whence ye 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 king
dom of jGrod, and you yourselves thrust out. And
they shall come from the east, and from the west,
and from the north, and^owi the south, and shall sit
down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there
are last which shall be first, and there are first which
shall be last.
The same day there came certain of the Pharisees,
saying unto him. Get thee out, and depart hence :
for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them.
Go ye, and tell that fox. Behold, I cast out devils.

79
and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third
day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk
to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following : for it
cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets,
and stonest them that are sent unto thee ; how often
would I have gathered thy children together, as a
hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye
would not ! Behold, your house is left unto you
desolate : and verily I say unto you. Ye shall not
see me, until the time come when ye shall say.
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
* And it came to pass, as he went into the house
of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sab
bath-day, that they watched him. And, behold,
there was a certain man before him which had the
dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the Law
yers and Pharisees, saying. Is it lawful to heal on the
sabbath-day ? And they held their peace. And he
took him, and he healed him, and let him go ; and
answered them, saying. Which of you shall have an
ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway
pull him out on the sabbath-day ? And they could
not^ answer him again to these things. And he
put forth a parable to those which were bidden,
when he marked how they chose out the chief
rooms ; saying unto them. When thou art bidden of
any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest
* Luke, Chap. xiv. 1 .

80
room ; lest a more honourable man than thou be
bidden of him ; and he that bade thee and him come
and say to thee. Give this man place ; and thou
begin with shame to take the lowest room. But
when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest
room ; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may
say unto thee. Friend, go up higher : then shalt thou
have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be
abased ; and he that humbleth himself shall be ex
alted. Then said he also to him that bade him.
When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy
friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor
thy rich neighbours ; lest they also bid thee again,
and a recompence be made thee. But when thou
makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame,
the blind : and thou shalt be blessed ; for they can
not recompense thee : for thou shalt be recompensed
at the resurrection of the just. And when one of
them that sat at meat with him heard these things,
he said unto him. Blessed is he that shall eat bread
in the kingdom of God. Then said he unto him, A
certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
and sent his servant at supper time to say to them
that were bidden. Come ; for all things are now
ready. And they all with one consent began to make
excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a
piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it : I
pray thee have me excused. And another said, I
have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove

81
them : I pray thee have me excused. And another
said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot
come. So that servant came, and shewed his lord
these things. Then the master of the house being
angry, said to his servant, Go out quickly into the
streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the
poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
And the servant said. Lord, it is done as thou hast
commanded, and yet there is room. And the Lord
said unto the servant. Go out into the highways
and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my
house may be filled. For I say unto you. That none
of those men which were bidden shall taste of my
supper. And there went great multitudes with him : and
he turned, and said unto them. If any man come to
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And who
soever doth not bear his cross, and come after me,
cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending
to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth
the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it ? Lest
haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not
able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
saying. This man began to build, and was not able
to finish. Or what king, going to make war against
another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth
whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him
that cometh against him with twenty thousand ? Or

82
else, while the other is yet a great way ofi^ he send
eth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh
not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Salt
is good : but if the salt have lost its savour, where
with shall it be seasoned ? It is neither fit for the
land, nor yet for the dunghill ; but men cast it out.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
* Then drew near unto him all the publicans and
sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and
Scribes murmured, saying. This man receiveth sin
ners, and eateth with them. And he spake this
parable unto them, saying. What man of you, having
an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not
leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go
after that which is lost, until he find "it? And when
he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, re
joicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth
together his friends and neighbours, saying unto
them. Rejoice with me ; for I have found my sheep
which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy
shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth,
more than over ninety and nine just persons which
need no repentance. Either what woman having
ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not
Ught a candle, and sweep the house, and seek dili-
gentiy till she find it ? And when she hath found it,
she calleth her friends and her neighbours together;
* Luke> Chap. xv. 1 .

83
saying. Rejoice with me ; for I have found the piece
which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto ybU, there
is joy in the presence of the angels of God over orie
siriner that repenteth. And he said, A certairt man
had two sons : and the younger of them said to Ms
father. Father, give me the portion of goods that
falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
And not many days after the younger son gathered
all together, and took his journey into a far cbuntry,
and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty
famine in that land ; and he began to be in Want.
And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that
country ; and he sent him into his fields to feed
swine. Arid he would fairi have filled his belly with
the husks that the swine did eat : and no man gave
unto him. And when he came to himself, he said.
How many hired servants of my father's have bread
enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger ! I will
arise and go to my father, and will say unto him.
Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
and am no more worthy to be called thy son : make
me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and
came to his father. But when he was yet a great
way off, his father saw him, and had compassion,
and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And
the son said unto hiiri. Father, I have sirihed against
heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more Worthy to
be called thy son. But the father said to his ser
vants. Bring forth the best robe, arid put it on him ;
g2

84
and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet ;
and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it ; and let
us eat, and be merry: for this my son was dead, and
is alive again ; he was lost, and is found. And they
began to be merry. Now his elder son was in the
field : and as he came and drew nigh to the house,
he heard music and dancing. And he called one of
the servants, and asked what these things meant
And he said unto him. Thy brother is come ; and
thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath
received him safe and sound. And he was angry,
and would not go in : therefore came his father out,
and intreated him. And he answering said to his
father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither
transgressed I at any time thy commandment : and
yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make
merry with my friends : but as soon as this thy son
was eeme, which hath devoured thy living with har
lots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. And
he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all
that I have is thine. It was meet that we should
make merry, and be glad : for this thy brother was
dead, and is alive again ; and was lost, and is found.
* And he said also unto his disciples. There was a
certain rich man, which had a steward ; and the
same was accused unto him that he had wasted his
goods. And he called him, and said unto him. How
is it that I hear this of thee ? give an account of thy
* Luke, Chap, xiii, [xvi.] 1.

85
stewardship ; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
Then the steward said within ; himself. What shall I
do, for my lord taketh away from me the steward
ship ? I cannot dig ; to beg I am ashamed. I am
resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the
stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him,
and said unto the first. How much owest thou unto
my lord ? And he said. An hundred measures of oil-
And he said unto him. Take thy bill, and sit down
quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another.
And how much owest thou ? And he said. An hun-
• dred measures of wheat. And he said unto him.
Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord
commended the unjust steward, because he had done
wisely : for the children of this world are in their
generation wiser than the children of light. And I
say unto you. Make to yourselves friends ofthe mam
mon of unrighteousness : that, when ye fail, they
may receive you unto everlasting habitations. He
that is faithful in that which is least is faithfol also in
much : and he that is unjust in the least is unjust
also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithfol
jn the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to
your trust the true riches P And if ye have not been
faithful in that which is another man's, who shall
give you that which is your own ? No servant can
serve two masters : for either he will hate the one, and
love the other ; or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye cannpt serve God and mam-

86
mon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous,
heard all these things : and they derided him. And
he said unto them. Ye are they which justify your
selves before men ; but God knoweth your hearts :
for that which is highly esteemed amongst men is
abomination in the sight of God. The Law and the
Prophets were until John : since that time the king
dom of God is preached, and every man presseth into
it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth
away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put
away from her husband, committeth adultery. There
was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple
and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day :
and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,
which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring
to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich
man's table : moreover the dogs came and licked his
sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died,
and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bo
som : the rich man also died^ and was buried ; and
in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and
seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said. Father Abraham, have mercy
on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of
his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am
tormented in this flame. But Abraham said. Son,
remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy
good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things : but

87
now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And
besides all this, between us and you there is a great
gulf fixed : so that they which would pass from
hence to you cannot ; neither can they pass to us,
that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray
thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him
to my father's house : for I have five brethren ; that
he may testify unto them, lest they also come into
this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him,
They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear
them. And he said. Nay, father Abraham : but if
one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him. If they hear not Moses and
the-prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though
one rose from the dead.
* Then said he unto the disciples. It is impossible
but mat offences will come : but woe unto him,
through whom they come ! It were better for him
that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he
cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of
these little ones. Take heed to yourselves : If thy
brother ti'espass against thee, rebuke him ; and if he
repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee
seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn
again to thee, saying, I repent ; thou shalt forgive
him. And the Apostles said unto the Lord, Increase
our faith. And the Lord said. If ye had faith as a
grain of mustard-seed, ye might say unto this syca-
* Luke, Chap. xvii. 1.

mine-tree. Be thou piucked up by the root,, and be
thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
But which of ybu, haying a servant plowing or feed
ing cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is
come from the field. Go and sit down to meat ? and
will not rather say unto him. Make ready wherewith
I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have
eaten and drunken ; and afterward thou shalt eat
and drink ? Doth he thank that servant because he
did the things that were commanded him ? I trow
not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all
those things which are commanded you, say. We
are unprofitable servants : we have done that which
was our duty to do.
* And he spake a parable unto them to this end,
that men. ought always to pray, and not to faint;
saying. There was in a city a judge, which feared
not God, neither regarded man : and there was a
widow in that city ; and she came unto him, saying.
Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not
for a while : but afterward he said within himself.
Though I fear not God, nor regard man ; yet be
cause this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her,
lest by her contiriual coming she weary me. And
the Lord said. Hear what the unjust judge saith.
And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry
day and night unto him, though he bear long with
them ? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.
* Luke, Chap. xviiL 1.

89
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he
find faith on the earth ?
And he spake this parable unto certain which
trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and
despised others : Two men went up into the temple
to pray ; the one a Pharisee, and the other a Pub
lican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with
himself : God, I thank thee, that I am not as other
men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as
this Publican. I fast twice in the week, I sive tithes
of all that I possess. And the Publican, standing
afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto
heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be
mercifol to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went
down to his house justified rather than the other :
for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased :
and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
And they brought unto him also infants, that he
would touch them : but when his disciples saw it,
they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto
him, and said. Suffer little children to come unto me,
and forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom of
God. Verily I say unto you. Whosoever shall not
receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in
no wise enter therein.
And a certain ruler asked him, saying. Good Mas
ter, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And
Jesus said unto him. Why callest thou me good ?
none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest
the commandments. Do not commit adultery. Do

90
not kill. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness.
Honour thy father and thy mother. And he said.
All these have I kept from my youth up. Now
when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him.
Yet lackest thou one thing : sell all that thou hast,
and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven : and come, follow me. And
when he heard this, he was very sorrowfol : for he
was very rich. And when Jesus saw that he was
very sorrowful, he said. How hardly shall they that
have riches enter into the kingdom of God ! For it
is easier for a camel to go tlirough a needle's eye,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they that heard it said. Who then can be saved ?
And he said. The things which are impossible with
men are possible with God, Then Peter said, Lo,
we have left all, and fallowed thee. And he said
unto them. Verily I say unto you. There is no man
that bath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife,
or childseri, for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall
not receive manifold more in this present time, and
in the world to come life everlasting.
* He said therefore, A certain nobleman went
into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom,
and to return. And he called his ten servants, and
delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them.
Occupy till I come. But his citizens harted him,
and sent a message after him, saying. We will not
* LiAe, Chap. jdx. 12.

91
have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass,
that when he was returned, having received the
kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be
called unto him, to whom he had given the money,
that he might know how much every man had gained
hy trading. Then came the first, saying. Lord, thy
pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto
him. Well, thou good servant : because thou hast
been faithfol in a very littie, have thou authority
over ten cities. And the second came, saying. Lord,
thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said
likewise to him. Be thou also over five cities. And
another came, saying. Lord, behold, here is thy
pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin : for
I feared thee, because thou art an austere man : thou
takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest
that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him.
Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou
wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an aus
tere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping
that I did not sow : wherefore then gavest not thou
my money into the bank, that at my coming I might
have required mine own with usury ? Aud he said
unto, them that stood by. Take from him the pound,
and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they
said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I
say unto you. That unto every one which hath shall
be given ; and from him that hath not, even that he
hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine

92
enemies, which would not that I should reign over
them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
* And the Chief Priests and the Scribes the same
hour sought to lay hands on him ; and they feared
the people : for they perceived that he had spoken
this parable against them. And they watched Mm,
and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves
just men, that they might take hold of his words,
that so they might deliver him unto the power and
authority of the governor. And they asked him,
saying. Master, we know that thou sayest and teach
est rightly, neither acceptest thou the person qf any,
but teachest the way of God truly : Is it lawfol for
us to give tribute unto Csesar, or no ? But he per
ceived their craftiness, and said unto them. Why
tempt ye me ? Shew me a penny. Whose image
and superscription hath it ? They answered and said,
Csesar's. And he said unto them. Render therefore
unto Csesar the things which be Cesar's, and unto
God the things which be God's. And they could
not take hold of his words before the people : and
they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which
deny that there is any resurrection ; and they asked
him, saying. Master, Moses wrote unto us. If any
man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without
children, that his brother should take his wife, and
* Luke, Chap. xx. [19.] 2Q.

93
raise up seed unto his brother. There were there
fore seven brethren : and the first took a wife, and
died without children. And the second took her to
wife, and he died childless. And the third took her;
and in like manner the seven also : and they left no
children, and died. Last of all the woman died also.
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is
she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus an
swering said unto them. The children of this world
marry, and are given in marriage : but they which
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and
the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor
are given in marriage : neither can they die any
more : for they are equal unto the angels ; and are
the children of God, being the children of the resur
rection. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses
shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of
the living : for all live unto him. Then certain of
the Scribes answering said. Master, thou hast well
said. * And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting
their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a cer
tain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And
he said. Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor
widow hath cast in more than they all : for all these
have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of
* Luke, Chap. xxi. 1.

94
God : but she of her penury hath cast in all the
living that she had.
* There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nico
demus, a ruler of the Jews : the same came to Jesus
by night, and said unto him. Rabbi, we know that
thou art a teacher come from God : for no man can
do these miracles that thou doest, except God be
with him. Jesus answered and said unto him. Ve
rily, verily, I say Unto thee. Except a man be born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicode
mus saith unto him. How can a man be born when
he is old ? Can he enter the second time into his
mother's womb, and be bbrn? Jesus answered^
Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be
born of water and qf 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. Marvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must
be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth,
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst riot tell
whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every
one that is born ofthe Spirit. Nicodemus answered
and said unto him. How can these things be ? Jesus
answered and said unto him. Art thou a master of
Israel, and knowest not these thirigs ? Verily, verily,
I say unto thee. We speak that we do know, arid
testify that we have seen ; and ye receive not our
witness. If I have told you earthly things, arid ye
* John, Chap. \\\. 1.

95
believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of
heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even
the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever be
lieveth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God
sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world ; but that the world through him might be
saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned :
but he that believeth not is condemned already, be
cause he hath not believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God. And this is the condemna
tion, that light is come into the world, and men loved
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light,
neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the
light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that
they are wrought in God.
* But the hour cometh, and now is, when the
true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit
and in truth : for the Father seeketh such to worship
him. God is a Spirit : and they that worship him
must worship him in spirit and in truth.
* John, Chap, iv. 23.

96
* Labour not for the meat which. perisheth, but
for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,
which the Son of man shall give unto you : for him
hath God the Father sealed.
-|- And the Scribes and Pharisees brought unto
him a woman taken in adultery ; and when they had
set her in the midst, they say unto him. Master, this
woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now
Moses in the law commanded us, that such should
be stoned : but what sayest thou ? This they said,
tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote
on the ground, as though he heard them not. So
when they continued asking him, he lifted up him
self, and said unto them. He that is without sin
among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And
again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their
own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at
the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left
alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When
Jesus had lifted up himself^ and saw none but the
woman, he said unto her. Woman, where are those
thine accusers ? Hath no man condemned thee ?
She said. No man. Lord. And Jesus said unto her.
Neither do I condemn thee : go, and sin no more.
X And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into

* John, Chap. vi. 27. f John, Chap, viii, 3,
X John, Chap. ix. 39,

97
this world, that they which see not might see ; and
that they which see might be made blind. And some
of the Pharisees which were with him heard these
words, and said unto him. Are we blind also ? Jesus
said unto them. If ye were blind, ye should have no
sin : but now ye say. We see ; therefore your sin
remaineth- * I am the true vine, and my Father is the hus
bandman. Every branch in me that beareth not
fruit he taketh away : and every branch that beareth
fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more
fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I
have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you.
As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it
abide in the vine ; no more can ye, except ye abide
in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches : he
that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth
forth much fruit : for without me ye can do nothing.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a
branch, and is withered ; and men gather them, and
cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye
abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall
ask what ye wdl, and it shall be done unto you.
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much
fruit ; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father
hath loved me, so have I loved you : continue ye in
my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall
abide in my love ; even as I have kept my Father's
* John, Chap. xv. 1 .
H

^8
commandirierits, and abide in his love. These things
have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain
in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my
commandment. That ye love one anbther, as I have
loved you. Greater love hath no man than thisj
that a man lay dbwn his life for his friends. Ye are
my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Henceforth I call you riot servants; for the servant
knoweth not what' his lord doeth : but I have called
you friends; "for all things that I have heard of my
Father I have made knpwn unto you. Ye have not
chosen irie, but I h'ave chpseuyou, and ordained you,
that ye should go arid bring forth fruit, and that your
fruit should remain : that whatsoever ye shall ask of
the Father in my name, he may give it you. These
things I command you, that ye love one another.

Mn Appeal

THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC,

IN DEFENCE OF THE

PRECEPTS OF JESUS,"

A FRIEND TO TRUTH.

i^pmeP^&hgna, "'"

IX,

PRINTED AT CALCUTTA :
1820.

LONDON, REPRINTED:
1823.

AN APPEAL,
8fc. Sfc.

In perusing the twentieth number of " The Friend
of India," I felt as much surprised as disappointed at
some remarks made in that magazine by a gentleman
under the signature of " A Christian Missionary," on
a late pubUcation, intitled, " The Precepts of Jesus ;"
and also at some observations ©f a similar nature on
the same subject by the Editor of that publication.
Before, however, I attempt to enquire into the ground
upon which their objections to- the work in question
are founded, I humbly beg t& appeal to the public
against the unchristianlike, as well as uncivil manner
in which the Editor has adduced his objections to the
compilation, by introducing personality, and apply
ing the term of heathen to the Compiler. I say un
christianlike manner, because the Editor, by making
use of the term heathen, has, I presume, violated
truth, charity, and liberality, which are essential to
Christianity in every sense of the word. For there
are only two methods by which the character of the
Compiler as a heathen, or as a believer in one true
and living God, can be satisfactorily inferred. The
most reasonable of the two modes is to confine such

102
enquiries to the evidence contained in the subject of
review, no mention of the name of the Compiler
being made in the publication itself. Another mode,
which is obviously inapplicable in such discussions,
is to gUess at the real author, and to infer his opi
nions from a knowledge of his education or other cir
cumstances. With respect to the first source of
evidence, the following expressions of the Compiler's
sentiments are found in the Introduction. " A no
tion of the existence bf a Supreme Superintending
Power, the author and preserver of the harmonipus
system, who has organized and who regulateSi such
an infinity of celestial and terrestrial objects, and a
due estimation of that law ^yhich teaches that man
should do to others as he would wish tb be done by,
reconcile us to human nature, &c." "This simple
code of religion and morality, (meaning the Precepts
of Jesus,) is so admirably calculated to elevate men's
ideas to high and liberal notions of one Gpd, &c,"
" so well fitted to regulate the conduct of the human
race in the discharge of their various duties to God,
to themselves, and to society," and " so conformable
to the dictates of human reason and divine revelation,
&c." These expressions are calculated, in my hum
ble opinion, to convirice every mind not biassed by
prejudice, that the Compiler believed not bnly in one
God, whose nature and essence is beyond human
comprehension, but in the truths revealed in the
Christian system. I should hope neither the Re
viewer nor the Editor can be justified in inferring

103
the heathenism of the Compiler, from the facts of his
extracting and publishing the moral doctrines of the
New Testament, under the titie of " A Guide to
Peace and Happiness" — his styling the Precepts of
Jesus, a code of religion and morality — his believing
God to be the author and preserver of the universe —
or his considering those sayings as adapted to regu^
late the conduct of the whole human race in the
discharge of all the duties required of them.
Neither, I trust, can his separating the moral say
ings of Christ from the mysterious dogmas and histo
rical parts of the New Testament, under the impres
sion, that these are liable to the doubts and disputes
of freethinkers and antichristians, with which this
part of the world is unfortunately filled ; nor his
opinion that this simple code of morality would be
more likely to attract the notice and respect of such
men, and to guide their minds into the paths of peace
and happiness, than if presented to them in conjunc_
tion with other matter against which their education
has taught them to revolt; justly subject him, in
the opinion of the most orthodox Christians, to the
epithet applied to him by the Editor. If they do, I
cannot see how the same condemnation can be spared
to numerous publications of extracts from the Old
and the New Testaments, made and sent forth by
several Christian authors, under various designations
and for different purposes.
With respect to the latter mode of seeking evi
dence, however unjustified the Editor may be in

104
coming to such a conclusion, he is safe in ascribing
the collection of these Precepts to Rammohun Roy ;
who, although he was born a Brahmun, not only
renounced idolatry at a very early period of his life,
but published at that time a treatise in Arabic and
Persian against that system ; and no sooner acquired
a tolerable knowledge of English, than he made his
desertion of idol worship known to the Christian
world by his English publication — a renunciation
that, I am sorry to say, brought severe difficulties
upon him, by exciting the displeasure of his parents,
and subjecting him to the dislike of his near, as well
as distant relations, and to the hatred of nearly all his
countrymen for -several years. I therefore presume
that among his declared enemies, who are aware of
those facts, no one who has the least pretension to
truth, would venture to apply the designation of
heathen to him; but I am sure, that the respect he
entertains for the very name of Christianity, which
the Editor ofi-rthe Friend of India seems to profess,
will restrain him from retorting on that Editor,
although there may be differences of opinion between
them, that might be thought sufficient to justify the
use towards the Editor of a term no less offensive.
The Editor perhaps may consider himself justified by
numerous precedents amongst the several partizans
of different Christian sects, in applying the name of
heathen to one who takes the Precepts of Jesus as
his principal guide in matters of religious and civil
duties ; as Roman Catholics bestow the appellation

105
of heretics or infidels on all classes of Protestants, and
Protestants do not spare the titie of idolaters to
Roman Catholics ; Trinitarians deny the name of
Christian to Unitarians, while the latter retort by
stigmatising the worshippers of the Son of man as
Pagans, who adore a created and dependent Being.
Very different conduct is inculcated in the precept of
Jesus to John, when complaining of one who per
formed cures in the name of Jesus, yet refosed to
follow the apostles :- — he gave a rebuke, saying,
" He that is not against us is on our part :" Mark,
ch. ix. ver. 40. The Compiler, having obviously in
view at least one object in common with the Reviewer
and Editor, that of procuring respect for the precepts
of Christ, might have reasonably expected more cha
rity from professed teachers of his doctrines.
The Compiler of the Precepts Pf Jesus, will, how
ever, I doubt not, give preference to the guidance of
those Precepts, which justify no retaliation even upon
enemies, to the hasty suggestions of'fi^an passions,
and the example of the Editor of the Friend of India.
2. The Editor of the Friend of India and the re
spected Reviewer, both not only disapprove absolutely
the plan adopted by the Compiler in separating the
moral doctrines of the books of the New Testament
ascribed to the four Evangelists from the mysteries
and historical matters therein contained, but even
blame him as an injurer of the cause of truth ; and
for such disapprobation they assign several reasons :
first. The Reviewer says, the supposition of the moral

106
sayings being sufficient for salvation, independent of
the dogmas, is, (as he notes in page 27,) radically
false ; and that it is presumption of him (the Com
piler) to think himself qualified to judge, indepen
dently ofthe Divine Teacher, what sort of instruction
is advantageous for the happiness of mankind. If
indeed the Reviewer understands by the word moral,
what relates to conduct onjy with reference to man,
it cannot apply to those precepts of Jesus, that teach
the duty of man to God ; which, however, the
Reviewer will find included in the collection of the
Precepts of Jesus by the Compiler : but a slight
attention to the scope of the Introduction might have
coriviriced the Reviewer, that the sense in whiph the
word moral is there used, whether rightly or other
wise, is quite general, and applies equally to pur
conduct in religious as iri oiyil matters, Without
attaching this meaning to the term moral doctrines,
the whole ofthe concluding sentence must appear
absurd, where it is said, " This simple code is well
fitted to regulate the conduct of thp human race
in the discharge bf their various duties to God, to
themselves, and to society." This assertion is corro
borated and supported by a grejat number of passages
in the treatise in question, which point out the appro
priate mode of performing our .duty to the Almighty
Power. It is, however, too true to be denied, that
the Compiler of those moral precepts separated them
from some lof the dogmas and other matters, chiefly
under the supposition, that they alone were a suffici-

107
ent guide to secure peace and happiness to mankind
at large — a position that is entirely founded on and
supported by the express authorities of Jesus of
Nazareth — a denial of which would imply a total
disavowal of Christianity . Some of those authorities,
as found amongst these precepts, here follow : Mat
thew, ch. xxii. beginning with ver. 37 : " Jesus said
unto him. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment.
39. And the second is fike unto it. Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself. 40. On these two com
mandments HANG ALL THE LaW AND THE PRO
PHETS." Mark, ch. xii. beginning with ver. 29 :
" And Jesus answered him. The first of all the com
mandments is. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is
one Lord. 30. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the
first commandment. 31. And the second is like,
namely this : Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy
self: there is no other commandment greater than
these. 32. And he said unto him. Well, Master,
thou hast said the truth ; for there is one God, and
there is none other but he. 33. And to love him
with all the heart, with all the understanding, and
with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to
love his neighbour as himself, is more than all bumt-
offerings and sacrifices. 34. And when Jesus saw
that he answered discreetly, he said unto him. Thou

108
art not far from the kingdom of God." Matthew,
ch. vii. ver. 12 : " Therefore all things whatever you
would that men should do to you, do you even so to
men ; for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Ch. V. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law
or Prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Luke, ch. X. beginning with ver. 25 : " And behold,
a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying.
Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life ? 26.
He said unto him, What is written in the Law?
How readest thOu ? 27. He answering said. Thou
shalt [love the] Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy
neighbour as thyself. 28. And he said unto him.
Thou hast answered right. This do and thou
shalt live." The Saviour meant of course by the
words Law and Prophets,, all the commandments
ordained by divine authority, and the religion revealed
to the prophets and observed by them ; as is evident
from Jesus's declaring those commandments to afford
perfect means of acquiring eternal life, and directing
men to follow them accordingly. Had any other
doctrine been requisite to teach men the road to peace
and happiness, Jesus could not have pronounced to
the lawyer, " This do and thou shalt live." It
was the characteristic of the office of Christ to teach
men, that forms and ceremonies were useless tokens
of respect for God, compared with the essential proof
of obedience and love towards him evinced by the
practice of beneficence towards their fellow-creatures. .

109
The Compiler, finding these commandments given as
including all the revealed law and the whole system
of religion adopted by the prophets, and re-esta
blished and fulfilled by Jesus himself, as the means
to acquire peace and happiness, was desirous of
giving more full publicity in this country to them,
and to the subsidiary moral doctrines that are intro
duced by the Saviour in detail. Placing also implicit
confidence in the truth of his sacred commandments,
to the observance of which we are directed by the
same Teacher, (John, ch. xiv. ver. 16, " If ye love
me, keep my commandments ;" ver. 24, " He that
loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings,") the Com
piler never hesitated in declaring (page 1) " a belief
in God, and a due regard to that law, ' Do unto
others as you would wish to be done by,' render our
existence agreeable to ourselves, and profitable to
the rest of mankind." It may now be left to the
public to judge, whether or not the charge of arro
gance and presumption which the Reviewer has
imputed to the Cornpiler, under the idea that he
preferred his own judgment to that of the Saviour,
be justly applicable to him.
3. The respected Reviewer argues in page 26,
that there are twb important points, a knowledge of
which is not to be acquired by following the moral
precepts of Christ, but which are esseritial to the at
tainment of true peace of mind ; they being entirely
founded (as he alleges) upon the dogmas and his
tories, viz. how to obtain, 1st, the forgiveness of sins

110
and the favour of God ; and 2dly, strength to ever-
come human passions, and to :keep the command
ments of God. These precepts separated from the
mysterious dbgmas and historical records, appear, on
the contrary, to the Compiler to contain not onfy the
essence of all that is necessary to instruct mankind
in their civil duties, but also the best and only means
of obtaining the forgiveness pf our sins, the favour of
God, and streaigth to overcome our passions, and to
keep his commandments. I therefore extract from
the same cbmpilatiori a few passages of that greatest
of all prophets, who was sent to call sinners to re
pentance ; a due attention to which will, I hope,
satisfyJfhe respected Reviewer on those two points.
Luke, ch. xiii. ver. 3: "Except you repent, you
shall all likewise perish." Ch. xv. ver. 7 : " I say
unto yori, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over
one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and
nine persPns who need no repentance. .1 say unto
you, there is joy in the presence pf the aingels of God
over one siriner that repenteth." Matthew, ch. ix.
" I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners tp
repentance." Ch. xviii. " For the Son of man is
come to save that which was lost," Luke, ch. vi.
" I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to re
pentance." Which sayings areconfirmatbly of what
is taught in EzeMel, ch. xviii. ver. 30 : *' Repfent
arid turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so
iniquity shall nbt be your ruin." See also the parable
ofthe prodigal son, where the mercy of God is illus-

Ill
trated by the example of a father pardoning the
transgressions of his repenting son. Numerous pas
sages of the Old and the New Testaments to the
same effect, which might fill a volume, distinctly
promise us that the forgiveness of God and the favour
of his Divine Majesty may be obtained by sincere
repentance, as required of sinners by the Redeemer.
As to the secPttd point, that is. How to be enabled
to overcome our passions, and keep the command
ments of Godc — we are riot left unprPvided for in
that respect, as our gracious Savipur has promised
every strength and power as necessary cPri'sequenCes
of earnest prayer and hearty desire. Matthew, ch.
vii. and. Luke, ch. vi. "Ask, and it shall be given
you ; steek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall be
opened unto you." " If ye then, being evil, know
how to give good gifts unto your children, hovy
much more shall your Father Which is in heaven
give good thirds to them that ask him !" Luke, ch.
xi. " I say unto you. Ask, and it shall be given
you." After a due attention to these and to nume
rous passages of the same effect, no orie who believes
in the divine naassage of Jesus bf Nazareth, or even
in the truth of his doctrine only, can be at all at a
loss to find adequate means of attaining those two
ends, justly considered to be most essential by the
Reviewer. 4. The Reviewer iriiputes to the Compiler, error
in exalting the value of the moral doctrines above
that of the historical facts and dogmas contained iri

112
the New Testament. This imputation, I humbly
maintain, can be of no weight or force against the
authority of Jesus himself, as quoted in the above
texts ; which clearly shew, that there is no other
means of attaining eternal life except the perform
ance of our duties towards God in obeying his com
mandments. That the aim and object of all the
commandments of God is to teach us our duty
towards our fellow-creatures, may be gathered from
a hundred passages of Scripture, of which perhaps
the following may suffice. Matthew, ch. xxv. ver.
31 : " When the Son of man shall come in his glory,
and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit
upon the throne pf his glory. And before him shall
be gathered all nations : and he shall separate them
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep
from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his
right hand, ^ but the goats on the left. Then shall
the King say unto them on his right hand. Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the worid. . For I was
an hungred, and ye gave me meat : I was thirsty,
arid ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, arid ye
took me in : naked, and ye clothed me : I was sick,
and ye visited me : I was in prison, and ye came
unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him,
saying. Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and
fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink ? When
saw we thee a stranger, and topk thee iu ? or naked,
and clothed thee ? Or when saw we thee sick, or in

113
prison, and came unto thee ? And the King shall
answer and say unto them. Verily I say unto you.
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least
of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say unto them also on the left hand.
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre
pared for the devil and his angels. For I was an
hungred, and ye gave me no meat : I was thirsty,
and ye gave me no drink : I was a stranger, and ye
took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not:
sick, ^and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then
shall jthey also answer him, saying. Lord, when saw
we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or
naked, or siek, or in prison, and did not minister
unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying.
Verily I say unto you. Inasmuch as ye did it not to
<Hie of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And
these shall go away into everlasting punishment : but
the righteous into life eternal." In this description of
the day of judgment it is clearly announced, that the
merciful Father of the universe accepts as [a] mani
festation of love towards himself, every act of charity
and beneficence performed towards his creatures.
(See text already quoted, Matthew, ch. vii. ver. 12.)
And apparently to counteract by anticipation the
erroneous idea that such conduct might be dispensed
with, and reliance placed on a mere dogmatical
knowledge of God or of the Saviour, the following
declaration seems to have been uttered. Matthew,
ch. vii, ver. 21 : " Not every one that saith unto me.

114
Lord ! Lord ! shall enter- into the kingdom of heavien,
but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in
heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord!
Lord ! have we not prophesied in thy name ; and
in thy name have cast out devils ; and in thy name
done many woriderfol works ? And then will I pro
fess untP them, I hever knew you ; depart from me,
ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth
these sayings of miuej and doeth them, I will liken
him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a
rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of
mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a
foolish man, who built his house upon the sand."
Matthew i ch. xii. " Whosoever shall do the will of
my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother,
and sister, and mother." Luke, ch. ix. " My mother
and my brethren are those which hear the word of
God and do it." Ch. xi. " Blessed is the womb
(said a certain woman to Jesus) that bare thee, and
the paps which thou hast sucked : but he said. Yea,
i*ather blessed are they that hear the word of God,
and keep it." John, ch. xv. " If ye keep my com
mandments, ye shall abide in ray love ; even as I
have kept my Father's coinmandments, and abide in
his love." What, then, are those sayings, the
obedience tb which is so absolutely commanded as
indispensable and all-sufficient to those who desire tb
ittherit eternal life? They are no other than the
blessed and benign moral doctrines taught in the
sermon on the rribunt, (contained in the 5th, '6ih,

115
and 7th chapters of Matthew,) which include there
fore every duty of man, and all that is necessary to
salvation ; and they expressly exclude mere profession
or belief, from those circumstances which God gra
ciously admits as giving a titie to eternal happiness.
Neither in this, nor in any other part of the New
Testam'^nt, can we find a commandment similarly
enjoining a knowledge of any of the mysteries or
historical relations contained in those books. It is
besides plainly stated, that but a very small portion
of the works of Jesus have been handed down to us
by the Evangelists. John says at the conclusion of
his gospel, ch. xxi. ver, 25, " There are also many
other things which Jesus did, the which if they
should be written every one, I suppose the world
itself could not contain the books that should be
written." On the other hand, we cannot doubt that
the whole spirit of his doctrines has been faithfoUy
and folly recorded.. The reason of this appears ob
vious : — miracles must have had a powerful effect on
the minds of those who witnessed them, and who,
without some such evidence, were disj)bsed tb ques
tion the authbrity of the teacher of those dbctrirtes.
John, ch. XV. ver. 23 : " The works that I do in my
Father's name, they bear witness of me." Ver. 37,
and 38 : " If I do not the works of my Father, believe
me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me,
believe the works." Had his doctrines of themselves
tnadfe their due impression, the aid of miracles would
riot have been req[uisite, nor had recourse to. In this
i2

116
country, the bare report of such miracles could have
given no support to the weight of the doctrines ; for,
as the Compiler has stated in his Introduction, mira
cles infinitely more wonderful are related of their gods
and saints, on authorities that the Hindoos must deem
superior to those of the Apostles.
We are taught by revelation, as well as education,
to ascribe to the Deity the perfection of those attri
butes which are esteemed excellent amongst man
kind. And according to those ideas it must surely
appear more consistent with the justice of the Sove
reign Ruler, that he should admit to mercy those of
his subjects who, acknowledging his authority, have
endeavoured to obey his laws ; or shewn contrition,
when they have fallen short of their duty and love ;
than that he should select for favour those whose
claims rest on having acquired particular ideas of his
nature, and of the origin of his Son, and of what
afflictions that Son may have suffered in behalf of his
people. If the Reviewer and Editor will continue to
resist both authority and common sense, I must be
content to take leave of them with the following
words, (Luke, ch. xviii.): "And he said unto him.
If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither
will they be persuaded though one rose from the
dead.£) 5. The Reviewer observes, (in page 24,) with
every mark of disapprobation^ that the Compiler has
intimated in the Introduction, that the dogmatical
and historical matters are rather calculated to do in-

117
jury. The Compiler could not certainly overlook
the daily occurrences and obvious facts which led
him to remark, [in the Introduction,] that " histo
rical and some other passages are liable to the doubts
and disputes of Freethinkers and Anti-christians,
especially miraculous relations, which are much less
wonderful than the fabricated tales handed down to
the natives of Asia :" and to prove what the Com
piler stated, I humbly entreat any one to refer to the
numerous volumes written by persons unattached to
any of the established churches against the miracles,
the history, and some of the dogmas of Christianity.
It has been the different interpretations of the dogmas
that have given rise to such keen disputes amongst
the followers of Jesus. They have not onlyjde-
stroyed harmony and union between one se^fpS^:
Christians and another, and continue to do so ; but>"
in past times have even caused continual wars and
frequent bloodshed to rage amongst them, more
dreadfully than between Christians and infidels. A
slight reference to the histories of Christian countries
will, I trust, afford to my readers entire conviction
upon this head. Besides, the Compiler,, residing in
the same spot where European-missionary gentlemen
and others for a period of upwards of twenty years
have been, with a view to promote Christianity,
distributing in vain amongst the natives numberless
copies ofthe complete Bible, written in different lan
guages, could not be altogether ignorant of the
causes of their disappointment. He, however, neve?

lis
doubted their zeal for the promulgation of Christi
anity, nor the accuracy of their statement with regard
to immense sums of money being annually expended
in preparing vast numbers of copies of the Scrip
tures ; but he has seen with regret, that they have
completely counteracted their own benevolent efforts,
by introducing all the dogmas and mysteries taught
in Christian Churches to people by no means pre
pared to receive them ; and that they have been so
incautious and inconsiderate in their attempts to en
lighten the natives of India, as to address their in
structions to them in the same way as if they were
reasoning with persons brought up in a Christian
country, with those dogmatical notions imbibed from
their infancy. The consequence has been, that the
natives in general, instead bf benefiting by the perusal
of the Bible, copies of which they always receive
gratuitously, exchange them very often for blank
paper ; and generally use several of the dogmatical
terms in their native language as a mark of slight in
an irreverent manner ;'; the mention of which is re
pugnant to my feelings. Sabat, an eminently learned
but grossly unprincipled Arab, whom our divines
supposed that they had converted to Christianity,
and whom they of course instructed in all the dogmas
and doctrines, wrote a few years ago a treatise in
Arabic against those very dogmas, and printed him
self and published several hundred copies of this
work. And ariother Moosulman, of the name of
Ena'et Ahmud, a mari of respectable family, who is

119
still alive, speedily returned to Mohummudariism
from Christianity, pleading that he had not been able
to. reconcile to his understanding certain dogmas.
which were imparted to him. It has been owing to
their beginning with the introduction of mysterious
dogmas, and of relations that at first sight appear in
credible, that notwithstanding every exertion on the
part of our divines, I am not aware that we can find
a single respectable Moosulman or Hindoo, who
were not in want of the common comforts of life,
once glorified with the truth of Christianity, con
stantly adhering to it. Of the few hundred natives
who have been nominally converted to Christianity,
and who have been generally of the most ignorant
class, there is ground to suspect that the greater
number have been allured to change their faith by
other attractions than by a conviction of the truth
and reasonableness of those dogmas ; as we find
nearly all of them are employed or fed by their spi
ritual teachers, and in case of neglect are apt to
manifest a rebellious spirit ;— -a circumstance which
is well known to the Compiler from several local
facts, as well as from the following occurrence.
About three years ago, the Compiler, on his visit to
an EngUsh gentleman, who is still residing in the
vicinity of Calcutta, saw a great number of Christian
converts with a petition, which they ^intended to pre
sent to the highest ecclesiastical authority, stating,
that their teachers, through false promises of ad
vancement, had induced them to give up their

120
ancient religion. The Compiler felt indignant at
their presumption, and suggested to the gentleman,
as a friend, the propriety of not countenancing a set
of men who, from their own declaration, seemed so
unprincipled. The Missionaries themselves are as
well aware as the Compiler, that those very dogmas
are the points which the people always select as the
most proper for attack, both in their oral and written
controversies with Christian teachers ; all of which,
if required, the Compiler is prepared to prove by the
most unquestionable testimony.
Under these circumstances, the Compiler pub
lished such sayings of Christ, as he thought intelli
gible to all, conveying conviction with them, and
best calculated to lead mankind to universal love and
harmony ; not dwelling upon those matters, an ob
servance of which is not absolutely ordained, and
the interpretations of which, instead of introducing
peace and happiness, have generally given rise to dis
putes and controversies.-i The Compiler has had no
local influence nor power to promote any one's inte
rest, nor has he situations to give away, nor yet has
he friends and colleagues to recommend others to
their patronage. Humble as he is, he has therefore
adopted those measures which he thought most judi
cious, to spread the truth in an acceptable manner ;
but I am sorry to observe, that he has unfortunately
and unexpectedly met with opposition from those
whom he considered the last persons likely to oppose
him on this subject. From what has already been

121
advanced, the Reviewer may perceive the reason
why the passages extracted by the Compiler from
the Gospel of St. John should be comparatively few.
It is from this source that the most difficult to be
comprehended of the dogmas of the Christian religion
have been principally drawn ; and on the foundation
of passages of that writer, the interpretation of which
is still a matter of keen discussion amongst the most
learned and most pious scholars in Christendom, is
erected the mysterious doctrine of three Gods in one
Godhead, the origin of Mohummudanism, and the
stumbling-block to the conversion of the more en
lightened amongst the Hindoos.
To impress more strongly on the minds of those
for whom this compilation was intended, the doc
trines taught by Jesus, the Compiler thought the
varied repetition of them by different but concurring
reporters highly advantageous, as showing clearly
that those doctrines were neither misrepresented nor
misconceived by any of those Evangelists.
6. Nor is the conduct of the Compiler in selecting
certain passages of the Scriptures for certain pur
poses singular ; for we see very often extracts from
the -Bible, published by the learned men of every
sect of Christians, with a view to the maintenance of
particular doctrines. Christian Churches have se
lected passages from the Bible, which they conceive
particularly excellent, and well adapted for the con
stant perusal and study of the people of their respec
tive churches } and besides, it is the continual practice

122
of every Christian teacher tp choose frpm the whole
Scriptures such texts as he deems most important,
for the purposes of illustrating them, and impressing
them on the minds of his hearers. Nor will those
teachers, if questioued as to their object in such
selection, hesitate to assign as their riiotive the very
reasori adopted by the Compiler as his — ^the superior
importance of the parts so selected. Whether or
not he h^si erred in his judgmerit on that point, must
be determined by those who will candidly peruse and
GOrisider the arguments already advariced on the sub
ject, always bearing in mind the lessori practically
taught by the Saviour himself, pf adapting his in
structions to the susceptibility and capacity of his
hearers. John xvi. 12 : "1 have yet many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."
Hindost^n is a country, of which nearly S-iSths of
the inhabitants are Hindoos, and 2-5ths Moosul-
mans. Although the professors of ueither of these
religions are possessed pf such accomplishments as
are enjoyed by Europeans in general, yet the latter
portion are well known tp he fifmly devoted to a
belief in one God, which has been instilled into their
minds from their infancy. The former (I mean the
Hindoos) are, with a few exceptipris, immersed in
grpss idolatry, and in belief of the moat extravagant
(^cription respecting futurity, aritiquity, and the
mira,cles of their deities and saints, ^^ handed down
tp them ^d regorded in their aixeierit books. Weigh
ing the&e circumstances, aiid SPxipus, |rom fejs long

123
experience of religious controversy with natives, to
avoid further disputation with them, the Compiled
selected those precepts of Jesus, the obedience to
which he believed most peculiarly required of a
Christian, and such as could by no means tend, in
doctrine, to excite the religious horror of Mohum-
medans, or the scoffs of Hindoos. Wha,t benefit or
peace of mind can we bestow upon a Moosulman,
who is an entire stranger to the Christian world, by
communicating to him without preparatory instruc
tion aU the peculiar dogmas of Christianity ; such as
those contained in ver. 1st, chap. 1st, of St. John,
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God" ? Would
they not find themselves at a loss tp reconcile this
dogma to their unprepared understandings, viz. A is
B, and A is also with B ? Although the interpreta
tions given us of such texts by truly learned and
candid divines be ever so satisfactory, yet to those
that are strangers to these explanations, they cannot
be iritelligible ; nor can it be expected from the order
of things that each can happily find at ha,nd an able
interpreter, tP whom he can haye recourse for an
explanatiori, whenever he may be involved in diffi
culties or doubts. But as a great number cf Mis
sionary gentlemen may perhaps view the matter in a
diff'erent light, and join the Editpr of the Friend of
India, in accusing the Compiler as an injurer pf the
cause of truth, I doubt not that with a view to avpid
every possibiUty of such imputation, and to prevent

124
others from attributing their ill success to his interfe
rence with their duties, he would gladly abstain from
publishing again on the same subject, if he could see
in past experience any thing to justify hopes of their
success. From what I have already stated, I hope
no one will infer that I feel ill-disposed towards the
Missionary establishments in this country. This is
far from being the case. I pray for their augmenta
tion, and that their members may remain in the
happy enjoyment of life in a climate so generally
inimical to European constitutions ; for in proportion
to the increase of their number, sobriety, moderation,
temperance, and good behaviour, have been diffosed
among their neighbours as the necessary conse
quences of their company, conversation, and good
example. [7.] The Reviewer charges the Compiler with in
consistency, (p. 27,) because he has termed the pre
cepts collected by him, a code of religion and mora
lity, while, as the Reviewer supposes, they form only
a code of morality and not of religion. It is already
explained in paragraph 2d, that the Compiler has
introduced those precepts of Jesus under the deno
mination of the moral sayings of the New Testament,
taking the word moral in its wide sense, as including
our conduct to God, to each other, and to ourselves ;
and to avoid the least possibility of misunderstanding
the term, he has carefully particularized the sense
in which he accepted that word by' the latter sen
tence, " This simple code of Religion and Mora-

125
lity, (meaning by the former, those precepts which
treat of our duty to God, and by the latter, such as
relate to our duties to mankind and to ourselves,) is
so admirably calculated to elevate men's ideas to high
and liberal notions of one God, &c." " and is also so
well fitted to regulate the conduct of the human race
in the discharge of their various duties to God, to
themselves, and to society, &c." In conformity to
the design thus expressed, he has collected all the
sayings that have a tendency to those ends. The
Compiler, however, observes with regret, that nei
ther this language nor this fact, has afforded to the
Reviewer satisfactory evidence of his intention, nor
sufficed to save him from the unexpected imputation
of inconsistency.
The Reviewer again (page 29) charges the Com
piler with inconsistency, in having introduced some
doctrinal passages into his compilation. In reply to
which, I again entreat the attention of the respected
Reviewer to that passage in the Introduction, in
which the Compiler states the motives that have led
him to exclude certain parts of the gospels from his
publication. He there states, that it is on account
of these passages being such as were the ordinary
foundation of the arguments of the opponents of
Christianity, or the sources of the interminable con
troversies that have led to heart-burnings and even
bloodshed amongst Christians, that they were not
included in his selection ; and they were omitted the
raore readily, as he considered them not essential to

126
religion. But such dogmas or dpctrinal and other
passages as are not exposed to Ihbse objections, and
are not unfamiliar to the minds of those for whose
benefit the compilation was intended, are generally
included, in conformity with the avpwed plan of the
work — particularly such as seem calculated to direct
our love and obedience to the beneficent Author of
the universe, and to him whom he graciously sent to
deliver those Precepts of Religion and Morality,
whose tendency is to promote universal peace and
harmony. 8. In objecting to the assertion made by the Com
piler in the Introduction as to a belief in the existence
of God prevailing generally, the respected Reviewer
advances three arguments: — 1st, That millions of
people believe in a plurality of Gods. 2dly, That
the majority of those enlightened persons whp deriy
the truth of the Jewish and Christian Revelatiori
are Atheists. 3rdly, That the very system of the
Vedant, which denies to God his moral attributes, is
a refined and disguised Atheism. I certainly admit
that a great number of men, and even men of pro
found learning and extensive abilities, are, owing to
their early education, literally sunk in Pplytheism,
an absurd and irrational system of religiori. But the
admission of a plurality of Gods does not amount to
the denial of Godhead. A man, for instance, can
not be accused of having no notion bf mankind,
because he is proved to believe in the existence of a
plurahty of individuals. The Reviewer ought, there-

127
fore, to have confined himself to the remark, the
truth of which will be readily admitted, that there
are millions of people ignorant of the Unity of God ;
the only doctrine consistent with reason and reve
lation. The astonishing eagerness of the learned
amongst those whose practice and language are poly-
theistical, to prefer their claim to be considered as
Monotheists, is a strong evidence of the consistency
of the system of Monotheism with reason. Debased
and despicable as is the belief of the Hindoos in
three hundred and thirty millions of gods, they pre
tend to reconcile this persuasion With the doctrine of
the Unity of God ; alleging that the three hundred
and thirty millions of gods, whom they enumerate,
are subordinate agents, assuming various offices in
preserving the harmony of the universe under one
Godhead, as innumerable rays issue from one sUn. I
am at a loss to trade the origin of his second argument,
imputing Atheism to the majority of those who deny
the divinity of the Jewish and Christian Revelation.
For, notwithstanding my acquaintance with several
Europeans and Asiatics Who doubt the possibility of
Revelation, I have never met with one, to the best
of my recpllectiori, maintaining Atheism, however
widely they might differ from the Reviewer and the
Compiler in a great many points of belief relating to
the Deity. The Reviewer perhaps may have met
with,some unhappy Freethinkers, who have professed
doubts respecting the existence pf a supreme super-
intCriding power— ^a oircumstafice which has proba-

128
bly induced him to form this opinion ; hut such, rare
instances can have no force to set aside the credit of
what the Compiler affirms, that a belief in God pre
vails generally. Neither can I conscientiously coin
cide with the respected Reviewer in his imputing
Atheism to the Vedant system, under the supposi
tion of its denying moral attributes to God ; nor can
I help lamenting that religious prejudice should influ
ence the Reviewer so much, as to make him apply
the term of Atheist towards a sect or to individuals
who look up to the God of nature through his won-
derfol works alone ; for the Vedant, in common with
the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, from the impos
sibility of forming more exalted conceptions, con
stantly ascribes to God the perfection of those moral
attributes which are considered among the human
species excellent and sublime. To prove this I quote
one passage from each of the four Oopunishuds of
the Vedant, which have already been translated into
English. Moonduk, ch. 1, sect. 1 : " By him who
knows all things collectively and distinctly, whose
knowledge and will are the only means of his actions,
Bruhma, name, and form, and all that vegetates, are
produced." Kuthu, ch. 5 : " God is eternal, among
all the perishable universe ; and is the source of sen
sation among all animate existences ; and he alone
assigns to so many objects their respective purposes."
Kenopunishud : " In a battle between the celestial
gods and the demons, God enabled the former to
defeat the latter." And Ishopunishud : " He over-

129
spreads all creatures, is merely spirit without the form
either of a minute body or of an extended one, which
is liable to impression or organization. He is pure,
perfect, omniscient, the Ruler of the intellect, omni
present, and the self-existent. He has from eternity
been assigning to all creatures their respective pur
poses." For further evidence, if required, I beg to
refer the Reviewer to the rest of the original Vedant
works that may be found in the College Library and
in the Missionary stores of books. It is, however,
very true, that the Vedant declares very often its
total ignorance of the real nature and attributes of
God. Kenopunishud, ver. 3 : " Hence no vision can
approach him, no language can describe him, no
intellectual power can compass or determine him ; we
know nothing how the Supreme Being should be
explained," &c. It also represents God sometimes
in a manner familiar to the understanding of the
vulgar. Moonduk, ch. 7, sect. 1 : " Heaven is his
head, and the sun and the moon are his eyes ; space
is his ears," &c. But such declarations are not pecu
liar to the Vedant doctrines, as these are found fre
quently in the sacred Scriptures. Job xxxvi. 26 :
" Behold God is great, and we know him not ;"
" touching the Almighty we cannot find him out ;
his greatness is unsearchable." The Scriptures also
represent God in the same familiar and figurative
manner as is found in the Vedant. God is affirmed
to have made man in his own image, after his own
likeness. The angels always behold God's face in
K

130
heaven. In the Old Testament, as well as In fhe
New, God is represented as repenting of his works,
as being moved with anger, vexation, grief^ joy, love,
and hate : as moving from place to place ; having
arms, with hands and fingers; a head, with face,
mouth, tongue, eyes, nose, ears, a heart, bowels,
back, thighs, l^s ; as seeing, being seen, speaking
and hearing, slumbering, waking, &c. No one
capable of sound reasoning can for a moment ima
gine that these or any other descriptions of <Tod are
intended to convey literal notions of the unsearch
able, incomprehensible Being.
May God render religion destructive of differences
and dislike between man and man, and conducive to
the peace and union of mankind. Amen.

^uom Mppm

THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC,

IN DEFENCE OF THE

« PRECEPTS OF JESUS."

RAMMOHUN ROY.

Calcutta:
printed at the baptist mission press, circular road,
1821.

LONDON, REPRINTED:
1823.

ADVERTISEMENT,

The contents of the following Treatise are
included under these two propositions: — Ist,
That the Precepts of Jesus, which teach that
love to God is manifested in beneficence towards
our fellow-creatures, are a sufficient Guide to
Peace and Happiness ; and 2ndly, That that
omnipresent God, who is the only proper object
of religious veneration, is one and undivided
in person.
Though these doctrines, as I conceive them
to be alike founded on reason and revelation,
appear to me to be almost as obvious truths as
any abstract axiom, yet they are opposed in
fact by a very large body of writers and
teachers. I must therefore leave them to be
decided upon by those, who will be pleased to
bestow their candid and liberal attention on
the arguments I have used in the succeeding
pages ; — and on their impartial judgment I
confidently rely.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
— ? —
CHAPTER I. Page
Alteration of Style in the Review  145
Two points which the Editor wishes to establish, to wit, the
excellency of the Dogmas and the insufficiency of the
Precepts  145, 146
The Compiler acknowledges the first  146
Rejects the second  .-  147
Passages shewing the sufficiency of the Precepts^ — God one,
and the object of supreme love  • . «  148
The authority of Paul quoted, inapplicable  • • • • 150
Justifying a selection as the- substitute for the whole  id.
The Precepts of Jesus practicable  •  151
The contradiction between the indispensableness of the Doc
trines and the sufficiency of the Precepts '<  153
Repentance the only means of forgiveness  •'^ 154
CHAPTER IL
Positions o£ the Reviewer  •  ...*..... 155
Jesus receives all power from God  •  156
Power given to Jesus as the Son of God  ••• 157
The unity between. God and Jesus, and between him and his
disciples  1 62
God dwelleth in Jesus and he in God  163
Jesus considered distinct from God  165
He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father  , . ib.
Definition of the unity between God and Jesus- •  167
Jesus's disavowal of his own Deity  i6.
The Jews charged Jesus only with calling hiraself the Son
ofGod  '  16S

136 Page
The term " God" frequently applied to existences inferior "
to God  168
The term " for ever" often applied to created beings  1 70
John i. 1, explained  »  171
Hindoos believe in one Godhead, consisting of numerous
persons under it  1 72
Jesus performs wonderful works, which do not amount to
equality with those of God  1 73
CHAPTER III.
The first position of the Editor, on the ubiquity of Jesus. ... 175
John iii. ] 3, explained  ^  ib.
 viii. 58, xi. 8  ib.
 xi. 38 ; Matt, xxvi, 2 ; John xiii. 6, xvi. 32 ; Matt.
ii. 18, 15; Johnvi. 62  176
 xvi. 7, 5, 28, xiii. 36, 1  177
Matt, xviii. 20, explained  179
Luke xvi. 29  ih.
The second .position of the Editor, on the incomprehensibi
lity of the nature of Jesus  180
Matt. xi. 27, explained  ¦  ib.
Johnxiv. 16, 17  181
Mark xiii. 32, explained  • •.  ib.
Matt. xi. 28,-[Prov. xxix. 17,] explained  182
The third position of the Editor, on Jesus foi^ving sins in
an independent manner ...,,.«••...••,',  tb.
Mark ii. 5, 9, explained  ib.
Acts v. 31, 32, xiii. 38  183
Luke xxiii, 34, xi. 4 j Matt. vi. 14  1S4
The fourth position of the Editor, respecting the almighty
power of Jesus  •  ib.
John V. 21 — 23, explained  ib.
__  19—36  •  185
Deut. xviii. 15, 18 ; Acts iii. 22, vii. 37, considered • • • • 187
Matt. XX. 23, xii. 28, xxvi. 39, considered  188

137 Page
Matt. xxvi. 42 ; Luke xxii, 32 j John xii. 27, separately ex
plained  188
Mlatt. X. 40 ; John v. 23, separately explained  189
Matt. v. 48  ib.
The fifth position of the Editor, respecting the judgment of
the world by Jesus • • > '  ib.
Matt. iii. 9 j Luke i. 37  190
From this the Editor infers his omniscience  ib,
Mark xiii. 32, considered  ib.
John v, 26, 27, 30, considered  191
The sixth position of the Editor, respecting the worship
accepted by Jesus  ib.
Daniel ii, 46 ; Matt, xviii, 26, considered  1 92
John iv. 24; Matt. iv. 10, xix. 17  ib.
 ix. 31, 33, 38 J Mark v. 7  193
Luke xvii. 15, 16 ; Matt. xiv. 33, xv. 25 ; Mark viii. 29 j
Luke xxiv. 19  194
Johnvi. 69, xx. 31 ; Matt. viii. 2  195
The worship paid to Jesus inferior to divine  191 — 195
Jesus himself worshipped the Father ; Matt. vi. 9, xxvi. 53 j
John xvi. 265 Luke xxii. 41, 42; Mark xiv. 35, 36;
Luke vi. 12, x.21 ; John xi. 41 ; Matt, xxvii. 46; John
iv, 22  196
The seventh position of the Editor, respecting the form of
Baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Exod. xiv. 31  1 97
Mohummud joins his own name with that of God in his
form of belief. . •  1 98
Matt, xxviii. 18, considered  ib.
Synonymous expressions employed by Mohummud and Jesus 199
Mussulmans notwithstanding remain strict Monotheists. . . . 200
CHAPTER IV,
Texts adduced in support of the atonement, explained  201
Luke iv. 43, ii. 47 — 49 ; John xvii. 8  ¦ 202
The sufferings of Jesus and of other Prophets unaccountable
except as prophesied  203

138 Page
John ix. 3 ; Maxk xii. l-r— 9, considered  204
 XV. 21, 22  205
Whether Jesus, suffered as God or as Man for mankind  ib.
The first inconsistent with the natureof God  ib.
The last inconsistent with justibe  206
Jesus averse to the death of the cross ¦.  ib.
Matthew xxvi. 37, 39, 42, 43 -, Mark xiv, 36, considered . . ib.
Luke xxii, 42, 44; John xii. 27 ; xv. 17, 18; Matt. xxvi.
53, 54, considered  >.-..>  207
The application of the term Saviour to Jesus a supposed
proof of the atonement  208
Obadiah .21 j -Neliemiah ix. 27 > 2 Kings, xiii. 5, considered ib.
Jesius, is a Saviour from- inculcating the word of God «  209
John XV. 3, V. 24, vi., 63, considered  • . • ib.
God declares Christ a Propbet equal to Moses  ib.
Matthew v. 7  • . • • • ib.
 xxiii.2,3  210
Je$us. was a perfect teacher of the divine will  ib.
Matthew V.2 1,22  ib.
 V. 27, 28, 3 1, 32, 38, 39, 43^45, considered .... 211
The term " Lamb of God" explained  *  212
Nature of Christ  213
God shews mercy for righteousness' sake-. • • • »?  '. ib.
Genesis xxx. 27; Jeremiah xxvii, 18 ; Genesis xlviii. 16;
Exodus xxiii. 20, 21  •  214
The Author offers no opinion on this doctrine •..¦,¦  ib.
CHAPTER V.
Disputes ascribed to the different interpretations of the
Dogmas  215
lUiberality in supposing that the primitive Christians shed
eack other's blood from worldly motives  216
Mosheim'.s Authority, .Vol. I. pp. 419, 420 •  ib.
Illiberal remarks, may be equally applied to the Apostles and
Martyrs  •  .,...,. 217

139 Page
The cause of the final success of Alexandrians (aftejwwdg
called the Orthodox) over Arians  217
VJoleutcontentions between Roman Catholics and Protestants 218
Matthew x. 34, explained by its contents  219
Difference between the peculiar Doctrines of the Gospel and
the tenet of the existence of God  221
The miracles quoted by the Reviewer to shew their import
ance, considered  •  222
Matthew xi. 2 — 4  ib.
John X. 37, 38, xiv» 1 1 ; Matthew xii. 39 ; John xx, 29,
considered  ,  „  223
The arguments adduced b.y the Reviewer in support of Chris
tian miracles are equally applicable to Hindoo miracles . • 224
And also to the miraculous narrations of Mussulmans  225
Superior excellence of the Precepts of Jesus  » . 226
CHAPTER VI.
Only one circumstance adduced in support of the Deity of
the Spirit as a distinct person  227
The association of the name of the Spirit with that of the
Father and Son inadequate to prove this doctrine ......... 228
Prophets associated with God, 2 Chron, xx. 20 ; Jeremiah
xxx. 9 } Luke iii'. 16 •  jj.
The Holy Spirit explained to be the guiding influence of God,
John xiv. 6, xvi. 13 «  •  229
Anger, mercy, truth, &c. personified as well as the Holy
Spirit. 2 Kings xxiv, 20 ; Psalm xc. 7, xxi. 7, vi. 4 ;
Luke xu, 12 ; Acts i. 8 ; John xiv. 26 ; Psalm Ivii. 3,
l.xxxv. 10, c. 5, xxxiii.^ 22, xxxvi, 5, cviii. 4; [Ezek.]
vii, 3; 2Chron. xxiv. la.........  ...,.,.,,,,.... 230
The bad consequences of supposing the Spirit to be a per
son of God, Matt. i. 1 1, 20 ; Luke i. 35  231
This opinion also inconsistent with the use of the term in
Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke iii. 16; Acts x. 38; Matt. xii. 28,
31; Lukeiv. I, iii, 22  232

140 Page
The Jews accuse Jesus of employing diabolical influence , . . 234
Matt. xii. 24, 37, with context ; and Mark iii. 29, 30, ex
plained  ib.
The Spirit of God was bestowed before the coming of Jesus,
Luke i. 15, 41, 67, ii. 25, 26; Mark xii, 36; Matt, xxii,
43 J Luke iv. 1  237, 238
Acts- V. 3, 4 ; John XV. 26, explained  239
The plural number of nouns and pronouns in Hebrew, &c. is
often used for a singular agent or object. Gen. i. 26 ;
Deut. iv. 4 ; Exod. xxi. 4, 6 ; Isaiah vi. 8  240—242
The same rule observed in Arabic ; of which an example
from the Qoran  242
The thrice repeated term " holy" in Isaiah vi. 3, noticed . . 243
The verse which has been introduced as John v. 7, noticed. « ib.
The Trinity not taught by the Apostles  244
-This proved by Acts ii. 22, 32, 36, iii, 22, 23, iv. 12, 26,
27, V. 31, 7, [vii. 56,] viii, 37, 38, x, 38, 42, xiii. 38,
xvii.3  245, 246
Extracts from Mosheim, Vol. I. pp. 100, 411, 412, 414,
shewing that so late as the year 314 the Deity ot the Son
was not considered a fundamental article of faith . • • • 247, 249
Reason why Trinitarians prevailed at the Council of Nice . . 250
Another extract from Mosheim, p. 25. Acts xxviii. 6, and
xiv. 1 1 , quoted  250, 25 1
Other extracts from Mosheim, shewing that Polytheism was
familiar to the Christian converts of the first ages, (pp.
65,66)  •  251
The prevalence ofthe Trinity attributable only to the preju
dices of education  252
The alleged two-fold consciousness of Jesus Christ consi
dered  ib.
Moses might also be said to have a two-fold consciousness 253
Mode of reconciling apparent contradictions in Scripture . . 254
Difficulties arising from neglecting this mode  ib.
The argument drawn from the analogy of the soul, will, and
perception, to the Trinity, considered  •  255

141 Page
The argument drawn from the analogy of the sun, light, and
heat, to the Trinity, considered  256
On the argument which represents Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, as qualities of one Deity  257
The union between Father and Son compared to that be
tween the human soul and body  ib.
Argument drawn from the alleged resemblance between the
term " Son of Man" and " Son of God"  258
On the argument which represents God as a compound sub
stance  ib.
John xvii, 3 ; 1 Cor, xv. 24, viii. 6 ; Ephes. iv. 5, 6, quoted 259
Alleged necessity of the Deity of Jesus to his mediatorial
character  ib.
This opposed to common sense •  260
Opposed also to scripture ; Numbers xi. 1, 2, xiv. 1 9, 20,
xxi. 7, xxxii. 30 ; Gen, xviii. 32 ; Jeremiah xxvii, 18 ;
Deuteronomy v. 5  260, 261
The arguments of Hindoos for Polytheism more powerful
than those of Christians for the Trinity  262

APPENDIX. No. I.
On the Quotations from the Old Testament contained in the New.
Matt. ii. 15  263
 iv, 4  264
 7  ib.
 ix. 13  •   265
 xix. 19, xxii. 39  ib.
 xxi. 42  ib.
 xxii. 44  ib.
Johjix.35  266

142 Page
Matt.iv, 10 •  •.•>.  .•'..  2G6
•  ¦ sdii; 14 ... •  *  .« *  ib.
 -xix.S  «...  267
- — -^18, 19 <  '....  ib,
 xxii, 32  *..  ib.
— -^i— -37  •••• ib,
 xievi. 31  *.  »..i  ib.
Xohn vi, 45 ...•••'  i  t ..... . 268
 ¦ idii . 18 ...•...•• •  •  •  ' . . ib,
 »v%25 •  .....,,,  269
Matt, xxi. 16... ......*........  .....»..-...*  ib.
 -_ 13..>.  .,,.,i....^...  ,i ib,
 XV.- 7''--9 ••••  .«........«»»»m«»»»i.i  ib,
i^— xi,10  i  270
Lukeav. 8 •........»..*.« .•••...».*  ib.
 >- 18, 19 ...   '..••  '  ii-
These quotations- prove- the ¦subordinate' natiti-e of Jesus to
Gai ..........;......  >....  271
No. II.
On the References made to the Old Testament in Support of the
Deity of Resits,
John i. 14, compared with Isaiah ijc, 6, explained  272
Hebrews i. 8, 9, compared wilSi Psalm xiv. 6, 7, considered 284
Luke i. 16, 17, compared with Isaiah xl.3, and Malachi iii.l 285
John xii. 41, compared with Isaiah vi. 5  286
1 Cor. i. 90, compared with 'Jeremiah 'jsdii. 6 .......*.... iS,
The originarl of Jeremiah xxiii.'fi; -xxxiii. 16 ; Gfch. xxv. 26 ;'
2 Sam. ii. 16 ; Geni xvi.- 14; compared ......*..... 287, 288
Rom, xivi 10, 12, compared -with- Issdah xlv, 23  • « . • 288
2 Peter iii; 18, compared with ¦ Isaiah Xliiii 3, on the term
Saviour ••  ..¦.•,,i*.. •.;,.,.........•....." 289
John X. 16, comprared with Psalih Xxiii. I, on the term
Shepherd...  f  290

143
1 Cor. X. 9, compared with Psalm Ixxviii. 56, on tempting
Christ  291
John iii. 29, compared with Psalm [Isaiah] liv. 5, on the term
husband  292
Revelation xxii. 13, compared with Isaiah xliv. 6^ on the
phrase " Alpha and Omega"  293
Rev. xxii. 12, compared with Isaiah xl. 10, on the phrase
"My reward is with me"  296
Ephes. iv. 8, compared with Psalm Ixviii. 18, on the phrase
" Thou hast ascended on high "  ib.
John xix, 37, compared with Zechariah xii. 10, on the phrase
" whom they pierced"  297
1 Peter ii. 6 — 8, compared with Isaiah xxviii. 16, and viii.
13, 14, on the phrase " stone of stumbling," &c, . . 299, 300
The Hebrew and other Asiatic languages full of metaphor,
John X. 34— 36  301
The Deity of Moses and of David cannot be proved from
Deut. xxx. 15; 1 Chron. xxix. 20  302
Personal interest does not influence the author ; nor desire
of fame  303
Nor the hope of success  304
But reverence for the author of Christianity, and a wish to
raise it above all polytheistical systems  ib.
The author's views derived from the Scriptures  ib.
The Old Testament should be studied before the New .... 305
Locke's testimony respecting the fundamental articles of
Christianity  ib.
Extract from Sir Isaac Newton, pointing out the different
natures of God and Christ  306
Argument in favour of the Trinity, from its analogy to the
triangle, considered  ib.
Several arguments occurring in the beginning of Serle's Horae
Solitariae, considered  .'. 308
Conclusion  •••  312

144
POSTSCRIPT.
Page
Dr. Prideaux's assertion respecting the testimony of Jona
than's Targum on Isaiah ix, 6, 7, examined  313
The term "Messiah" applied to various kings  314
Quotations from several ancient Jewish commentators  ib.
On the difference of meaning between " to be called" and
"to be"  315
Passages illustrating the epithets employed in Isaiah ix. 6 •» 316
The terms " Son" and " only-begotten" incompatible with
the nature of the First Cause  ib.
The assertion respecting two sets of terms and phrases being
applied to Jesus, examined  317
No Hindoo can conscientiously prefer the doctrine of the
Trinity to Hindooism  i6-
True Christianity is free from Polytheism  318

A SECOND APPEAL.

CHAPTER I.
General Defence of the Precepts in Question.
The observations contained in No. I. of the Quar
terly Series of " The Friend of India," on the Intro
duction to " The Precepts of Jesus," as well as on
their defence, termed " An Appeal to the Christian
Public," are happily expressed in so mild and Chris
tian-like a style, that they have not only aiforded me
ample consolation for the disappointment and vexa
tion I felt from the personality conveyed in the
preceding Magazines, (Nos. 20 and 23,) but have
also encouraged me to pursue my researches after the
fundamental principles of Christianity in a manner
agreeable to my feelings, and with such respect as I
should always wish to manifest for the situation and
character of so worthy a person as the Editor of the
Friend of India.
The Reverend Editor labours in his Review to
establish two points — the truth and excellency of the
miraculous relations and ofthe dogmas found in the
Scriptural writings^— and 2ndly, the insufficiency bf

146
the compiled Precepts of Jesus alone to lead to sal
vation, unless accompanied with the important doc
trines of the Godhead of Jesus and his atonement.
As the Cqirapiler neither in his introduction to the
Precepts of Jesus, nor in his defence of those Pre
cepts, has expressed the ieast doubt as to the truth
of any part of the Gospels, the arguments adduced
by the learned Editor to demonstate the truth and
excellence of the authority on which they rest, are,
I am inclined to think, quite superfluous, and foreign
to the. matter iin question.
The only reasons -assigned by the CoKjpiler, (([in
the] Ij^trodiiotiqnj) rfqr separating the Preqepts from
j^e abstruse (loctpines and miraculous cel^tiqns of^he
N^e,w Testament j^re, ithat the former " are liable to
the jiqubts and disputes .qf freethinkers and Anti
christians, and the latter are capable at 'best ofv carry
ing little weight with .the .nativestof this part ,of the
globe, ,the iabricfited tales handed d^w" ^ them
being iof a mp^e wonderful nature."
These sentinients respecting the doctrines ,£ind
^miracles, ,fqnnded , as they are upqn undeniable facts,
do nqt, J j]|r,esume, convey any, disavowal or doubt, of
their truljh- Besides, in applying ,the term "fabri
cated" to the tales received by the credulons Hindoc^,
.the .Cqnipiler cjearjy evinced the conteniptible light
in which ,ljje viewed r^hpP^ legends; and in. stating
,t;lpi^t ;the ,niira;qles of the Scr;ip tures were ^ut^ject to
,the4oijhts qf "Freethinkers and ,4liiti9hiiistif^ps," it

147
can never fairly be supposed that he meant himself,
or any other person labouring in the promulgation di
Christianity, to be included in that class.
As to the second point urged by the Reverend
Editor, namely, that the compiled Precepts were not
sufficient to lead to salvation, I deeply regret that
the Editor should appear to have overlooked the
authority of the gracious 'author of this religion in
the several passages cited by the Compiler in his
Appeal, to prove beyond doubt the sufficiency of the
Precepts in question to procure eternal life; as it
is almost impossible that so numerous quotations,
spreading over a great part of the Appeal, could
have escaped his notice. The Reverend Editor,
while endeavouring to prove, that the compiled
Precepts would fall «hort of guiding to peace and
happiness, only illustrates by sacred authority the
truth and excellency of the miracles and the doc
trines of Christianity. But such illustration can have
no tendency to demonstate the position he endea
vours to maintain ; I am therefore under the neces
sity of repeating a few passages already quoted, with
some others, shewing that the compiled Precepts are
sufficient to conduct the human race to happiness;
and I humbly entreat to know, if I be persuaded to
believe in the divine origin of those passages, and in
the entire veracity of their author, how I am to
reccncile their authority with the position maintained
by the learned Editor, as to the insufficiency of the
Precepts of Jesus to guide to peace and happiness. —
l2

148
Matthew, ch. xxii. beginning with ver. 37 : " Jesus
said unto him. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind ; this is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments
hang all the Law and the Prophets." Mark, ch. xii.
.beginning with ver. 29 : " And Jesus answered
him. The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength : this is the first commandment. And the
second is like, namely this. Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. There is no other command
ment greater than these." Matthew, ch. vii. ver. 12:
," Therefore all things whatsoever you would that
men should do to you, do you even so to them ; for
this is the Law and the Prophets." Luke, ch. x.
from ver. 25 : " And behold, a certain lawyer stood
up and tempted him, saying. Master, what shall I do
to inherit eternal life ? He said unto him. What is
written in the Law ? How readest thou ? He an
swering said : Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy
neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him. Thou
hast answered right. This do, and thou shalt live"
Matthew, ch. vii. ver. 21 : " Not every one that
saith unto me. Lord! Lord! shall enter into the

149
kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of
my Father who is in heaven. Many will say unto
me in that day. Lord ! Lord ! have we not prophe
sied in thy name ; and in thy name have cast out
' devils ; and in thy name done many wonderful
works ? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you ; depart from me, ye that work iniquity
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,
and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man,
who built his house upon a rock ; and every one that
heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his
house upon the sand." Luke, ch. xi. ver. 27 :
" Blessed is the womb (said a certain woman to
Jesus), that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast
sucked : but he said. Yea rather, blessed are they
that hear the word of God, and keep it." John, ch.
XV. ver. 12 : " This is my commandment, that ye
love one another, as I have loved you." Ver. 17,
" These things I command you, that ye love one
another." Ch. xiii. ver. 34 : "A new command
ment I give unto you, that ye love one another ; as
I have love you, that ye also love one another :"
35, " By this shall all men know that ye are my
disciples, if ye have love one to another." Observing
those two commandments, {Matt. ch. xxii. ver. 37,
38, and 39,) selected by the Saviour as a substitute
for all the Law and the Prophets, and sufficient
means to produce peace, and happiness to mankind,
the Compiler never scrupled to follow the example

150
set forth by Jesus himself in compiling such precepts
as include those two commandments, and their sub
sidiary moral doctrines, as a true substitute of the
Gospel, without intending to depreciate the rest of the
word of God. I regret that the Reverend Editor
should have disapproved of this compilation on the
ground that " it is of importance that every compi
lation be given as a sample of the Sacred Writings
in all their excellence and importance, and not as a
substitute for the whole."
The authority of St. Paul, the most exalted among
primitive Christians, quoted by the Reverend Editor,
(page 89,) " If righteousness come by the law,
Christ is dead in vain," is.not^ I presume, adequate
to set asidej nor even applicable to the express
authority of the Author of Christianity, already
quoted; as the latter includes not only the Mosaic
law, to which St. Paul alludes^ but both law and
religion, as is evident from- the following; passages :
" Therefore all things whatever you would that men
should do to you, do you even so to men ; for this is
the Law and the Prophets." " On these two com-
Inandments (to love God and to love our neighbours);
hang all the Law and the Prophets." Every one
must admit, that the gracious Saviour meant by the
words " the Law and the Prophets/' all the divine
commandments found' in the Scriptures, obedience to
which is strictly requifed of us by the founder of
that religion. Luke, ch. xi. ver. 28 : " Blessed are
they that hear the word of God, and keep it." John,

151
ch. xiv. ver. 15 : " If you love me, keep my com
mandments." Had the manifestation of love towards
God with all our strength; and towards our neigh
bours as ourselves, been practically impossible, as
maintained by the Editor, (page 112,) or had any
other doctrines been necessary to lead to eternal life,
Jesus of Nazareth, (in whose veracity, candour, and
pei'fectiori, we have happily been persuaded to place
itnplitit confidence,) could' not, consistently with his
office as thfe Christ of God, have enjoihed the lawyer
to the obedience of those two cbirimjstndments, and
would not- have promised' him eternal life as the
reward of such obedience; (hide Luke, ch. x. ver.
28, " This do dhd thou shalt live ;") for a maii ptts-
sessed of common sense and common humanify
WOuld-not incite arfbthfer to labour in vain by attempt
ing what' was practically impossible, not" delude him
with promises of a rewatd upon conditions beyond
hi& power' to fiilfil-; much less could' a Being, in
\i^h>0«i' dwelt all triith, and' vrho was sent with a
divine laVvto giiide mankind by his preaching ahd
example, inculfeate predepts that it wa^ imjiracticable
to foUoWv Any cfcrftimandrtierit enjoining man to
loV*e God- with dlf his' heart aiad all his strength,
rfetiuires of lis' of dMirsfi to direfct otir love towards
hiitt' as the sol^ Father' of the universe; but does not
amount to a prohibition of the pursuits necessary for
life; 6t to arr abstihenee ftotn IbVe towards any other
object ; ftji* s^iieh IbVe akb is ehjoihed by the subse
quent cOrtlttiandnient-. Thei^follbwihg passages, John;

152:
ch. xiv. ver. 21, " He that hath my commandments
and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me : and he
that loveth me shall be loved of my Father ; and I
will love him, and will manifest myself to him:"
Ch. XV. ver. 10, " If ye keep my commandments,
ye shall abide in my love :" ver. 14, " Ye are my
friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you, &c.,"
and many other passages of a similar import, exhibit
clearly, that love of and adherence to Jesus can be
evinced solely by obedience to the divine command
ments. But if the observance of those command
ments be treated as practically impossible, the love of
Jesus and adherence to him must likewise be so con
sidered, and Christianity altogether regarded as ex
isting only in theory.
I appeal to the Reverend Editor himself, whether
we are to set at defiance. the express commandments
of Jesus, under the supposition that manifestation of
the love enjoined by him is practically impossible ?
Yet this we must do, if we are to adopt the position
of the Editor, found in his Review, page 111, " That
the most excellent precepts, the most perfect law,
can never lead to happiness and peace, unless by
causing men to take refuge in the doctrine of the
cross;" meaning, I presume, the doctrine of. the
vicarious sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, as an atone
ment for the sins of mankind.
As the Reverend Editor has most fairly and justly
confined himself to arguments, founded on the au
thority of the divine Teacher himself, I should hope

153
to be allowed to beg him to point out, in order to
establish his position, even a single passage pro
nounced by Jesus, enjoining a refuge in such a doc
trine ofthe cross, as all-sufficient or indispensable for
salvation ; so that his position, thus supported, may
be placed in competition with that founded on those
passages which I have quoted in the foregoing para
graph, shewing both the indispensableness and the
all-sufficiency of the excellent Precepts in question
to procure salvation ; and may impel us to endeavour
to reconcile contradictions, which would in that case
be shewn to subsist between the passages, declaring
the all-sufficiency ofthe moral precepts preached by
Christ for eternal life, and those that might be found
to announce the indispensableness of the doctrine of
the cross for everlasting happiness.
It is however evident, that the human race are
naturally so weak, and so prone to be led astray by
temptations of temporary gratifications, that the best
and wisest of them fall far short of manifesting a
strict obedience to the divine commandments, and
are constantly neglecting the duty they owe to the
Creator and to their fellow-creatures ; nevertheless,
in reliance on numerous jiromises found in the sacred
writings, we ought to entertain every hope of enjoy
ing the blessings of pardon from the merciful Father
through repentance, which is declared the only
means of procuring forgiveness of our failures. I
have already quoted some of these comforting pas
sages in my Appeal, page 110 ; but as the Reverend
Editor seems to have entirely overlooked them, and

154
omitted to notice them in any of his publieations,
I deem it necessary to repeat them here with a few
additions. Ezekiel, chap, xviii, ver. 30 : " Repent
and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so
iniquity shall not be your ruin." Luke, chap. xiii.
ver. 3 : " Except you repent, you shall all likewise
perish." Chap. xv. ver. 7 : " I say unto you, that
likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that
repenteth, more than over ninety and nine persons
who need no repentance." Matthew, chap; ix. ver.
13 : " I am not come to call the righteous, but sin
ners to repentance." Chap. iii. ver. 2, John the
Baptist prieached, saying, " Repent, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand ;" and Jesus, after his resurrec
tion, lastiy, directs his disciples, Luke, chap. xxiv.
ver. 47, " That repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem;" wherein he declares thef
remission of sins as an immediate arid necessary-
consequence of repentance.
The foregoing authorities and remarks will, I triist,
suffice with every candid reader, as my apolo^ for
persisting in the conviction, that the Precepts com
piled and published" as a guide to peace and hap
piness; though deficient in respect to speculative
doctrines and creeds, as well asrlarrative, yet contain
all' that is essential ih practical Christianity ; since
they teach us the perforWahcfe of our' dlitytoGbd
and to our fellow-creatures, and the most' aeceptablfei
atonement on our part to the AU'-merCiful, when \^e
have fallen short' of that dutjr.

155

CHAPTER II.
Natural Inferiority of the Son to the Father.
In endeavouring to prove what he represents as
" the most abstruse, and yet the most important of
doctrines, the Deity of Jesus Christ," the Reverend
Editor advances seven positions : 1st, that Jesus
was possessed of ubiquity, an attribute peculiar to
God alone. 2dly, That he declared that a know
ledge of his nature was equally incomprehensible
with that of the nature of God. 3rdly, That he ex
ercised the power of forgiving sins, the peculiar pre
rogative of God. 4thly, That he claimed almighty
power, " in the most unequivocal manner." 5thly,
That his heavenly Father had committed to him the
final judgment of all who have lived since the
creation. 6thly, That he received worship due to
God alone- 7thly, That he associated his own name
with that of God the Father in the sacred rite of
baptism. — ^The facts on which the Editor labours to
establish these positions, however, seem to me, upon
an impartial examination, not only unfavourable to
his inference^ but even confirmatory of the opposite
opinion. For admitting for a moment that the posi
tions of the Editor are well founded, and that the
Saviour was in' possession of attributes and powers

156
ascribed to God ; have we not his own express and
often-repeated avowal, that all the powers he mani
fested were committed to him as the Son, by the
Father of the Universe ? And does not reason force
us to infer, that a Being who owes to another all his
power and authority, however extensive and high,
should be in reality considered inferior to that other ?
Surely, therefore, those who believe God to be Su
preme, possessing the perfection of all attributes,
independently of all other beings, must necessarily
deny the identity of Christ with God : as the sun,
although he is the most powerful and most splendid
of all known created things, the greatest immediate
source of life and enjoyment in this world, has yet
no claim to be considered identical in nature with
God, who has given to the sun all the light and ani
mating warmth which he sheds on our globe. To
effect a material change without the aid of physical
means, is a power peculiar to God ; yet we find this
power exercised by several of the prophets on whom
the gift of miracles was bestowed. Besides, it is
evident, from the first chapter of Genesis, that in the
beginning of the creation God bestowed on man his
own likeness, and sovereignty over all living crea
tures. Was not his own likeness and that dominion
peculiar to God, before mankind were made partakers
of them ? Did God then deify man by such mark
of distinction ?
The following passages, I presume, suffice to illus
trate the entire dependence of the Son on God, and

157
his inferiority and subjection to, and his living by,
him. St. John, chap. x. vers. 17 and 18 : " Therefore
doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life,
that I might takfe it again. No man taketh it from
me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to
lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This
commandment have I received qf my Father." Chap.
xii. ver. 49 : " For I have not spoken of myself; but
the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment
what I should say, and what I should speak." Chap.
xiv. ver, 31 : " But that the world may know that
I love the Father, and as the Father gave me com
mandment, even so I do." Chap, xvii, vers. 1 and 2,
Jesus in his prayer—" Glorify thy Son, that thy
Son also may glorify thee ; as thou hast given him
power over all fiesh, that he should give eternal life
to as many as thou hast given him." John, chap. iii.
ver. 35 : " The Father loveth the Son, and hath
given all things into his hand." Chap. v. ver. 19 :
" The Son can do nothing qf himself, but what he
seeth the Father do," &c. : 22, " For the Father
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son." 30 : " / can qf mine own self do
nothing : as I hear I judge ; and my judgment is
just ; because / seek not my own will, but the will of
the Father who hath sent me," Chap. vi. ver. 37 :
" All that the Father giveth me shall come to me,"
&c. 38 : " For I came down from heaven, not to do
mine own will, but the will qf him that sent me."
Chap. viii. ver. 28 : " That I do nothing of myself;

158
hut as my Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." Ver. 50: "I seek not my own glory;
there is one that seeketh and judgeth." Chap. xiv.
ver. 24 : " The word which ye hear is not mine, but
the Father's /which sent me." Ver. 31 : "As the
Father gave me commandment, even so I do." And
after his resurrection Jesus saith, ch. xx. ver. 21,
" As my Father hath sent me, even so send I yqu."
Ver. 17: "I ascend unto my Father and your Far
ther, to my God and ^our God." Matthew, ch. xii.
ver. 18, from Isaiah : " Behold my servant, whom
I have chosen ; my beloved, in whom my soul is
well pleased ; I will put my spirit upon him, and he
shall shew judgment to the Gentiles." Ch. xxviii.
ver. 18: "And Jesus came and spoke unto them,
saying. All power is given unto me in heaven and
in earth." Luke, ch. i. yer. 32 : "He shall be .great,
and shall be called the Son qf the Highest : and the
Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his
father David." For testimony that he lived by the
Fatlier, see John vi. 57 : " As the living Father
hath sent me, and I live by the Father," &c. Ch.
v. ver. 26 : " For as the Father hath life in him
self, so hath he given to the Son to have hfe in
himself." As the Reverend Editor in two instances quoted,
perhaps inadvertently, the authority of the Apostles,
I think myself justified in introducuig some of the
sentiments entertained by them on this subject,
though I should be contented to deduce my argu-

159
ments, as proposed by the Editor, exclusively from
the direct authority of Jesus himself. I shall confine
myself to the quotation of one or two texts from the
Epistles. of St. Paul. 1st Corinthians, ch. xv. vers.
24 — 28: "Then cometh the end, when he shall
have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father. ;For he must reign till he hath put all
enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be
destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under
his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under
hini, it is manifest that ,Ae is excepted which did
put, all things under him- And when all things shall
be subdued unto him, then ^shall the Son also himsei
be subject unto him that put all things under him,
that God may be all iin all." Cohssians, ch. i. ver.
15 : " Who is the :image of the invisible God, the
Jirst-bom of every creature."
From a due attention to the purport ofthe above-
quoted texts, and to the term Son, distinctly men
tioned in them, the reader will, I trust, be con
vinced, that those powers were conferred on Jesus,
and declared by himself to have been received by
him froin the (Father, as the Messiah, Christ, or
anointed Son of Gqd, and not solely in his human
capacity ; and ,thfit such .intecpretation as declares
these and other passages of a similar effect to be
applicable to Jesus as a man, ;is an unscriptural in
vention. Jesus spoke of himself throughout all the
Scriptures only as the promised Messiah, vested with
high glory from the beginning .of the world. John,

160
I
ch. xvii. ver. 5 : "And now, O Father, glorify thou
me with thine own self, with the glory which I had
with thee before the world was." In this passage,
with the same breath with which he prays for glory,
he identifies the nature in which he does so with
that under which he lived with God before the crea
tion of the world, and of course before his assuming
the office of the Messiah. Ver. 24 : " Father, I will
that they also whom thou hast given me he with me
where I am ; that they may behold my glory, which
thou hast given me : for thou lovedst me before the
foundation of the world," Here again Jesus prays,
that his Apostles may witness such honour as the
Father had bestowed on him, even before the foun
dation of the world. Ch. ix. vers. 35 — 37 : " Dost
thou" (says Jesus to a man who had been blind)
" believe on the Son of God P He answered and
said. Who is he. Lord, that I might believe on him ?
And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him,
and it is he (the Son of God) that talketh with thee,"
Ch. xvii. vers. 1, 2 : " Father, glorify thy Son; as
thou hast given Mm power over all flesh, that he
should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given
him," John the Baptist, who bore witness of Christ,
looked not upon him in any other view than as the
Son of God. St. John, ch. i. ver. 34 : " And I saw
and bare record," (said John the Baptist, pointing
out the person of Jesus,) ." that this is the Son qf
God," John, ch. viii. ver. 42 : "I proceeded forth
and came from God ; neither came I qf myself, but

161
he sent me." And in numerous passages Jesus de
clares, that, before he assumed the office of the Mes
siah in this world, he was entirely subject to and
obedient to the Father, from whom he received the
commission to come to this world for the salvation
of mankind. But apparently with the very view of
anticipating any misapprehension of his nature on
the part of his disciples, to whom he had declared
the wonderful extenfcsf the powers committed to him
by the Father, he tells them, John, ch. xiv. ver. 28,
*' The Father is greater than I." It would haye been
idle to have informed thern of a truth, of which as
Jews they would never have entertained the smallest
question, that in his mere corporeal nature Jesus was
inferior to his Maker; and it must therefore have
been his spiritual nature, of which he here avowed
the inferiority tq that of God.
" The Son" is a term which, when used without
being referred to another proper name found in the
context, implies invariably the Son of God through
out the whole New Testament, especially when asso
ciated with the epithet " The Father ;" so the latter
epithet, when it stands alone, signifies " the Father
of the universe." Matthew, ch. xxviii. ver. 19 : " Go
ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost." Ch. xi. ver. 27: "No man
knoweth the Son but the Father," &c. Vide rest of
the Gospel,— It is true, indeed, that the angels of
God and some of the ancients of the human race, as
M

162
well as the' children of Israel, are honoured in the
sacred writings with the name of " Sons of God."
J6b, ch. i. ver. 6 : " There was a day when the sons
of God came to present themselvies before the Lord."
Genesis, ch. vi. ver. 2 : "The sons of God saw the
daughters of men, that they wete fair." Hosea, ch.
i. ver. 10 : " Then it shall be said untb thern, ye are
the sons of the living God." Yet the epithet " Son
of Gdd," with the definite article jjrefixed, is appro
priated to Christ, the first-born of every creature, as
a distinct mark of honOur which he alone deserves.
The Savioui- having declared that unity existed
between the Father and himself, JbAw, ch. x. ver. 30,
" I and my Father are one," a doubt arose with re
gard to the sense in which the Unity affirmed in those
words should be accepted. This Jesus removes by
defining the unity so expressed as a subsisting con
cord of will and design, such as existed amongst his
Apostles, and not identity^ of being : vide ch. xvii.
ver. Il,' of John, " Holy Father, keep through thine
own name those whom thou hast given, me, that they
may be one, as we are" Ver. 22 : " The glory which
thou gavest me I have given them ; that they may
be one, even as we are one" Should any one under
stand by these texts real unity and identity, he must
believe that there existed a similar identity between
each and all of the Apostles; — nay, even that the
disciples also were included in the Godhead, which
in that case would consist of a great many times the
number of persons ascribed to the Trinity. John,

163
ch. xvii. vers. 20 — 23 : " Neither pray I for these
alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word — That they all may be one ; as
thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also
may be one in us. — That they may be one, even as
we are one. I in them, and thou in me : that they
may be made perfect in one." I know not how it is
possible for those who profess obedience to the word
of Christ to overlook the explanation he has here so
clearly given of the nature of the unity existing be
tween him and the Father, and to adopt a contrary
system apparently introduced by some Heathen
writers to suit their polytheistical prejudices ; but I
doubt not the Editor of the Friend of India will
admit the necessity of giving preference to divine
authority over any humati opinion, however prevail
ing it may be.
The Saviour meant unity in design and will by the
assertion also, that he was in God, or dwelt in God,
and God in him. John, ch. x. ver. 38 : " That ye
may know, and believe, that the Father is in me,
and I in him," as evidently appears from the follow
ing passages : — John, ch. xiv. ver. 20 : " At that day
ye shall know," (addressing his Apostles,) " that I am
in my Father, and ye in me, and Iin you." Ch. xvii.
ver. 21 : " That they all may be one ; as thou. Fa
ther, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be
one in us." John, ch. vi. ver. 56 : " He that eateth
my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and
I in him." 1 John, ch. iv. ver. 15 : " Whosoever
M 2

164
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God — God
dwelleth in him, and he in God." There appear but
three modes in which such passages are capable of
interpretation. 1st, As conveying the doctrine that
the Supreme Being, the Son, and the Apostles, were
to be absorbed mutually as drops of water into one
whole ; which is conformable to the doctrines of that
sect of Hindoo Metaphysicians who maintain, that
in the end the human soul is absorbed into tiie
Godhead ; but is quite inconsistent with the faith of
all denominations of Christians. 2dly, As proving
an identity of nature, with distinction of person,
between the Father, the Son, and the Apostles ; — a
doctrine equally inconsistent with the belief of every
Christian, as multiplying the number of persons of
the Godhead far beyond what has ever been pro
posed by any sect : or 3dly, As expressing that unity
which is said to exist wherever there are found per
fect concord, harmony, love, and obedience, such as
the Son evinced towards the Father, and taught the
disciples to display towards the divine will.— ^That
the language of our Saviour can be understood in
this last sense solely, will, I trust, be readily acknow
ledged by exifery candid expounder of the sacred
writings, as being the only one alike warranted by
the common use of words, and capable of apprehen
sion by the human understanding. Had not expe
rience, indeed, too clearly proved that such metapho
rical expressions, when taken singly and without
attention to their contexts, may be made the founda-

165
tion of doctrines quite at variance with the tenor of
the rest of the Scriptures, I should have had no hesi
tation in submitting indiscriminately the whole of the
doctrines of the New Testament to my countrymen ;
as I should have felt no apprehension that even the
most ignorant of them, if left to the guidance of their
own unprejudiced views of the matter, could mis
conceive the clear and distinct assertions they every
where contain of the unity ofGod and subordinate
nature of his messenger Jesus Christ. Many of these
have been already quoted ; to which may be added
the following : John, ch. xvii. ver. 3 : " This is life
eternal, that they might know thee the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom ihou hast sent." Here
Jesus in addressing the Father declares, that the
means to be afforded for eternal salvation, were a
knowledge of God, and of himself as the anointed
messenger of God. Also, ch. xix. ver. 17, Christ
saith, "Why callest thou me good? there is none
good but one, that is God." Here Jesus, pure as
he was and without reproach, thinks^ it necessary to
check the man who applies to him an epithet justly
due to God only. Ch. xiv, ver. 1 : " Let not your
heart be troubled : ye beUeve in God ; believe ako
in me."^ In these words Jesus commands his disciples
to put their trust in God,, and. further to believe in
hini as the Messenger ofGod ; and thus plainly dis
tinguishes himself from the Godhead. Nor can it
for a moment be understood by the following passage,
John, ch. xiv. ver. 9, " He that hath seen me hath

166
seen the Father," that God was literally and mate
rially visible in the Son — a doctrine which would be
directly contrary to the spirit of the religion taught
by Jesus, and by all the prophets of God. Vide
John, ch. iv. ver. 24 : " God is a Spirit." The Apos
tles also maintained a belief of the immateriality and
invisibility of God. 1 Tim. ch. vi. ver. 16 : " Whom
no man hath seen nor can see." 1 John, ch. iv.
ver. 12: "No man hath seen God at any time."
Besides, Jesus explains himself in the two passages
immediately succeeding, that by the phrase, " He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father," he meant
only that whosoever saw him and the wOrks per
formed by him, witnessed pi-oofs of the entire concord
of his words and actions with the will ahd design of
the Father, and ought therefore to have admitted the
truth of his mission from God. John, ch. xiv. ver. 9 :
" He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. How
sayest thou then. Shew us the Father?" Ver. 10:
" Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and
the Father in me ? The words that I speak unto
you I speak not of myseilf ; but the Father, that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Ver. 11 :
" Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father
in me : or else believe me for the very works' sake."
We have already seen in what sense the expression
"dwelleth in me" must be understood, unless we
admit that all true followers of Christ are admitted
as portions of the Godhead. John, ch. vi. ver. 56 :
" He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood.

167
dwelleth in me, and I in him*" 1 John, ch. iv. ver.
12 : " If we love one another, God dwelleth in us."
For, my conviction, and for the satisfaction of those
who consider the Precepts of Jesns as a guide to
peace and happiness, his word, " They may be one
as we are," John, ch. xvii, ver. 11, in defining the
nature qf the unity between God and Jesus, fully
suffices. Pisgnsted with the puerile and unsociable
system of Hindoo idolatry, and dissatisfied at the
cruelty allowed by Moossulmanism, against Npn-
moossulmans, I, on ,niy searching after the truth of
Chiistianity, felt, for a length pf time very much per
plexed with the difference of sentiments found among
the followers of Christ, (I mean Trinitarians and
Unitarians, the grand divisions of them,) until I njet
withthe explanation ofthe unity given by the divine
Teacher himself as a guide to peace and happiness.
Besides, when the Jews misunderstood the phrase
used by the Savixjur, " I and my Father are one,"
and accused him of blasphemy^ {ch, x. ver. 33, " Bnt
for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man,
makest thyself God,") Jesus, in answer to the acpu-
sa.tion, jdenied having made himself God, saying,
vers. 34r-^3fi, "Is it not -written in your Law, I said.
Ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, untojwhqm
the word of God eame, and the Scripture cannot be
broken ; say ye of \nm whom the Father hath sanc-
.tified, and sent into .the world. Thou blasphemest;
because Isedd, lam the Son of God?" H^w was

168
it possible that Jesus, the founder of truth and true
religion, should have disavowed the charge of making
himself God by representing himself as the Son,
honoured with sanctification hy the Father, and sent
hy him to this world, if he were the true living God,
possessed of everlasting sanctification, independently
of another being ? From this and all other local evi
dence the Pharisees and chief priests, though invete
rate enemies of the Saviour, accused him to Pilate erf
having made himself the Son of God and King of the
Jews ; but relinquished the charge of making himsetf
equal to God, or having ascribed to himself divine
nature ; although the latter (i. e. making himself
God) was better calculated to excite the horror of
the people. Vide John, ch. xix. ver. 7 : " The Jews
answered him. We have a law, and by our law he
ought to die ; because he made himself the Son of
God." Vide Matthew, ch. xxvii. ver. 37 : " And set
up over his head his accusation written. This is Jesus,
the King of the Jews." 43 : " He trusted in
God ; let him deliver him now, if he will have him :
for he said, I am the Son of God." That the epithet
God is frequently appHed in the sacred Scriptures
otherwise than to the Supreme Being, as pointed out
by Jesus, may be shewn by the following out of
many instances to be found in the Bible. Deut.
ch, X, ver, 17 : " For the Lord your God is God of
Gods, and Lord of Lords," &c. Ch, xxxii. ver. 21 :
^ They have moved me to jealousy with that which

169
is not God." Exodus, ch. xxii. ver. 28 : " TTwu
shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy
people." Joshua, ch. xxii. ver. 22 : " The Lord God
qf Gods knoweth." Psalm Ixxxii. ver. 1 : " God
standeth in the congregation ofthe mighty; he judgeth
among the Gods." 6 : "I have said. Ye are Gods;
and all of you are children of the Most High." Ps.
cxxxvi. ver. 2 : " O give thanks unto the God of
¦ Gods." Isaiah, ch. xli. ver. 23 : " Shew the things
that are to come hereafter, that we may know that
ye are Gods" Psalm xcvii. ver. 7 : " Worship him,
all ye Gods." Zephaniah, ch. ii. ver. 11 : " He will
famish all the Gods qf the earth." Exodus, ch. iv.
ver. 16 : " God said to Moses, that he should be to
Aaron instead of God." Ch. vii. ver. 5 : " See, /
have made thee a God to Pharaoh." Also 1 Corinth.
ch. viii. ver. 5 : "As there be Gods many and Lords
many;" and the verse already quoted from John,
ch. X. vers. 34, 35 : " Jesus answered. Is it not
written in your Law, Ye are Gods ? If he call them
Gods, to whom the word (f God came," &c. In none
of these instances is it in any degree admissible, that
by the epithet God it is implied, that the human
beings to whom it was attached were thereby de
clared to be a portion of the Godhead. Moses was
to be as a God to Aaron and a God to Pharaoh, by
the express command of the Almighty ; but no
Christian will thence argue the equality of Moses
with the Father of all things. On what principle.

170
then, can any stress be laid in defence of the deity of
the Son on the prophetic expression quoted in He
brews from Psalm xiv. ver. 6, " Thy throne, O God,
is for ever and ever ;" especially when we find in the
very next verse, words that declare his subordinate
nature ; " Thqu lovest righteousness and hatest wick
edness : therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows"? We
cannot allow much weight to the phrase " for ever,".
as establishing literally the eternal nature of the
power of the Son, this phrase being often found me
taphorically applied in fhe Scriptures to other created
beings : as proverbs, ch. xxix. ver. ,14 : '^ The ,king
that faithfully judgeth the poor, hjs throne shall be
established for ever." Deut. ch. iv. vef . 40 : " And
that thou mayest prolong thy days in the earth,
which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever."
Similar to this is the remarkable expression of Jesns
to Mary after his resurrection, and therefore at a
time when no design can be conceived to have ex
isted that could have been advanced by his any longer
withholding the knowledge ©f his true nature, if jany
thing remained unrevealed during the previous period
-pf his mission on earth. John, ch. xx, ver. 17 : " Go
to my brethren,, and say unto them, I ascend unto
my Father and your Father, ahd to my God and
your Go4"
After a slight attention to the terms Lord and
God being often applied to men in the Saci-ed

171
Writings, can any weight be allowed to the exclama
tion of the astonished disciple, John, ch. xx. ver. 28,
" My Lord and my God ;" especially as the apostle
who relates the circumstance, within a few verses
concludes by saying, ver. 31, " These are written
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christy the
Son of God" but nowhere desires the readers of
his Gospel to believe that Jesus is God ? Does not
common sense point out the inferiority and subordi
nation of a Being, though called God, to one who is
at the same time declared to be Ms God, his Father,
A^V Sanctifier, and his Promoter to the state of ex-
ailtation? The passage, John, ch. i, ver. 1, " The Word was
God, and the Word was with God," which contains
the term God twice, may, according to such use of the
term, be interpreted without involving inconsistence
with itself, or the contradiction which it apparently
irriplies with another most decisive passage in Deut,
ch. xxxii. ver. 39, where Moses representeth God as
declaring, that with him there is no God : " See now
that I, even I am he ; and there is no God with me;"
if it should be understood to signify in both instances
the Supreme Deity. Should we follow on the other
hand the interpretation adopted by Trinitarian Chris
tians, namely, that the Godhead, though it is one,
yet consists of three persons, and consequently one
substance of the Godhead might abide with the
other, both being equally God ; we should in that

172
case be forced to view the Godhead in the same light
as we consider mankind and ether genera, for no
doubt can exist of the unity of mankind : — the plu
rality of men consists in their persons ; and there
fore we may safely, under the same plea, support the
unity of man, notwithstanding the plurality of per
sons included under the term mankind. In that
case also Christians ought in conscience to refrain
from accusing Hindoos of Polytheism; for every
Hindoo we daily observe confesses the unity of the
Godhead. They only advance a plausible excuse
for their Polytheism, which is, that notwithstanding
the unity of the Godhead, it consists of millions of
substances assuming different offices correspondent to
the number ofthe various transactions superintended
in the universe by Divine Providence, which they
consider as infinitely more numerous than those of
the Trinitarian scheme.
The Saviour in his appeal, " If I do not the works
of my Father believe me not," John, ch. x. ver. 37,
meant of course the performance of works prescribed
by the Father, and tending to his glory. A great
number of passages in the Scriptures, a few of which
I have already cited, and the constant practice of the
Saviour, illustrate this fact beyond doubt. In raising
Lazarus after he had died, Jesus prayed to the Father
for the power of bringing him to life again, and
thanked him for his compliance. John, ch. xi. ver.
41 : " And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said. Father,

173
I thank thee that thou hast heard me." Besides, in
declaring that whosoever believed [in] him would do
not only the works he performed, but even works of
greater importance, Jesus can never be supposed to
have promised to such believers equality in power
with God, or to have exalted them above himself.
John, ch. xiv. ver. 12 : " Verily, verily, I say unto
you. He that believeth on me, the works that I do
shall he do also, and greater works than these shall
he do." Ch. vi. ver. 29 : " Jesus answered and said
unto them. This is the work of God, that ye believe
on him whom he hath sent." It must be admitted
that one, who can perform works of God indepen
dently of the Deity, is either greater than or equal in
power to the Almighty. The wonderfiil works which
Jesus was empowered to perform drew a great num
ber of the Jews to a belief in Jesus as the promised
Messiah, and confirmed his apostles in their already
acquired faith in the Saviour, and in the entire union
of will and design that subsisted between him and
the Father, as appears from the following passages :
John, ch. vi. ver. 14, " Then those men, when they
had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a
truth that Prophet that should come into the world"
See also John, ch. x. ver. 21.
The Scriptures indeed in several places declare,
that the Son was superior even to the angels in
heaven, living from the beginning of the world to
eternity, and that the Father created all things by

174
him and for ^im. At the same time I must, in
conformity to those very authorities, believe him as
produced by the Supreme Deity among created
beings. John!, ch. v. ver. 26 : " For as the Father
hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself." Cohssians, ch. i. ver. 15 :
" Who is the image of the invisible God, the^r*^-
bom of every creature"

175

CHAPTER III.
Separate consideration of the Seven Positions ofthe
Reviewer.
In attempting to support his first position, that
Jesus was possessed of ubiquity, the Reverend Editor
has quoted two passages. The first is, St. John, ch.
iii. ver. 13 : " No man has ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son
of man who is in heaven ;" wherein Jesus, as the
Editor conceives, declares his location both in heaven
and on the earth at one time. The Editor rests
entirely the force of his argument upon the term
" is," in the above phrase " who is in heaven," as
signifying the presence of Jesus in heaven while he
was conversing with Nicodemus on earth. This
argument might perhaps carry some weight with it,
were not the frequent use of the present tense in a
preterite or fiiture sense observed in the Sacred
Writings, and were not a great number of other
passages to determine that the term " is," in this
instance, must be understood in the past sense.
John, ch. viii, ver. 58 : " Jesus said unto them.
Verily, verily, I say unto you. Before Abraham was,
/ am." Here the same verb, though found in the
form of the present tense, must obviously be taken in
a preterite sense, John, ch. ix. ver. 8 : " His disci-

176
pies say unto him. Master, the Jews of late sought to
stone thee, &c.;" that is. His disciples said unto
him. Ver. 38 : " Jesus therefore again groaning in
himself cometh to the grave," i. e. he came to the
grave. Matthew, ch. xxvi. ver. 2 : " Ye know that
after two days is the feast erf" the passover, and the
Son of man is betrayed to be crucified ;" that is, the
Son of man is to be betrayed and to be crucified.
Vide the remainder of the chapter. John, ch. xiii.
ver. 6 : "Then cometh he to Simon Peter, &c.;" that
is, he came to Simon Peter, &c. Again, John, ch.
xvi. ver. 32 : " That ye shall be scattered, every man
to his own, and shall leave me alone : yet / am not
alone:" i. e, yet I shall not be alone. So in all the
prophecies contained in the Old, as well as in the
New Testament, the fiiture tense must frequently be
understood where the terms used are those gramma
tically appropriated to the preterite : as Matthew, ch.
ii. ver. 18, " In Rama was there a voice heard," that
is, will there be a voice heard. Ver. 15, " Out of
Egypt have I called my Son," i. e. I will call my
Son. After a diligent attention to the following pas
sage, no orie will, I presume, scruple to conclude that
the Son was actually absent from heaven during his
locality on the earth, and consequently the phrase
quoted by the Editor is applicable only to the past
time. John, ch. vi. ver. 62 : " What and if ye shall
see the Son of man ascend up where he was before."
The verb was, accompanied with the term before in
this passage, positively implies the absence of Jesus

177
from heaven during his stay on the earth. Ch. xvi.
ver. 7 : " Nevertheless I tell you the truth ; it is ex
pedient for you that I go away. If I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you ; but if / depart,
I will send him unto you." Ver. 5 : " But now I go
my way to him that sent me." Ver. 28 : " / came
forth from the Father, and am come into the world :
again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." Ch.
xiii. ver. 36 : " Jesus answered him. Whither / go,
thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow
me afterwards." Ch. xiii. ver. 1 : " Jesus knew that
his hour was come that he should depart out of this
world unto the Father." For further conviction I
may safely refer even to the preceding terms of the
verse relied on by the Editor : — " No man hath
ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
heaven, even the Son of man." For the attribute of
omnipresence is quite inconsistent with the human
notions of the ascent and descent effected by the
Son of man. Is it possible to reconcile the contents
of hundreds of such passages, consistent with reason
and conformable to the established order of interpre
tation, to the apparent meaning of a single phrase,
that, taken literally, is totally opposed to common
sense ? For to a being named the Son or the created,
(the one term implying the other,) and sent from one
mansion to another, the attribute of ubiquity can
never be justly ascribed.
Besides, in examining the original Greek Testa
ment, we find in the phrase in question, " Who is
N

178

in heaven," that the present participle mv, " being,"
is used in lieu of ia-r), "is," viz. 'O lov eu rtS e^oiviS;
a true translation of which should be, " the ens" or
" being in heaven :" and as the nominative case o mv,
" the being," requires a verb to complete the sense, it
should be connected with the nearest verb dvaSiSi^xev,
" hath ascended," no other verb in fact existing in
the sentence.
The whole verse in the original runs thus : Ka*
abeig aj/abebijxgv eig tov s^avov ei jxij « L^xJ Toy a^avs
xaraSaSi o ^'f^S TotJ dv^qwTra 6 wv Iv rm sqavw. A ver
bal translation of the above would run thus : " And
no one hath ascended into heaven, if not the out
of heaven descender,-^— the Son of man— ^the being
in heaven ;" which words, arranged according to
the rules of English grammar, should run thus:
" And no one, except the descender from heaven, the
Son of man, the being in heaven, hath ascended into
heaven." In this case the presence of the Son in
heaven must be understood as referring to the time
of his ascent, and not to that of his addressing him
self to Nicodemus — an explanation which, though it
does not serve to estabhsh the omnipresence of the
Son urged by the Editor, ought to be satisfactory to
an impartial mind.* The second passage which the
* See Bishop Middleton'a " Doctrine of the Greek Article,"
Part I. page 42, Note : " We are to refer the time of the partici
ple to the time of the act, &c. implied in the verb ; for past, pre
sent, and future cannot he meant otherwise than in respect to that
act." Leviticus, ch. vii. ver. 23 [33] : 'o legtttr^ilfm—ct.vTif Icttoi S

179
Editor quotes on this subject is, Matthew, ch. xviii.
20 : " For where two or three are gathered together
in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Is it
not evident that the Saviour meant here, by being in
the midst of two or three of his disciples, his guidance
to them when joined in searching for the truth,
without preferring any claim to ubiquity ? We find
similar expressions in the Scriptures, wherein the
guidance of the Prophets of God is also meant by
words that would imply their presence. Luke, ch.
xvi. ver. 29 : " Abraham saith unto him. They have
Moses and the Prophets ; let them hear them." No
one will suppose that this expression is intended to
signify that the Jews actually had Moses and the
Prophets in person among them, or that they could
hear them speak in the literal and not in the figura
tive sense of the words ; nor can any one deduce the
omnipresence of Moses and the Prophets from such
expressions. fipaxloiy 0 Ssfioi, " The offering (person) for him shall be the right
shoulder." Ch. xiv. ver. 47 : 'O ea-Sray — ithiveT ret l/idTux livTov,
" The eating (person) shall wash his clothes." These present
participles are referred to a time present with respect to the act
of the verbs connected with them ; but future with respect to the
command of God. John, ch. i. ver. 49 : "Ovtos — a%iv <rc, " I saw
thee when thou wast." Moreover, we frequently find the pre
sent participle used in a past sense, even without reference to the
time of the verb. John, ch. ix. ver. 25 : tvifi^oi; ay apn 0Keicu,
" Being blind now I see," that is, " Having been blind now I
.see."
n2

180
The second position advanced by the Reverend
Editor is, that " Jesus ascribes to himself a know
ledge and an incomprehensibility of nature equal
to that of God, and peculiar to God alone ;" and in
attempting to substantiate this point he quotes Mat
thew, ch. xi. ver. 27, " No man knoweth the Son,
but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the
Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
will reveal him." Here the Editor seems to rest on
two grounds ; 1st, That God is incomprehensible to
man ; 2ndly, That incomprehensibility of nature is
peculiar to God alone: — whence the Rev. Editor
draws his inference, that Jesus knowing the nature of
God, and being himself possessed of an incomprehen
sible nature, is equal with God. Now I should wish
to know if the Editor, by the term " incomprehen
sible," understands a total impossibility of compre
hension in any degree,: or only the impossibility of
attaining to a perfect knowledge of God. If the
former, I must be under the necessity of denying
such a total incomprehensibility of the Godhead ;
for the very passage cited by the Editor, declares
God to be comprehensible not to the Son alone,
but also -to every one who would receive revelation
from the Son ; and in this case the latter part of the
passage, " He to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,"
must be acknowledged as conveying an exception to
the assertion made in the former part of the sentence,
" Neither knoweth any man the Father," &c.

181
We find also the following passages in John, ch.
xiv. vers. 16, 17: " And I will pray the Father, and
he shall give you another Comforter, that he may
abide with you for ever : even the Spirit of truth ;
whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth
him not, neithei- knoweth him : but ye know him;" —
wherein Jesus ascribes to his disciples a knowledge
of the Holy Ghost, whom the Editor considers one
of the persons of the Godhead, possessed of the same
nature with God. But if the Editor understands by
the passage he has quoted, the incomprehensibi
lity of the real nature of the Godhead, I admit the
position, but deny his inference, that such an incom
prehensibility proves the nature of the object to be
divine, as being peculiar to God alone : for it appears
evident that a knowledge of the real nature even of
a common leaf, or a visible star, surpasses human
comprehension; how then can a simple assertion,
setting forth thc; incomprehensibility of an object,
be considered as establishing its identity with God ?
In Mark, ch. xiii. ver. 32, " But of that day and
that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels, which
are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," we
have a passage, which, though it affirms in a stronger
manner an ignorance of the day of resurrection than
that already quoted does of God, yet will hot, I pre
sume, be considered by any one as conveying the
slightest insinuation of the divine nature of that day ;
though time is a common object of adoration amongst
idolaters. In treating of this point the Editor quotes.

182
another te^, -Matthew, ch. xi. ver. 28, " Come unto
me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest " wherein Jesus declares his power
of affording rest, which the Editor considers as pecu
liar to God. All the prophets, as well as Jesus, were
from time to time sent by the Almighty to afford
mental rest to mankind, by imparting to them the
comforts of divine revelation ; and by so doing they
onfy fulfilled the commission given them by God :
but no one ever supposed that in so doing they
established claims to be considered incarnations of
the Divine essence. Proverbs, ch. xxix. ver. 17 :
" Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest ; yea,
he shall give delight unto thy soul." Revelation
guides us to a sure belief, that it is God that affords
peace of mind, effects cures of the body, and bestows
all sorts of comforts on his creatures. " I thank
thee," (says Jesus, Matthew, ch. xi. ver. 25,) " O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast
hid these things from the wise and prudent, and
hast revealed them unto babes." Both our percep
tions, indeed, and sacred authorities point out, that
he lavishes all these gifts on us through prophets,
physicians, and other physical causes, that are not
considered by any sect as trf" a divine nature.
The third position is, that Jesus exercised in an
independent manner, the prerogative of forgiving
sins, which is peculiar to God alone ; and the Reve-
rajd Editor quotes the passage, Mark, ch. ii. ver. 5,
" Thy sins be fbi^ven thee ;" and the 9th verse.

183
" For whether is it easier to say. Thy sins be for
given thee, or to say. Arise and walk ?" Taking those
texts as the grounds of his position, I therefore beg
to call the attention of the Editor to the passage
almost immediately following, in which the evange
lical writer intimates, that this power of forgiving
sins, as well as of healing men, was given by the
Almighty : " But when the multitude saw it, they
marvelled, and glorified God, who had given such
power unto men," Does not this passage convey an
express declaration, that Jesus was as much depen
dent on God in exercising the power of forgiving
sins and healing the sick, as the prophets who came
forth from God before him? The apostles, who
witnessed the power of forgiving sins in the Saviour,
were thoroughly impressed with a belief that it was
the Almighty Father who forgave sins through the
Son. Acts, ch. v. vers. 31, 32 : " Him hath God
exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a
Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgive
ness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these
things." Ch. xiii. ver. 38 : " Be it known, there
fore, men and brethren, that through tMs man,
(meaning the Saviourj) is preached unto you the /br-
giveness of sins" I know not how far religious zeal
in the breasts of many ofthe followers of Christ may
excuse them in encroaching upon the prerogatives
which revelation and reason ascribe to the Divine
Majesty alone ; but Jesus himself clearly avows, that
the power of forgiving sins had its source aad origin

184
in God alone, as appears from his petitioning the
Father to forgive those that, were guilty of bringing
the death of the. cross upon him, the greatest of all
imaginable crimes. Luke, ch. xxiii. ver. 34 : " Fa
ther, forgive them," (says Jesus,) " for they know
not what they do ;" ahd from his directing all those
that followed him to pray the Father alone for for
giveness of sins. Luke, ch. xi. ver. 4 : " And for
give us our sins." Matthew, ch. vi. ver. 14 : " If ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father
will forgive you."
The fourth position advanced by the Editor is,
that " Almighty power is also claimed by Jesus in
the most unequivocal manner." In endeavouring to
demonstrate this, the Editor notices three passages of
John, (ch. V. vers. 21 — 23,) " As the Father raiseth
up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son
quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth
no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the
Son : that all men should honour the Son, even as
they honour the Father." A candid inquirer after
truth must, I think, feel surprised and disappointed,
that in quoting these texts, the Editor should have
overlooked the force of the words, in which the Son
declares that he hath received the commission to
judge from the Father : " For the Father judgeth no
man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."
I am ready to admit, indeed, that, taken simply as
they stand, the words, " As the Father raiseth up the
dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quicken-

185
eth whom he will," and, " That all men should
honour the Son, even as they honour the Father,"
might very readily be understood as implying an
assertion of equality with the Father. But this
affords one of numerous instances of the danger of
resting an opinion on the apparent meaning of the
words of insulated passages of Scripture, without
attention to the context; for I am convinced that
no unprejudiced person can peruse the verses pre
ceding and subsequent to those quoted by the Editor,
without feeling that a more explicit disavowal of
equality with God can hardly be expressed by lan
guage than that which they contain. I must there
fore beg permission to give the entire passage in this
place, though some parts of it have been quoted
before in support of arguments already discussed.
It is to be observed, that the occasion of the expres
sions here made use of by Jesus, was the accusation
brought against him by the Jews, that he had made
himself equal with God. John, ch. v. vers. 19 — 36:
" Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, Verily,
verily, I say unto you. The Son can do nothing of
himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what
things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son
likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and shew
eth him all things that himself doeth : and he will
shew him greater works than these, that ye may
marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and
quickeneth them ; even so the Son quickeneth whom
he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath

186
committed all judgment unto the Son : that all men
should honour the Son, even as they honour the
Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth
not the Father who hath sent him. Verily, verily, I
say unto you. He that heareth my word, and believeth
on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
not come into condemnation ; but is passed from
death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you. The
hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear
the voice of the Son of God : and they that hear
shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself,
so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
and hath given Mm authority to execute judgment
also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at
this : for the hour is coming, in the which all that
are in the grave shall hear his vmce, and shall come
forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrec
tion of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation. I can qf mine ownself
do nothing : as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is
just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will
(f the Father who hath sent me. 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 witnesseth of me is true. Ye sent
unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. But
I receive not testimony from man : but these things
I say, that ye might be saved. He was a burning
and a shining light : and ye were willing for a season
to rejoice in his light. But I have greater witness

187
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, that the Father hath sent me."
It would have been strange indeed had Jesus, in
repelling the accusation of blasphemy, which had
wrought on the minds of the Jews so far that they
sought to kill him, confirmed their assertion, that he
made himself equal with God, and thus prematurely
endangered his own life ; but we find that so far
from being further incensed by the explanation
above quoted, they seem to have quietly acquiesced
in his appeal to their own Scriptures, that the Mes
siah should have all the power and authority which
he asserted the Father had given to himself. Ver. 46 :
" For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed
me: for he wrote of me." The only text in the
writings of Moses that refers to the nature of the
Messiah, is that of Deuteronomy, ch. xviii. vers. 15
and 18, quoted by St. Peter in the Acts ofthe Apos
tles, eh. iii. ver. 22, and by St. Stephen, ch. vii. ver.
37, Moses said to the children of Israel, " The Lord
thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the
midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me ; unto
him ye shall hearken." The words which the Lord
addressed to Moses were exactly of the same import :
" I will raise them up a Prophet from among their
brethren, Uke unto thee," &e. It was, no doubt, to
this remarkable passage that Jesus referred, and no
thing can more distinctly prove the light in which he
wished to be considered, namely, that of a Messenger

188
or Prophet of God. But this is not the only instance
in which Jesus entirely disclaims the attribute of
omnipotence.- On many other particular occasions
he declares, in the strongest language, his want of
almighty power, and his constant need of divine in
fluence. Matthew, ch. xx. ver. 23 : " And he saith
Unto them. Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with :
but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not
mine to give ; but it shall be given to them for whom
it is prepared of my Father." Ch. xii. ver. 28 : " But
if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the
kingdom ofGod is come unto you." Ch. xxvi. ver.
39 : " And he went a little further, and fell on his
face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be pos
sible, let this cup pass from me : nevertheless not as I
will, but as thou wilt." Ver. 42 : " He went away
again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my
Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, ex
cept I drink it, thy will be done." Luke, ch. xxii.
ver. 32 : " But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not," &c. John, ch. xii. ver. 27 : " Father, save'
me from this hour." Whosoever honours God, can
not, I presume, consistently refiise to honour his
Prophet, whom he dignified with the name of " Son
of God ;" and as he honours God, he will also honour
that Prophet, though he be well aware of the dis
tinction between the Almighty and his chosen Son;
The honour paid to the Prophet may in this sense be
fairly considered the test of the real degree of respect

189
entertained for God — as Jesus saith, Matthew, ch. x.
ver. 40, " He that receiveth you, receiveth me ; and
he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent roe."
The obvious meaning of which words is. As far as
men listen to your instructions, they listen to mine,
and in so far they receive the commandments of God
who hath sent me. Prejudice alone could, I think,
infer from such expressions, that those who received
the Apostles were literally receiving God himself
under their form and substance. Equally demon
strative of prejudice, I conceive, would it be to deduce
the identity or equality of the Father and the Son
from the following passage, John, ch. v. ver. 23:
" That all men should honour the Son, even as they
honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son
honoureth not the Father who hath sent him." For
in this very passage the Son is represented as the
Messenger of the Father, and for that reason only
entitled to honour. That the preposition '^as" im
plies here, as in many other places, likeness in nature
and quality, and not in exact degree of honour, is
illustrated by its obvious meaning in the last verse of
Matthew v., " Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
Father in heaven is perfect ;" for by these words no
one can conceive, that equality in degree of perfection
between God and the disciples is intended to be
enjoined. The fifth position is, that his heavenly Father had
committed to JesUs the final judgment of all who
have lived since the creation. I readily admit the

190
correctness of this position, and consider the fact as
confirming the opinion maintained by me, and by
numerous other followers of Christ, as to the Son's
total dependence on the commission of God for his
power in administering such judgment. I agree also
with the Reverend Editor, in esteeming the nature
of this office most important ; and that nothing but
the gift of supernatural wisdom can qualify a being
to judge the conduct of thousands of millions of in
dividuals^ living at different times from the beginning
of the world to the day of resurrection. It is how
ever perfectly consistent with the omnipotence and
wisdom of God, who is declared by revelation to be
" able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham," (Matthew, ch. iii. ver. 9,) and with whom
all things are possible, (Luke, ch. i. ver. 37,) to be
stow wisdom equal to the important nature of this
office on the first-born of every creature, whom he
has anointed and exalted even above his angels. But
the Editor goes much further than I am willing to
follow him, in concluding the omniscience of the Son,
from the circumstance of his distributing final judg,-
ment ; since Jesus not only disclaimed that attribute,
but even expressly avowed that he received his qua
lifications for exercising judgment from God. With
respect to his di^jglaiming omniscience, see Mark, ch.
xiii. ver. 32 : " But of that day and that hour know
eth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father." Omniscience, as
the Editor must be well aware, has no Umit ; but

191
here Jesus expressly declares, that he is ignorant of
the day appointed by the Father for the resurrection
and judgment. What words can be more expressly
declaratory than these of ±he finite nature of the
knowledge granted to Jesus, however its extent may
actually surpass our limited capacity? As a proof
that his judicial authority is derived from God, see
John, ch. V. vers. 26 and 27 : " For as the Father
hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself; and hath given him authority to
execute judgment also." 30 : " I can of mine own-
self do nothing : as I hear, I judge : and my judg
ment is just ; because I seek not mine own will, but
the will of the Father which hath sent me." Is it
possible to misunderstand the assertion contained in
these words, that both the authority and the ability
to judge are gifts bestowed on the Son by the omni
potent Father ?
The sixth position is, that in several instances
Jesus accepted worship " due to no man, but to God
alone ;" and instances of his receiving worship from
a blind man, a leper, from mariners, and from his
disciples, are adduced from the evangelical writings.
—Every one must admit that the word " worship,"
both in common acceptation and in the Scriptural
writings, is used sometimes as implying an external
mark of religious reverence paid to God, and at other
times, as signifying merely the token of civil respect
due to superiors ; and that concurrent circumstances
in every instance detecmiine the real sense in which

192
the word should be taken. Among the Prophets of
God, Jesus was not the only one that permitted him
self to be worshipped, as we find Daniel the Prophet
allowing himself such worship. Daniel, ch. ii. ver.
46 : " Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his
face, and worshipped Daniel." Daniel, like Jesus,
neither rebuked the man who worshipped him, nor
did he feel indignant at such a tribute of respect ;
yet we cannot find any subsequent assertion that he
had offended God by suffering himself to be the
object of the king's worship in this instance. Be
sides, Jesus himself uses the word worship in the
latter sense, (I mean that of civil reverence,) in one
of the evangelical parables, where he represents a
servant as worshipping his master. Matthew, ch.
xviii. ver. 26 : " The servant therefore fell down and
worshipped him." , From the circumstance of Jesus
positively commanding human beings to worship God
alone in spirit, and not in any form or shape, either
human or angelic ; as John, ch. iv. ver. 24 : " God
is a Spirit : and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth." Matthew, ch. iv. ver.
.10: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and
him only shalt thou serve." And from the circum
stance of his rebuking the man who called him
" good master," on the ground that the term "good"
should be peculiarly applied to God alone, (Matt.
ch. xix. ver. 17,) we necessarily conclude that Jesus
accepted worship .only as a mark of human respect
and acknowledgment of gratitude. Let us moreover

193
ascertain from the context, the sentiments which the
blind man, the leper, the mariners, and the disciples
of Jesus, entertained of his nature ; and we can no
longer hesitate to believe, that they meant by the
worship they offered, only the manifestation of their
reverence for him as a superior indeed, yet still as a
created being. The question is. Did those that
offered worship to Jesus evince that they believed
him to be God, or one of the three persons of the
Godhead, and equal to God ? Nothing of the kind 
the blind man after his cure, spoke of Jesus as a
prophet, and a righteous , man, and believed him
when he said he was the Son ofGod. John, ch. ix.
ver. 31 : " Now we know," (says the blind man,)
" that God heareth not sinners : but if any man be a
worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
Ver. 33 : " If this man were not of God, he could do
nothing." And in answer to the question of Jesus,
" Dost thou believe on the Son of God ?" he answers,
"Lord, I beUeve. And he worshipped him," ver. 38.
The unclean spirit which is said in Mark to have
worshipped Jesus, " Cried with a loud voice, and said.
What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the
most high God ? I adjure thee by God, that thou
torment me not." Mark, ch. v. ver. 7. This adju
ration would have been absurd if Jesus were himself
addressed as God ; and clearly shews, that the wor
ship offered, was to deprecate the power of a being
whose nature was subordinate to that of God, by

W4
whose name he was adjofed. The leper, too, glori
fied God, while to Jesus he gave only thanks fbr
being the instrument of his cure. Luke, ch, xvii.
vers. 16, 16 : " And one of them, when he saw that
he was healed, tttfned back, and with a loud voice
glorified God, and feU down on bis face at M& feet,
gkmg him thanks" The mariners who worshipped
Jesus, declared at the same instant; " Of a truth
thou art the Son of God." Matthew, ch, xiv, ver,
33. The woman of Canaan, who is also stated in
MatthevB, ch. XV. ver. 26, to have worshipped Jesus,
addressed him, vet. 22, as " the son of David," by
which term she certainly would not have designated
a being whom she worshipped as God. Peter, the
most celebrated of his disciples, shewed his faith in
acknowledging Jesus merely as the Christ, or in
other words with the same exact sense, the anointed
of God— which is certainly far from implying " very
God." Mark, ch. viii. ver. 29, Even after the
crucifixion we find the disciples^ conversing of Jesus
only as " a prophet, mighty in deed and in word
before God and all the people." Luke, ch. xxiv. ver.
19. It was Jesus himself risen from the dead whom
they addlessed, yet throughout the remainder of the
chapter, which concludes with the account of his
being carried up to heaven, they are only filrther
taught that this prophet was the promised Messiah,
but by no means that it was their duty to worship
him as God. Peter in the name of all the disciples de-

195
clares, John, ch. vi. ver. 69, " We believe and are sure
that thou art [that] Chrjst, the son ofthe living God.'*
And as already observed, the disciple John declares,
that the object of the gospel is, " that it may be
believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."
John, ch. XX. ver. 31. When the leper prayed to
Jesus for cure, he addressed him only with the "term
Kogjoj, (Matthew, ch. viii. ver. 2,) which in Greek is
used as synonymous to Lord or Master, and often
applied to superior persons.
Every Christian is morally bound to evince obedi
ence to the commandments of Jesus, and exert him
self to follow his example. It behoves us, therefore,
to ascertain, what his commandments are with re
gard to the object of sacred worship and prayer, and
in what manner he himself performed those solemn
religious duties. The very act of prayer indeed im
plies an acknowledgment of inferiority to the bping
adored; but though Trinitarians affirm that such
devotion, was paid by Jesus only in his human capa
city, his form of prayer ought still to be sufficient to
guide human creatures as to the Being to whom
their prayers should be addressed. Let us examine,
therefore, whether Jesus in his acknowledged human
capacity ever offered worship or prayer to what
Trinitarians term the second or third person of the
Godhead, or once directed, his followers to worship
or pray to either of them. But so far from finding a
single direction of the kind, we observe on the con
trary, that Jesus strictly enjoins us to worship the
o2

196
Father alone in that form of prayer which he offered
for our guidance. Matthew, ch. vi. ver. 9 : " After
this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father which
art in heaven," &c. " Pray to thy Father which is
in secret : and #% Father, which seeth in secret,
shall reward thee openly." In the same way, when
the Saviour himself prays, he addresses the Father.
alone. Matthew, ch. xxvi. ver. 53 : " Thinkest ,
thou," says Jesus to Peter, " that I cannot now pray
to my Father?" John, ch. xvi. ver. 26 : "I will
pray the Father for you." Luke, ch. xxii. ver. 41,
42: "-And he (the Saviour); was withdrawn from
them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and
prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove
this cup from me." Mark, ch. xrv. vers. 35, 36 i
" And fell on the ground, and prayed, that if it were
possible the hour might pass from him. And he
said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee."
Luke, ch. vi. ver. 12 : " He went out unto a moun
tain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to
God." Luke, ch. x. ver. 21 : " In that hour Jesus
rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father,
Lord of heaven and earth." John, ch. xi. ver. 41 :
" And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I
thank thee that thou hast heard me." Matthew, ch.
xxvii. ver. 46 : " My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me ?" John, ch. iv. ver. 22 : " Ye worship
ye know not what ; we know what we worship."
No creed drawn up by men, nor opinion entertained
by any sect, can by an unbiassed searcher after tlie

197
true doctrines of Christianity, be suffered to set aside
the express authority and constant example of the
gracious author of this religion.
The last position is, that Jesus associated his own
name with that of God in the rite of baptism, in-
.'tended to remain in force to the end of the world,
and ordained by the passage, Matthew, ch. xxviii.
ver. 19, " Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and ofthe Son, and
,of the Holy Ghost." A profession of belief in God
is unquestionably common to all the religions sup
posed to have been founded upon the authority of
the Old Testament ; but each is distinguished from
the other by a public profession of faith in their
respective founders, expressing such profession in a
language that may clearly exhibit the inferior nature
of those founders to the Divine Being, of whom they
declare themselves the messengers. This system has
been carried on from the first, and was no doubt
intended to serve as a perpetual distinguishing mark
of.faith. , The Jews claim that they have revelation,
rendering a belief not in God alone, but in Moses
also, incumbent upon them. Exodus, ch. xiv. ver.
31 : " The people feared the Lord, and believed the
-Lord, and his servant Moses." Butthe term "his
servant Moses," in this passage, suffices to prove the
subordination of Moses, though declared, equally
with God, to be an object of their belief. In like
manner Mohummudans, in the first acknowledgment
jof that systeip-' pf religion, are directed to profess

198
faitli in God, and also in Mohummud, his messen
ger, in the following form : iH] >Jj»>j »vW* 4t ^' *H ^
" There is no God except the true God, Mohummud
is his messenger." Tlie tefm " his messenger" re
moves every doubt of Mohum mud's identity or
equality with God ; so the epithet " Son" found in
the passage, " Baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son," &c. o»ght to be understood
and admitted by eve'ry one jfs eXpieSsirig the created
nature of Christ, though the most highly exalted
among all cfeatUres. If baptism were administered
to (Mie embracing Christianity in the name of the
Father and the Holy Ghost, he would thereby no
more become enrolled as a Christian, than as a Jew
or as a Mohummudan ; for both of them, in common
with Christians, would readily submit to be baptized
in the name of God atld his prevailing influence over
the universe. But as Christianity K-equines peculiarly
a faith in Jesus, as the promised Messiah, the graci
ous Saviour enjoins baptism in the name of the Soft
also, so as to distinguish -his happy followers from the
Jews and the rest of the people. A mere association
of names in divine commandments therefore never
can be considered as tending to prove identity or
equality between the subjects of those names : —
such junction of names is found frequently in the
SaCred Writings withoirt; establishing unity among
the persons whom those natnes imply.
The Editor quotes the following passage, Mat
thew, ch, xxviii. ver. 18: " All power in heaven and

199
earth is delivei'ed unto me," repomtnending it as a
sure proof of the deity of Jesus. I regret very much
that the force of the expression " is delivered unto
me," found in this passage, should have escaped the
dJBcerniHg notice of the Reverend Editor. Does not
the term " delivered" shew evidently an entire de
pendence of Jesus upon the Being who has com
mitted to him ..such power ? Is it consistej&t with
the nature of an omnipotent God to exercise power
delivered to him by another being, or to confess that
tiie power he possesses h*s been received by him
from another ? (_^
. .As to the question of the Editor, tl5 Did IVIohvm-
mud, arrogant as he was, ever make such a declara.-
tion as Jesus did, namely, that ' I am with you
always even to the end of the world' ?" I will not
renew the subject, as it h*s beeju already discussed v-
in examining the first position. J fmhy ajtreat the
attention of the Editor to the feUossrog assertions of
Mohummud, known *o ahnost a.U Moossuhsaans who
have the least Ikijowlei^e .of itheir own religion,:
^^Ull J?iS*j It^j ^^J^ Jo-^ 'j£. •£] ^^ " Truly
^i the great and gl&ti^s .— .#od raised
riie as mercy and guidance to worlds."
e^l ^ ^i^lj jls^!/.^ ^^'^] Jjl <::^ "I
was the first of all Prophets in creation, and the
last in appearance." ^SaHj Ul! J t>i'^^ iLo e:^ " I
was a Prophet when Adam was in earth and water."

200
i>j j^ Sj ^J^L^J»^\ liAi*- U) "I am the Lord of those
that were sent by God. This is no boast to me."
Jul ^J,.^ ^ ^ Ljl " My shadow is on the
head only of my followers." <dll A, »>** ,_^^\ ij^
" He who has seen me has seen God."
" He who has obeyed me, has obeyed God: and
he who has sinned against me, has sinned against
God." It is, however, fortunate fbr Moossulmans, that
from want of familiarity and intimate connexion
between the primitive Mohummuddans and their
contemporaiy heathens, the doctrines of Monotheism
taught by Mohufnmud, and entertained by his fol
lowers, have not been corrupted by polytheistical
notions of Pagans, nor have heathen modes of worship
or festivals been introduced among Moossulmans of
Arabia and Turkey as a part of their religion. ¦ Be
sides, metaphorical expressions having been very
common among Oriental nations, Mohummuddans
could not fail to understand them in their proper
sense, although the|^ expressions may, throw great
difficulty in the way of an European Commentator
even of profound learningT^

201

CHAPTER IV.
Inquiry into the Doctrine of the Atonement.
All the texts collected by the Reverend Editor in
his review from the authority of the divine Teacher,
in favour of the second important doctrine of the
cross, implying the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus as an
atonement for the sins of mankind, are as follow :
," I am the living bread which came down from
heaven : if any man eat of this bread, he shall live
for ever." His giving his " flesh for the life of the
world." " I lay down my life for iny sheep." " The
Son of man is come to give his life a ransom for
many.'! Is any one of these passages, I would ask,
in the shape of an explicit commandment, or are
they more than a mere statement of facts requiring
figurative interpretation ? For it is obvious that an
attempt to take them in their direct sense, especially
the first, (" I am the living bread ; — if any man eat
of this," &c.) would amount . to - gross absurdity.
Do they reasonably convey any thing, more than the
idea, that, Jesus was invested with a divine commis
sion to deliver^ instructions leading to eternal beati
tude, which whosoever, should receive should live for
ever ? And that the Saviour, foreseeing that the im
parting of those instructions would, by exciting the

202
anger and enmity of the superstitious Jews, cause
his life to be destroyed, yet hesitated not to persevere
in their promulgation ; as if a king, who hazards his
life to procure freedom and peace for his subjects,
were to address himself to them, saying, " I lay down
my life for you," This interpretation is fully con
firmed by the following passages. Luke, ch. iv. ver.
f43 : " And he said unto them, I must preach the
kingdom of God to other cities also ; for therefore
am I setd." Ch. ii. vers. 47 — 49 i *' And ail that
heard him were astonished at his understaiading and
answers. And when they (his pju"ents) saw him,
sthey wei^ amazed : and his mother said unto ham,
Son, why hast thtm thus dealt with us^ Behold, thy
father and -I have sought thee sorrowing. And he
isaidilnto them. How is it that ye sought me ? wist
ye not ihat / must he about my Father's business?"
Wherein Jesus dedarps, that the sole .oiject erf iaas
xnission was ito pneacJa and impart divine mstructions.
Agjin, after ha^g instructed his disctples i(n all the
divine law and will, as appears from the ^yiowiixig
text, " For I have given intt© them the wouds -which
thou jgavest me ; and they have received them, and
have ikuHirwn surely that J came ^out from thee, and
they have fodieved ithat thou dadst seiid me," {John,
-ch. xvii- ver. ;8,) Jesus in his coiaaimiBing witih God
¦mamfesifes that he had completed the aabject of his
mission hy haapaitiHg divine conamandiments to naian-
kind. " I havie i^badfied thee on the leaith, / have
JkdsheA the work which tkou^giavest me io io." Had

203
his death on the cross been the work, or part of the
work, for the performance of which Jesus was sent
into this world, he as the founder of truth would not
have declared himself to have finished that work
prior to his death.
That Jesus should ride on a colt, should receive
an offer of vinegar to drink, and should be wounded
with a spear after he had delivered up the ghost, as
well as his death on the cross, were events prophesied
in the Old Testament, and consequently these were
fulfilled by Jesus. Vide Lutke, ch. xxiv. vers. 26 and
27 : " Ought not Christ to have suffei-ed these things,
and to enter into his gl«n-y ? And beginning at
Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them
in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
But we are unhappily at a loss to discover any other
design in each of these events, Which happened to
Jesus bdbre his ascent to heaven. I am therefore
sorry tha-t I must plead my inability to make a satis-
fectory reply to the «|;uestion of the Editor, " Had
ever Jesus transgressed his heavenly Father's will,
that he underwent such afflictions ?" I can only say,
that we find in the scriip'tures that several -other Pro
phets in comimon with Jesus suffered great afflictions,
uradsoijaae even death, as pnedidted. But I know not
whether those affictions were the consequences of
the sins committed by theoxi or by their parents, or
wheShier these distresses were experienced by them
througih some divine purpose unknown to us,; as
some scriptural authorities shew beyond doabt, that

204
man may be made liable to sufferings for some secret
divine purpose, without his or his parents having per
petrated any remarkable crime. (John, ch. ix. ver.
3 : " Jesus answered. Neither hath this man sinned
nor his parents ; but that the works of God should
be made manifest in him.") The latter alternative
(namely, that the righteous Prophets suffered afflic
tions and even death for some divine purpose, known
thoroughly to God alone) seems more consistent with
the contents of the sacred writings, such as follow :
Mark, ch. xii. vers. 1 — 9: "And he began to speak
unto them by parables. A certain man planted a
vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a
place for the wine fat, and built a tower, and let it
out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a ser
vant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of
the fi-uit of the vineyard. And they caught : him,
and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again
he sent unto them another servant ; and at him they
cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent
him away shamefully handled. And again he sent
another ; and him they killed, and many others ;
beating some, and killing some. Having yet there
fore one Son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last
unto them, saying. They will reverence my Son.
But these husbandmen said among themselves. This
is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and the inheri
tance shall be ours. And they took him, and killed
him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What shall

205
therefore the Lord of the vineyard do ? He will
come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the
vineyard unto others." John, ch. xv. vers. 21, 22:
" But all these things will they do unto you for my
name's sake, because they know not him that sent
me. If I had not, come and spoken unto them, they
had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for
their sin." This parable and these passages give
countenance to the idea, that God suffered his Pro
phets, and Jesus, his beloved Son, to be cruelly
treated and slain by the Jews, for the purpose of
taking away every excuse that they might offer for
their guilt.
In explaining the objects of Jesus's death on the
cross, the Editor confidently assumes, that " If we
view Jesus Christ as atoning for the sins of men, we
have every thing perfectly in character: he became
incarnate to accomplish that which could have been
effected by neither men nor angels." I should there
fore wish to know whether Jesus, whom the Editor
represents as God incarnate, suffered death and pain
for the sins of men in his divine nature, or in his
human capacity ? The former must be highly incon
sistent with the nature of God, which, we are per
suaded to believe by reason and tradition, is above
being rendered liable to death or pain ; since the
difference we draw between God, and the objects
that are not God, is, that one cannot be subjected to
death or termination, and the other is finite and liable,
to mortality. That the effects of Christ's appearance

206
on earth, whetlier with respect to the salvation or
condemnation of mankind, were finite, and therefore
suitable to the nature of- a finite being to accomplish,
is evident fiom the fact, that to the present time
millions of human beings are daily passing through
the world, whom the doctrines he taught have never
reached, and who of course must be considered as
excluded from the benefit of his having died for the,
remission of their sins. The latter, namely, that
Jesus suffered death and pain in his human capacity
as an atonement for the offences of others, seems
totally inconsistent with the justice ascribed to God,
and even at variance with those principles of equity
required of men ; for it would be a piece of gross
iniquity to afflict one innocent being who had all the
human feelings, and who had never transgressed the
will of God, with the death of the cross for the
crimes committed by others, especially when he de
clares such great aversion to it, as is manifest fii^m
the following passages. Matthew, ch. xxvi. vers.
37, 39, 42 and 43 : " And he took with him Peter
and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sor
rowful and very heavy. And prayed, saying, O my
Father^ if it be possible, let this cup (meaning death)
pass from me : nevertheless not as I will, but as thou
wilt. He went away again the second time, and
prayed, sajHing, O my Father, if this cup may not
pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be
done." Mark, ch. xiv.ver. 36 : " And he said, Abba,
Father, all things are possible unto thee ; take away

207
this cup from me : nevertheless not what I will, but
what thou wilt." Luke, ch. xxii. vers. 42 and 44 :
" Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup
from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be
done. And being in an agony he prayed more ear
nestly : and his sweat was as it were great drops of
blood, fading down to the ground." John, ch. xii.
ver. 27 : " Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall
I say ? Father, save me from this hour : but for
this cause came I unto this hour." Do not these
passages evidendy shew, that Jesus in his human
capacaty (a<x»rding to the Trinitarian phrase) felt
averse to death and pain, and that he earnestly prayed
that he might not be subjected to it ? Jesus, how
ever, knowing that the will of the Father rendered
such death unavoidable, yielded to it as predicted.
John, ch. xi. vers. 17 and 18 : " Therefore doth my
Father love me, because / lay down my life that I
might take it again : no man taketh it from me, but
I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down
and I have power to take it again : this command
ment have I received qf my Father." Matthew, ch.
xxvi. vers. 53 and 54 : " Thinkest thou that I cannot
now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give
me more than twelve legions of angels ? But how
then shall the scripture be fulfilled, that thus it must
be ?" The iniquity of one's being sentenced to death
as an atonement for the fault committed by another,
is so palpable, that although in many countries the
human race think themselves justified in detaining

208
the persons of those men who, voluntarily making
themselves responsible for the debt or the persons of
others, fail to fulfil their engagements ; nevertheless,
every just man among them would shudder at the
idea of one's being put to death for a crime com
mitted by another, even if the innocent man should
willingly offer his life in behalf of that other.
In endeavouring to prove Jesus's atonement for sin
by his death, the Reverend Editor urges, " Is he
called the SavioUr of men because he gave them
moral precepts, by obeying which they inight obtain
the Divine favour, with the enjoyment of heaven as
their just desert ? or, because he died in their stead,
to atone for their sins and procure for them every
blessing, &c. ? If Jesus be termed a Saviour merely
because he instructed men, he has this honour in
common with Moses and Elijah and John the Bap-.
tist, neither of whom however assumed the title of
Saviour." We find the title " Saviour" applied fre
quently in the divine writings to those persons who
had been endued with the power of saving people,
either by inculcating doctrines, or aflbrding protec
tion to them, although none of them atoned for the
sins of mankind by their death. Obadiah, ver. 21 :
" And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to
judge the mount of Esau ; and the kingdom shall be
the Lord's." Nehemiah, <ih. ix. ver. 27 : " And ac
cording to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them
saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their
enemies." 2 Kings, ch. xiii. ver. 5 : " The Lord

209
gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from
under the hand of the Syrians." How could, there
fore, the Editor, a diligent student of the Bible, lay
such stress upon the application of the term " Savi
our" to Jesus, as to adduce it as a proof of the doc
trine of atonement ; especially when Jesus himself
declares frequently, that he saved the people solely
through the inculcation of the word of God ? John,
ch. XV. ver. 3 : " Now ye are clean through the word
which I have spoken unto you." Ch. v. ver. 24:
" He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life." Ch. vi. ver. 63 :
" The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life :" — wherein Jesus represents him
self as a Saviour, or a distributer of eternal life, in
his capacity of divine teacher.
Jesus is of course justly termed and esteemed
a Saviour, for having instructed men in the Divine
will and law, never before so fully revealed. Would
it degrade Jesus to revere him as a divine teacher,
because Moses and the Prophets before him delivered
to the people divine instructions ? Or would it de
preciate the dignity of Jesus, to believe that he
in common with several other prophets underwent
afflictions and death? Such an idea is indeed un
scriptural, for God represents the Christ as a Prophet
equal to Moses, Deut. ch. xviii. ver. 18. Jesus
declares himself to have come to fulfil the law taught
by Moses) (Matthew, ch. v. ver. 7,) "Think not

210
that 1 am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets,
I am not come to destroy but to fiilfil ;" and strictly
commands his disciples and the people at large to
obey whatever Moses had taught. Ch. xxiii. vers.
2, 3 : " Saying, The Scribes and Pharisees sit in
Moses' seat : all therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do ; but do not ye after
their wOrks': for they say, and do not."
I am sorry that I cannot, without offending my
conscience, agree with the Reverend Editor in the
opinion, that " If Jesus be esteemed merely a teacher,
the greater desgree of honour must be given tb Moses,
for it was in reality his law that Jesus explained and
established." It is true that Moses began to erect the everlasting
edifice of true religion, consisting of a knowledge
of the unify of God, and obedience to his will and
commandments; but Jesus of Nazareth has com
pleted the structure, and rendered his law perfect.
To convince the Editor of this fact, i beg to call
his attention to the following instances fOund even
in a single chapter, as >exbrbiti!ng the perfection to
which Jesus brought the Law given by Moses and
other Prophets. Matthew,'Gh. v. v^rs. 21, 22 : " Ye
have heard that it was said by them of old time.
Thou shalt not kill ; and whosoever - shall kill shall
be in danger of the judgment : but I say unto you.
That whosoever is arigry ^ith his brother without a
cause, shall be in danger ofthe judgmeint : and who-

211
soever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in dan
ger of the council : but whosoever shall say. Thou
fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Vers. 27, 28:
*' Ye have heard that it was said by them of old
time. Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say
unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed adultery." Vers. 31; 32 :
" It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement : but
•I say unto you. That whosoever shall put away his
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her
to commit adultery." Verses 38, 39: " Ye have
heard that it hath been said^ An eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth : but I say unto you, that ye resist
not evil : but * whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him, the other also." Vers.
43 — 45 : " Ye have heard that it hath been said.
Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine
enemy : but I say unto you. Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them that despitefiilly use you,
and persecute you ; that ye may be the children of
your Father which is in heaven : for he maketh his
sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and on the unjust." Now I hope I
may be justified in expressing my belief, (though it
varies from the declaration made by the Editor,) that
no greater honour can.be justly given to any teacher
of the will of God than what is due to the author of
the doctrines just quoted, -which, with a power no
p2

212
less than standing mirac;les could produce, carry with
them proofs of their divine origin to the conviction
ofthe high and low, the learned and unlearned.
The Editor, in page 101,* lays much stress on cir
cumstances, the very minuteness of which, he thinks,
*' serves to enhance their value as testimonies." He
alludes to the epithet " Lamb of God" having been
twice applied to Jesus by John the Baptist, two of
whose disciples were thereby induced to become fol
lowers of Jesus. This is considered by the Editor
as implying an admission on the part of Christy; that
as a lamb, particularly the Paschal Lamb, was Used
in sacrifice as an atonement for sins, he also came
into the world to sacrifice his life as an atonement
for sin. We find, howevei:, the term " lamb," as well
as " sheep," applied in other plates, where no allu
sion to the sacrificial lamb can be well imagined, and
from which we infer that these were epithets gene
rally applied to innocence subjected to persecution ;
a meaning which sufficiently accords with the use of
the word lamb in the instance in question. We have
those terms applied by Jesus to his disciples in John,
ch. xxi. vers. 15 — -17, where he commands Simon
Peter " to feed his lambs," " to feed his sheep ;" and
in ch. X. vers, 26/27, " Ye believe not, hecause ye
are not of my sheep."- — " My sheep hear my voice."
Now many of the apostles suffered death in conse
quence of their endeavours to withdraw men from
* ^London edition, page 37.]

213
sin: but the Editor will not thence, I presUmcj
maintain, though it follow from his argument, that
the term '^ lamb" was applied to them, to shew that
by their death, they also atoned for the sins of man
kind. The Reverend Editor might have spared the
arguments he has adduced to prove, that Jesus Was
sent into this world as the long-expected Messiah,
intended to suffer death and difficulties like other
prophets who went before him ; as the Editor may
find in the compilation in question, as well as in its
defence, Jesus of Nazareth represented as " The Son
of God," a term synonymous with that of Messiah^
the highest of all the prophets ; and his life declares
him to have been, as represented in the Scriptures^
pure as light, innocent as a lamb, necessary for eter
nal life as bread for a temporal one, and great as the
angels of Godj or rather greater than they. He also
might have ommitted to quote such authority as
-shews, that Christ, being a mediator between God
and men, " declared that whatsoever they (his apos
tles) shall ask in his name, the Father will give
them ;" for the Coinpiler, in his defence of the
Precepts of Jesus, repeatedly acknowledged Christ as
the Redeemer, Mediator, and Intercessor with God,
in behalf of his followers. But such intercession
does not, I presume, tend to a proof of the deity or
the atonement of Jesus, as interpreted by the Editor ;
for God is represented in the sacred books to have
often shewn mercy to mankind for righteous men's
sakes ; how much more then would he naturally

214
manifest his favour towards those who might petition
him in the name of one, whom he anointed and
exalted over ail creatures arid prophets ! Genesis,
ch. xxx. ver. 27: "I have learned by experience,
that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake." Jere
miah, ch, xxvii. ver. 18 : " But if they be prophets,
and if the word of the Lord be with them, let them
now make intercession to the Lord of hosts." More
over, we find angels declared to have been endUed
with the power of pardoning and redeeming men
on various occasions. Genesis, ch. xlviii. ver. 16:
" The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless
the lads" 1 Exodus, ch. Xxiii. vers. 20; 21 : '^Behold,
I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way,
and to bring thee into the place which I have pre^
pared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke
him not ; for he will not pardon your transgressions :
for my name is in him."
With regard to this doctrine I have carefully
noticed every argument advanced by the Editor, from
the authority of Jesus himself, in its support ; and
have adduced such arguments as may be used by
those that reject that doctrine, and which they rest
on the authority ofthe same Divine Teacher ; leaving
the decision of the subject to the discreet judgment
of the public, but declining to deliver any opinion, as
an individual, as to the merits thereof.

215

CHAPTER V.
On the Doctrines and miraculous Narrations of the
New Testament.
I REGRET that the Editor should have accused
the Compiler of having charged " on the dogmas or
doctrines of Christianity those wars and that blood
shed which have occurred between nations merely
termed Christians." The Compiler in his defence of
the Precepts of Jesus, has ascribed such disputes and
contentions not to any thing contained in the Scrip
tures, but to. the different interpretations of dogmas
which he esteemed not essential for salvation,. In
order to convince the Editor of the accuracy of my
assertion, I entreat his attention to page 18, line 22,
and page 22, line 24, of my defence of the compiled
Precepts, under the designation of "An Appeal to
the Christian Public."*'
The Editor observes^ that " wars and bloodshed-
existed before the promulgation of Christianity in the
world ; neither Christianity, therefore, nor its dog
mas, created the causes of wars and bloodshed. They
existed in the human mind long before its doctrines
were published;" and that " quarrels and feuds
between the Arians and the Orthodox in the fourth
and the fifth centuries were little more than struggles
* [See above, p. 117, line 113, and p. 120, lines 16-20.]

216
for power and wealth." Although human frailty and
want of perfection in men are in fact esteemed as the
first and original causes of their improper conduct
and wicked deeds,' yet in the ordinary acceptation of
fhe term " cause/' good or evil acts are invariably
attributed to their immediate motives, ascertained
from circumstantial evidence ; and these acts are
consequently held to entitle their respective agents to
pi-aise or reproach.— But as the motives of actions
and the secrets of the human heart are in truth kown
to God alone, it is indeed beyond my power to esta
blish in a satisfactory manner, that the majority of
the primitive Arians and Trinitarians were excited by
their mistaken religious zeal to slay each other,- and
not by a desire of power and worldly advancement.
I would appeal, however, to the Editor himself, whe
ther it would not be indeed very illiberal to suppose,
that almost all the Christian world should for a
period of tvvo hundred years have been weak or
wicked enough to engage wilfully in causing the
blood of each other to be shed under the cloak of
religion, and merely for worldly motives. But as
this must be a matter of opinion, I beg to shew that
which has been entertained on the subject by one of
the highest authorities against the Trinitarians who
have written on the history of Christianity. I allude
to Dr. Mosheim, whose words I here give, and I
entreat my readers to draw their own inferences from
thera. Volume I. page 419 : " After the death of Con-

217
stantine the Great, one of his sons, Constantius, who
in the division ofthe empire became ruler of the Eastj
was warmly attached to the Arian party, whose prin
ciples were also zealously adopted by the Empress
and indeed by the whole court. On the other hand,
Constantine and Constantius, Emperors Of the West,
maintained the decrees of the Council of Nice through
out all the provinces between the two contending
parties.^Hence arose endless animosities and sedi
tions, treacherous plots, and open acts of injustice
and violence between the two contending parties :
Council was assembled against Council, and their
jarring and contradictory decrees spread perplexity
and confiision throughout the Christian world." Page
420 : " His (Gratian's) zeal for their interest, though
fervent and active, was surpassed by that of his suc
cessor Theodosius the Great, who raised the secular
arm against the Arians with a terrible degree of vio
lence, drove them from their churches, and enacted
laws, whose severity exposed them to the greatest
calamities." It is difficult to conceive what other
motives than those of mistaken zeal for a particular
doctrine could have influenced the mind of an Em
peror like Theodosius to such acts of cruelty and
violence : but however that may be, it is obvious that
if such a mode of interpreting conduct be adopted, it
is difficult to say where we are to stop. The devo
tion even ofthe Aposties and Martyrs of Christianity
may be attributed to a pursuit after power over the
minds and respect in the eyes of men, and all dis-

218
tinction of good and evil character be considered as
futile and without foundation. With respect to the
final success qf the Trinitarian party, it appears to
me the event naturally to have been expected. For,
to the people of those ages, doctrines that resembled
the polytheistical belief that till then prevailed, must
have been more acceptable than those which were
diametrically opposed to such notions. The idea of
a God in human form was easy and familiar : Empe
rors and Empresses had altars raised to them even
during their lives, and after death were enrolled as
divinities. Perhaps too something may justly be at
tributed to a certain degree of pride and satisfaction
in the idea, that the religion they had began to pro
fess was dictated immediately by the Deity himself,
rather than by any subordinate agency. There had
not been among the Heathens any class of mankind
to whom they were accustomed to look up with that
devotion familiarly entertained by the Jews towards
Moses and their Prophets, and they were consequently
ready to elevate to a God any being who rose in their
estimation above the level of mankind.
The violence and outrages which Roman Catho
lics and Protestants have experienced from each
other, were not of course, as observed by the Reve
rend Editor, owing in their origin to the adoption of
different interpretations respecting the deity of Christ
or of the Holy Ghost ; but they were the immediate
consequences of the different sentiments they have
held with respect to the doctrine of an exclusive

219
power of granting absolution, and leading to eternal
life, being vested in St. Peter and his successors.
What great mischief has however been produced,
and how many lives have from time to time been
destroyed, from the difference of sentiments held by
the parties with regard to this doctrine, which even
the Editor himself does not deem an essential point
of religion !
The Editor in p. 114* argues, as a proof of the im
portance of the doctrines of the Gospel, that Christ
taught them, fully foreseeing that they would be the
subject of dispute ; and quotes his saying, that he
came not to send peace on the earth, but a sword.
The whole of the 10th chap, of Matthew, from which
the Editor quotes the passage here alluded to, con
sists of the instructions delivered by Jesus to the
twelve Apostles, when he sent them forth to prdach
the kingdom of heaven to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel ; but has no allusion, that I can perceive, to
eternal dissensions amongst those who were already
or might afterwards become Christians. That Jesus
foresaw, as one of the primary eflects of preaching
his Gospel, that great dissensions would arise — that
he was aware that the great question of confessing
him to be the Messiah or not, would be as a sword
between a man and his father, the daughter and her
mother, and the daugliter-in-law and her mother-in-
law, is evident. But this seems to me by no means
•* [London edition, page 56.]

220
to prove that Jesus, as supposed by the Editor,
" longed or almost longed" to see a fire kindled in
the earth respecting doctrines not essential to the sal
vation of mankind. Nor would it have been any
reason for suppressing the most trivial of his sayings,
that priestcraft working, on the ignorance and super-
jstition, the bigotry or intolerance of mankind, should
have wrested his words to evil purposes. — As ob
served by the Editor himself, the .mischief lay origi
nally in human nature, not in any part of the doc
trines of Christ ; but as those dissensions are now
perpetuated principally by education, a cause essen
tially distinct from their origin, the case is entirely
altered. The corruption of the human heart cannot
be totally removed ; but the evil effects that spring
from human institutions may be avoided, when their
real sources are known. After the secret and imme
diate causes of persecution have passed away, the
idifferences of opinion which have been the declared
grounds of hostility are handed down by the teachers
of different sects ; and, as already repeatedly avowed,
it was with the view of evading, not those questions
concerning which Jesus spoke and which distinguish
his followers from all others, but those which have
from time to time been seized upon to excite enmities
still existing amongst fellow-christians, that the Com
piler confined himself to those Precepts, concerning
which all mankind must be of one accord..
As to the question of the Editor, " It can scarcely
be unknown to the Compiler, that the very being of

221
a God has been for numerous ages the subject of
dispute among the most learned of his own country ;
does he account this a sufficient reason for suppressing
this doctrine ? We know that he does not. Why
then should he omit the doctrines of Christ and his
Apostles, because men have made them the subject
of dispute ?" For a direct answer to this question I
beg to refer the Reverend Editor to the Appeal of
the Compiler, page 27, wherein he will find that he
assigns not one, but two circumstances, as concurring
to form the motive of his having omitted certain
doctrines of Christianity in his selection.^ — 1st, that
they are the subject of disputes and contention.—-
2ndly, that they are not essential to religion.* It is
therefore obvious, that the analogy between the
omission of certain dogmas, and that of the being of
a God, has been unfairly drawn by the Editor. Ad
mitting that the doctrines of Christianity and the
existence of a God are equally Uable to disputes, it
should be recollected that the former are, in the esti
mation of the Compiler, not essential to religion;
while the latter is acknowledged by him, in common
with the professors of every faith, to be the founda
tion of all religion, as distinctly stated in his Intro
duction to the selected Precepts of Jesus. Every
system of religion adopts the idea of a God, and
avows this as its fundamental principle, though they
differ from one another in representing the nature
* [See above, p. 125.]

222
and attributes ofthe Deity. TheGompiler therefore
could have no motive for suppressing the doctrine of
the being of a God, though disputed by a few pre
tended literary men ; and he has consequently never
hesitated to inculcate with all his power the idea of
one God to the learned and unlearned of his own
country, taking care at the same time as much as
possible not to enter into particulars as to the real
nature, essence, attributes, person, or substance of the
Godhead, those being points above his comprehen
sion, and liable to interminable disputes. The Reve
rend Editor thus expresses his surprise at the conduct
ofthe Compiler, in omitting in his selection the
miraculous relations of the Gospel : — *' We cannot
but wonder that his miracles should not have found
greater fiivour in the eyes of the Compiler of this
selection^ while the amazing Weight which Jesus
himself attached to them could scarcely have escaped
his notice :" and in order to prove the importance of
the miracles ascribed to Jesus, the Editor quotes
three instances, in the first of which Jesus referred
John the Baptist to his wonderful miracles ; in the
second, he called the attention of unbelieving Jews
to his miraculous works as a proof of his divine mis
sion ; ' in the third, he recommends Philip the Apostle
to the evidence ©f his miracles. But after a slight
attention to the circumstances in which those appeals
were made, it appears cleariy, that in these and other
instances Jesus referred to his miracles those persons
only who either Scrupled to believe, or doubted him

223
as the promised Messiah, or required of him some
sign to confirm their faith. Vide Matthew, ch. xi.
vers. 2 — 4: "When John had heard in the prison
the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and
said unto him. Art thou he that should come, or do
we look for another ? Jesus answered and said unto
them. Go and shew John those things which ye do
hear and see." John, ch. x. vers. 37 and 38, Jesus
says to those Jews who accused him of blasphemy,
" If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not-.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the
works," In reply to the request of Philip, whoj
being discontented with the doctrines Jesus incul
cated, said, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it suf
ficeth us ;" Jesus answered and said, " Believe me,
that I am in the Father and the Father in me, or
else believe me for the very works' sake." (John,
ch. xiv. ver. 11,) Jesus even speaks in terms of re
proach of those that seek for miracles for their con
viction as to his divine mission. Matthew, ch. xii.
ver. 39 : " But he answered and said unto them. An
evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign."
Moreover he blesses them, who, without having re-
cxjurse to the proofs of miracles, profess their belief
on him. John, ch. xx. ver. 29 : ". Jesns said unto
him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast
believed ; blessed are they that have not seen, and
yet have believed."
Under these circumstances, and from the experi
ence that nothing but the sublimity of the Precepts

224
of Jesus had at first drawn the attention of the
Compiler himself towards Christianity, and excited
his veneration for the author of this religion, without
aid from miraculous relations, he omitted in his com
pilation the mention of the miracles performed by
Jesus, without meaning to express doubts of their
authenticity, or intending to slight them by such an
omission. I regret therefore, that the Editor should have
suffered any part of his valuable time to be spent iri
advancing several arguments, in fhe concluding part
of his Review, to establish the truth of the miracu
lous statements of-the.New Testament. Butgis this
discussion applies to the evidence of miracles gene
rally, it may bei worth considering. Arguments ad
duced by the Editor amount to this : " If all social,
political, mercantile, and judicial transactioris be
allowed to rest upon testimony ; why should not the
validity of Christian miracles be concluded from the
testimony of the Apostles and of others, and be relied
upon by all the nations of the world ?" The Editor
must be well aware, that the enemies to revelation
-draw a line of distinction on the subject of proofs by
testimony, between the current events of nature fa
miliar to the senses of mankind, and within the scope
of human exertions ; and extraordinary facts beyond
the limits of common experience, and ascribed to a
direct interposition of Divine power suspending the
Usual course of nature. If all assertions were to be
indiscriminately admitted as facts, merely because

225
they are testified by numbers, how can we dispute
the truth of those miracles which are said to have
been performed by persons esteemed holy amongst
natives of this country ? The Compiler has never
placed the miracles related in the New Testament on
a footing with the extravagant tales of his country
men, but distinctly expressed his persuasion that they
(Christian miracles) would be apt at best to carry
little weight with those whose imaginations had been
accustomed to dwell on narrations much more won
derful, and supported by testimony which they have
been taught to regard with a reverence that they
cannot be expected all at once to bestow on the
Apostles. See Introduction to the Precepts, and
Appeal, p. 17.* The very same line of argument
indeed pursued by the Editor would equally avail
the Hindoos. Have they not accounts and records
handed down to them relating to the wonderful mi
racles stated to have been performed, by their saints,
such as Ugustyu, Vushistu, and Gotum ; and their
gods incarnate, such as Ram, Krishnu, and Nur-
singh ; in presence of their contemporary friends and
enemies, the wise and the ignorant, the select and
the multitude? — Could not the Hindoos quote in
support of their narrated miracles, authorities from
the histories of their most inveterate enemies the
Jeins, who join the Hindoos entirely in acknow
ledging the truth and credibility of their miraculous
* [Present edition, page 115.]
a

226
accounts ? The only difference which subsists be
tween these two parties on this subject is, that the
Hindoos consider the power of performing miracles
given to their gods and saints by the Supreme Deity,
and the Jeins declare that they performed all those
astonishirig works by Asooree Shukti, or by demoniac
power. Moossulmans on the other hand can produce
records vs^ritten and testified by contemporaries of
Mohummud, both friends and enemies, who are re
presented as eye-witnesses of the miracles ascribed to
him ; such as his dividing the moon into two parts,
and walking in sunshine without casting a shadow.
They can assert too, that several of those witnesses
suffered the greatest calamities, and some even death,
in defence of that religion ; some before the attempts
of Mohummud at conquest^' others after his com
mencing such attempts^ and others after his death.
On mature consideration of all those circumstances,
the Compiler hopes he may be allowed to remain
still of opinion, that the miraculous relations found in
the divine writings would be apt at best to cany
littie weight with them, when imparted to the Hin
doos at large in the present state of their minds : but
as no other religion can produce ariy thing that may
stand in competition with the Precepts of Jesus,
much less that can be pretended to be superior to
them, the Compiler deemed it incumbient upon him
to introduce these among his countrymen as a Guide
to Peaqe and Happiness. ^5

227

CHAPTER VI.
0« the Impersonality of the Holy Spirit,
Miscellaneous Remarks.
I WILL now inquire into the justness of the con
clusion drawn by the Editor in his attenipt to prove
the Deity of the Holy Ghost, from the circumstance
of his name being associated with that of the Father
in the rite of Baptism. This subject is incidentally
brought forward in the course of the arguments he
has adduced respecting the nature of Jesus, where he
observes, " It is needless to add that this testimony
of Jesus, (the associating of his own name and that
of the Holy Ghosf with the name of the Father,) is
equally decisive respecting the deity of the Holy
Ghost." I have hitherto omitted to notice this ques
tion among other matters in review, reserving it for
the express purpose of a distinct and separate exa
mination. It seems to me in the first place rather
singular, that the Reverend Editor, after having filled
up many pages with numerous arguments in his en
deavour to establish the Godhead of Jesus, should
have noticed in so short and abrupt a manner, the
question of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, although
the Editor equally esteems them both as distinct
persons of the Deity. I wonder, in the next place,
a2

228
how the learned Editor could suppose a mere associ
ation of names in a rite to be sufficient to prove the
identity of their subjects. I am indeed sorry I can
not, without overlooking a great many scriptural
authorities, and defying reason totally, join the Editor
in the opinion, that the association of the name of the
Holy Spirit with that of the Father of the Universe,
in the rite of Baptism, is " decisive" of, or even allu
sive to the separate personality of the Spirit. ^
2 Chronicles^ ch. xx. ver. 20 : " Jehoshaphat stood
and said. Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of
Jerusalem ; Believe in the Lord your God, so shall
ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye
prosper :" wherein the name of the Prophets of God
is associated with that of the Deity himself in the
profession of belief;, which is considered by Christians
of all denominations more essential than an external
syfnbol of Christianity. Again, in Jeremiah, ch.
xx^. ver. 9, " But they shall serve the Lord their
God, and David their King, whom I will raise up
unto them," the Lord joins his name with that of
David in the act of religious Service, which is in its
strictest sense esteemed due to God alone. Would
it notjtherefore be unscriptural to make an attempt
to prove the Deity of the Prophets, or David, under
the plea that their names are associated with that of
God in religious observances ? But we must do so,
were we to follow the process of reasoning adopted
by the Reverend Editor. The kind of evidence on
which the Editor relies in this instance, would be-

229
sides suit admirably the purposes of those who might
seek in the sacred Scriptures, grounds for justifying
idolatry. Fire worshippers, for instance, insisting on
the literal sense of the words, might refer to that text
in the 3d chapter of Matthew, repeated in Luke, ch.
iii. ver. 16, in which it is announced, that Jesus
Christ will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with
fire. If the association in the rite of Baptism of the
names of the Son and Holy Ghost, with that of the
Father, proves their divinity; it is clear, that fire
also, being associated with the Holy Ghost in the
same rite, must likewise be considered as a part of
the Godhead.
God is invariably represented in revelation as the
main object of belief, receiving worship and prayers
that proceed from the heart through the first-born of
every creature, the Messiah, ("No man cometh unto
the Father but by me," John, ch. xiv. ver. 6,) and
leading such as worship him in spirit to righteous
conduct, and ultimately to salvation, through his
guiding influence, which is called the Holy Spirit,
(" when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide
you into all truth," John,, ch. xvi. ver. 13). There
is therefore a moral obligation on those who avow
the truth of such revelation to profess their belief in
God as the sole object of worship ; and in the Son,
through whom they, as Christians, should offer divine
homage ; and also in the holy influence of God, from
which they should expect direction in the path of
righteousness, as the consequence of their sincere

230
prayer and supplication. For the same reason also,
in publicly adopting this religion, it is proper that
those who receive it should be baptized in the name
of the Father, who is the object of worship ; of the
Son, who is the mediator ; and of that influence by
which spiritual blessings are conveyed to mankind,
designated in the Scriptures as the Comforter, Spirit
of truth, or Holy Spirit. As God is declared through
his Holy Spirit to have led to righteousness such as
sought heartily his will, so he is equally represented
to have through his wrath afflicted rebels against his
authority, and to have prospered through his infinite
mercy those who manifested obedience to him ; as
appears from the following passages. 2 Kings, ch,
xxiv. ver. 20 : " For through the anger of the Lord
it came to pass in Jerusalem, Until he had cast them
out from his presence." Psahn xc. ver. 7 : " For
we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath
are we troubled," Psahn xxi. ver. 7 : " And through
the mercy of the Most High he shall not be moved."
Psalm vi. ver. 4 : " Return, O Lord, deliver my soul:
O save me for thy mercfs sake." Nor can we legi
timately infer the idea ofthe self-existence or distinct
personality of the Holy Ghost, from such metapho
rical language as the following : " The Holy Ghost
shall teach you," Luke, ch. xii. ver. 12. " The Holy
Ghost is come upon yoU," Acts, ch. i. ver. 8. " The
Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send," John, ch. xiv. ver. 26. For we find ex
pressions of a similar nature applied to other attri-

231
butes of God, personifying them equally with the
Holy Spirit. Psalm Ivii. ver. 3 : " God shall send
forth his mercy and his truth." Ps. Ixxxv. ver. 10:
" Mercy and truth are met together." Ps. c. ver. 5 :
" The Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting" Ps.
xxxiii. ver. 22 : " Let thy mercy, O Lord, be upon
us." Ps. xxxvi. ver. 5 : " Thy mercy, O Lord, is
in the heavens." Ps. cviii. ver. 4 : " For thy mercy
is great above the heavens." Ezekiel, ch. vii. ver. 3:
" I will send my anger upon thee." 2 Chronicles,
ch. xxiv. ver. 18 : " Wrath came upon Judah for
this trespass."
Were every attribute ascribed to the Deity, which
is found personified, to be therefore considered as a
distinct personage, it would be difficult to avoid
forming a very strange notion of the theology of the
Bible. It appears indeed to me impossible to view
the Holy Spirit as very God, without coming to ideas
respecting the nature of the Deity, little different
from some of those most generally and justly con
demned as found amongst Pplytheists. Take for
instance, Matthew, ch. i. ver. 11, where it is said,
that Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Ver. 20 : " That which is conceived in her, is of the
Holy Ghost." , Luk?, ch. i. ver. 35 : " The Holy
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee." In interpreting
these passages according to fhe opinion maintained
by the Editor, we should necessarily be drawn to the
idea that God came upon Mary, and that the child

232
which she bore was in reality begotten of him. — Is
this idea, I would beg to know, consistent with the
perfect nature of the righteous God ? Or rather, is
not such a notion of the Godhead's having had in
tercourse with a human female, as horrible as the
sentiments entertained by ancient and modern hea
thens respecting the Deity ? On the other hand, if
we understand by those passages, merely that the
miraculous influence of God came upon Mary, so
that, though a virgin, she bore a child, every thing
-would stand consistent with our belief of the divine
power, without shocking our ideas of the purity of
the Deity, inculcated alike by reason and revelation.
This mode of interpretation is indeed confirmed by
the very passage of Luke above quoted, " The power
of the Highest shall overshadow thee ;" plainly and
simply declaring, that it was the power of God which
gave birth to the child, contrary to the ordinary
course of nature. If by the term " Holy Ghost" be
meant a third distinct person of the Godhead, equal
in power and glory with the Father of all ; I am at
a loss to know what Trinitarians understand by such
expressions as the following. Matthew, ch, iii. ver.
11, and Luke, ch. iii. ver. 16 : " He shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Acts, ch.
X. ver. 38 : " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with
the Holy Ghost and with povver." Matthew, ch. xii.
ver. 28 : " I cast out devils by the Spirit of God."
Ver. 31 : " All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy against the

233
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Luke)
ch. iv. ver. 1 : " And Jesus, being full of the Holy
Ghost, returned from Jordan." If the term " Holy
Ghost" be synonymous with the third person of the
Godhead, and " Christ" with the second person, the
foregoing passages may be read as follows : " He,
the second person, shall baptize you with the third
person of the Godhead, and with fire." " God
anointed Jesus of Nazareth (the second person of
the Godhead), with the third person of the Godhead,
and with power." " I (the second person of the God
head), cast out devils by the third person of the
Godhead." " All manner of. sin and blasphemy,
even against the first and second persons of the God
head, shall be forgiven unto men ; but blasphemy
against the third person of the Gcxihead shall not be
forgiven unto men." " Jesus (the second person of
the Godhead), being full of the third person of the
Godhead, returned from Jordan." But little reflec
tion is, I should suppose, necessary to enable any one
to perceive the inconsistency of such paraphrases as
the foregoing, and the reasonableness of adopting the
usual mode of scriptural interpretation of the original
texts, according to which the foregoing passages may
be understood as follows : " He shall baptize you
with the spirit of truth and purity." " God anointed
Jesus of Nazareth with his holy influence and
power." " I cast out devils by the influence of
God." " All manner of sin and blasphemy even
against the Christ, the first-born of every creature.

234
shall be forgiven to men ; but blasphemy against the
power of God shall not be forgiven unto men."
" Jesus being full of the influence of God, returned
from Jordan." Still more dangerous to true religion
would it be to interpret, according to the Trinitarian
mode, the passages which describe the descent of
the Holy Ghost upon Jesus on the occasion of his
baptism. Liike, ch. iii. ver. 22 : " And the Holy
Ghost desciended in a bodily shape like a dove upon
him." For if we believe that the Spirit, in the form
of a dove, or in any other bodily shape, was really
the third person of the Godhead, how can we justiy
charge with absurdity the Hindoo legends of the
Divinity having the form of a fish or of any other
animal ?
It ought to be remarked, with respect to the text
above quoted, denouncing eternal wrath on those
who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, that the
occasion on which the term was made use of by
Christ was the accusation of the Jews, that his mi
racles were the effects of an influence of a nature
directiy opposite to that of God, namely, the power
of Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. The Jews
alleged that he was possessed of an unclean or dia
bolical spirit. (" Because they said. He hath an
^^'nclean spirit," Mark, ch. iii. ver. 30, "They
said, rhis fellow doth not cast out devils, but by
Beelzebub, the prince of devUs," Matthew j ch, xii,
ver. 24.) Jesus affirms, that the Spirit which en
abled him to do those wonderful works was a holy

235
Spirit ; and that whatever language they might hold
with respect to himself, blasphemy against that
power by which he did those miracles would not be
forgiven. " All manner of sins and blasphemy shall
be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh against the Son of man, it
shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven
him, neither in this world, nor in the world to
come." Were the words " all manner of blasphemy," in
the passage in question, received as including blas
phemy against the Father, the term must be thus
understood : " All manner of blasphemy against man
and the Father, and even blasphemy against the Son,
shall be forgiven ; but blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost must not be forgiven :" and consequentiy the
interpretation would amount to an admission of the
superiority of the Son and the Holy Ghost to the
Father, an opinion which no sect of Christians has
hitherto formed. In the above-quoted passage,
therefore, the exception of the Holy Ghost must
exclude blasphemy against the Father, and the whole
should be thus interpreted : — ^All manner of blas
phemy against men and angels, even against the
first-bom of every creature, shall be forgiven ; but
blasphemy against the power of God, by which
Jesus declared himself to have cast out devils, shall
not be forgiven. For fiirther illustration I quote

236
here the whole passage of Matthew, ch, xii. vers.
24 — 37 : " But when the Pharisees heard it, they
said. This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by
Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus
knew their thoughts, and said unto them. Every
kingdom divided against itself is brought to desola
tion ; and every city or house divided against itself
shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is
divided against himseF; how shall then his king
dom stand ? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils,
by whom do your children cast them out ? therefore
they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils
by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is
come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a
strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he
first bind the strong man ? and then he will spoil his
house. He that is not with me is against me ; and
he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Wherefore I say unto you. All manner of sin and
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blas
phemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven
unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but whoso
ever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
world to come. Either make the tree good, and his
fruit good ; or else make the tree conupt, and his
fruit corrupt : for the tree is known by his fruit. O
generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak
good things ? for out of the abundance of the heart

237
the mouth Speaketh. A good man out of the good
treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things :
and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things. But I say unto you. That every
idle word that men shall speak, they shall give
account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy
words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou
shalt be condemned." Mark, ch. iii. vers. 29, 30 :
" But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy
Ghost hath never forgivenness, but is in danger of
eternal damnation : because they said. He hath an
unclean spirit."
Is it not evident from the above authority of Jesus
himself, that the term " Holy Ghost" is synonymous
to the prevailing influence of God ? And had not the
power by which Jesus performed his miracles the
same origin, and was it not of the same nature as
that by which the children of Israel performed
theirs ? " If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by
whom do your children cast them out? therefore
they shall be your judges." It may not be without
use to notice here, that frequent instances are related
in the Scriptures of the influence of the Spirit of
God, in leading righteous men to truth, before Jesus
had commenced the performance of his divine com
mission, and even before he had appeared in this
world ; in the same manner as it afterwards operated
in guiding his true followers to the way of God, sub
sequent to his ascent to heaven, in consequence of his
repeated intercession with the Father. This will

238
fully appear from the following passages, Ltke, ch. i.
ver. 15 : " And he (John the Baptist) shall be filled
with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother s womb."
Ver. 41 : " And it came to pass, that when Eliza
beth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped
in her womb ; and Elizabeth was filled with the
Holy Ghost." Ver. 67: " And his (John's) father
Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and pro
phesied," &e, Ch. ii. vers. 25, 26 : " And, behold,
there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was
Simeon ; and the same man was just and devout,
waiting for the consolation of Israel ; and the Holy
Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto
him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see
death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And
he came by the Spirit into the temple." Mark, ch-
xii. ver. 36 : " David himself said by the Holy
Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my
right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."
The Evangelist Matthew employs a similar expres
sion, ch. xxii. ver. 43 : " How then doth David in
spirit call him Lord?" Luke, ch. iv. ver. 1 : " And
Jesus, being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from
Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilder
ness." It must not, therefore, be supposed, that the
manisfestation of this holy attribute ofGod is peculiar
to the Christian dispensation. We find in the Scrip
tures the term " God" applied figuratively in a finite
sense to Christ, and to some other superiors, as I
have already noticed in page 169: a circumstance

239
which may possibly have tended to confirm such as
are rendered from their early impressions partial to
the doctrine of the Trinity, in their prepossessed
notions of the deity of Jesus. But with respect to
the Holy Ghost, I must confess my inability to find
a single passage in the whole Scriptures, in which the
Spirit is addressed as God, or as a person of God, so
as to afford to believers of the Trinity an excuse for
their profession of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost.
The only authorities they quote to this effect that I
have met with are as follow : Acts ch. v. vers. 3, 4 :
" Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine
heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ? Thou hast not
Ked unto men, but unto God." From which they
conclude. He that lieth to the Holy Ghost, lieth to
God. John, ch. xv. ver. 26 : " But when the Com
forter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from
the Father, he shall testify of me." As. to the first
of these texts, I need only remark, that any sin or
blasphemy against one of the attributes of God is of
course reckoned a sin or blasphemy against God
himself. But this admission amounts neither to a
recognition ofthe self-existence of the attribute, nor
of its identity with God. With respect to the mis
sion of the Spirit of truth as a proof o£ its being a se
parate existenee, and not merely an expression for the
influence of God, the passage in question if so taken
will thus run : " But when God is come, whom I
(God) will send unto you from God, even God who

240
proceedeth from God, &c." Can there be an idea
more polytheistical than what flows from these words?
Yet those that maintain this interpretation, express
their detestation of Polytheism. If with a view to
soften the unreasonableness of this interpretation they
think themselves justified in having recourse to the
term " mystery," they cannot without injustice accuse
Hindoos, the believers of numerous Gods under one
Godhead, of absurdity, when they plead mystery in
defence of their Polytheism ; for under the plea of
mystery every appearance of unreasonableness may
be easily removed.
I find to my great surprise, that the plural form of
expression in the 26th verse of the first chapter of
Genesis, " And God said. Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness," has, been quoted by some
divines as tending to prove the doctrine of the Deity
ofthe Holy Ghost, and that ofthe Son with the Deity
of the Father of the universe, commonly called the
doctrine of the Trinity. It could scarcely be be
lieved, if the fact were not too notorious, that such
eminent scholars as some of those divines undoubt
edly were, could be liable to such a mistake, as to
rely on this verse as a ground of argument in sup
port of the Trinity. It shews how easily prejudice
in favour of an already acquired opinipn gets the
better of learning, and how successftilly it darkens
the sphere of truth. Were we even to disregard
totally the idiom of the Hebrew, Arabic, and of
almost all Asiatic languages, in which the plural

241
number is often used for the singular, to express the
respect due to the persori denoted by the noun ; and
to understand the term " our iniage" " and our Uke-
ness," found in the verse as conveying a plural meanr
ing, the quotation would still by no nieans answer
their purpose ; for the verse in question would in that
case imply a plurality of Gods, without deterniining
whether their number was three or three hundred,
and of course without specifying their persons. —
No middle point in the unlimited series of number
being determined, it would be almost necessary for
the purpose of obtaining some fixed number, as im
plied by those terms, to adopt either two, the lowest
degree of plurality in the first personal pronoun both
in Hebrew and Arabic, or to take the highest numbpr
of Gods with which human imagination has peopled
the heavens. In the former case the verse cited
might countenance the doctrine of thp duality of the
Godhead entertained by Zirdusht and his followers,
representing the God of goodness, and the God of
eyil, to have jointiy created man, composed of a
mixed natureof good and evil propensities; in the
latter it would be consistent with the Hindoo systeni
of religion ; but there is nothing in the words that
can be with any justice construed as pointing to
Trinity. These are not the only difficulties attending
the interpretation of those terms : — if they should be
viewed in £Hfiy other than a singular sense, they would
involve contradiction -with the very next verse : " So
God created man in his own image ;" in which the

^4^
singular numibef is distiw^tly used ; and in Deut.
ch. iv. ver. 4, " The Lord oui- God is orie Lord 5"
and also with the spirit^ the whole ofthe Old Tes
tament. To those who ate totferably versed in Hebrew and
Arabic, (which is only a tefinfed Hebrew,) it is a Well
known fact, that in the Jewish and Mohummudaft
Scriptures, as well as in common diSbPUVSe, the plutal
form is often used in a singulaf sense when the
superiority of the subject of dispourse is intended to
be kept in view-: this is sufficiently apparent from
ihe following quotations taken both from the Old
Testameht in Hebrew, and from the 'Qotan. Exodus,
•ch. xxi. ver. 4, In the original H'direw iScaipture
htt>i* if? tn» vn« t=)« " If his mastefs (meaning his
Wa&ster) have given him a wffe." Verse 6, Hebrew,
tt3»n^«n hii vj*»« i»»jni " Then his masters (that is,
his master) shall bring hiril unto the judges."
Vei^e ^thj f^iria *txiire\ D»Va? Vtohto «in nSi ^w c3ni
«' :But if the o* were wont to push with his horn in
tiihP past, and it has been testified to his ownets,"
(tJhat iSi to his Owfler);— -fc'aeftAi'Ch. vi. ver. 8, Hebrew,
liV -»iV» "Wl nVtt^ft *b nn " To whom shall I send ? and
Wfeb will go flair us ?" (that is, fot 'me).
So also in the Qoran, jj^j!) Joa-^ »_yl ^
" We are (meaning I am) nearer than the jugular
"vein." .jfij nUSiU. lii " Surely We (meaning I)
created every thihg ift pi'ijportibn." In these two
texts df'the Qoran, God isteptfe^titt^ to have spoken

243
in the plural number, although Mohummud cannot
be supposed to have employed a mode of expression
which he could have supposed capable of being con
sidered favourable to the Trinity.
But what are we to think of such reasoning as
that which finds a confirmation of the doctrine of the
Trinity in the thrice repeated term " holy," in verse
3d, chapter vith of Isaiah ? Following this mode of
argument, the repetitions of the term "Eh, Eli,"
or " My God, my God," by Jesus in his human na
ture, in Matthew, ch. xxvii, ver. 46, equally esta^
blishes the duality ofthe Godhead. So also the holy
name of the Supreme Deity being composed of four
letters, in the Hebrew nin» ; in Greek ^sof ; in Latin
Deus ; in Arabic <i£l ; and in Suriscrit ^w, clearly
denotes the quadrality of the Godhead ! ! ! But these
and all similar modes of argument that have been
resorted to, are worthy of notic:e only as they serve
to exhibit the extraordinary force of prejudice and
superstition. The most extraordinary circumstance is, that some
should quote in support of the Trinity, the following
sentence: "For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,
and these three are one ;" representing it as the 7th
verse, chap, vth, of the first epistle of John. This is
supposed to have been at first composed as a para
phrase upon what stands as verse Sth of the same
¦chapter, ("and there are three that bear witness in
earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and
r2

U4
these three agree in one,") and met with approbation.
It was however for a length of time known only in
"oral circulation ; but was afterwards placed in the
margin of some editions, and at last introduced into
the text, most probably in the fifteenth century, as
an (Original verse. From that time it has been the
common practice to insert this verse amongst those
which are collected in support Of the Trinitarian doc
trine. . It may haVe served in this Way to confirm
and strengthen prejudice, though few biblical critics
ever attached the smallest value to it either way.
This interpretation is so modern and so obvious, that
several Trinitariari Editors and Commeritators of the
Bible, such as Griesbach and Michaelis, (who never
"allowed their zeal for their sect' to overcome the pru-
-dcnce and candour with which they were eridowed,)
have omitted to insert it in their late works on the
'New Testament ; knowing perhaps that such an in^
terpolation, so far from strengthening the doctrine
they maintain, has excited great doubts as to the
'accuracy of other passages .generaUy:relied upon for
its support. . ' : • .';;
We have already, I trust, seen distinctly that none
^of the lessons taught by Christ to his disciples teach
us to believe in him as God ; -but as most Trinitarian
; authors assert that this doctrine was fully revealed
by his Aposties speaking under the i inspiration of
the Holy Ghost, it may be worth while to examine
whether'it be included by. them amongst the doc
trines of the Christian religion. This question may

245
be immediately deterniined by referring fo the history
of the Acts of the -Apostles ; for if the docti^ine of thp
Trinity had. beeri considered by them as an essential
part of what they were commanded to teach, wq
should certainly flnd it irisisted upon in.the discourses
they addressed to their converts. But we shall look
in vain for any expression amongst those reported by
Luke, that iridicates the profession of such a belief
by the Apostles themselves ; far less that they cxt
acted an acknowledgment Of its truth, from those
whom they admitted by the rife of Baptism into the
faith of Christianity.
Acts, ch. ii. ver. 22 : " Ye men of Israel, hear
these words ; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of
God among you by miracles and wonders and signSj
which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye
yourselves also know ;" 32, " This Jesus hath God
raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." 36, " There
fore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that
God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have cru
cified, both Lord arid Christ," Ch. iii. 22 and 23:
" For Moses truly said unto the Fathers, a Prophet
shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your
brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all
things, whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it
shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not
hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among
the people." Ch. iv. yer. 12 : "Neither is fhere sal
vation in any other; for there is none other name
under heaven given among men, whereby we must

246
be saved." Vers;^6 and 27 : " The kings of the earth
stood up, and the rulers were gathered togethei*
against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a
truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thOu hast
anointed/ &c, Ch, v, ver. 31 : " Him has God ex
alted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour,
for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of
sins." Ch. vii, ver. 56 s " And said, behold, I see
the heavens open, and the Scm of man standing on
the right-hand of God." Ch. viii. vers. 37 and 38 :
" And Philip said. If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I
believe that JesUs Christ is the Son of God. And
he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they
went down tioth into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch ; and he baptised him." Ch, x. ver. 38 :
" How God ancjinted Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Ghost and with power." Ver. 42: "And he
commanded us to prcach unto the people, Siud to
testify that it is he who was ordained of God to be
the Judge of quick and dead*" Ch. xiii. Ver. 38 :
" Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren,
that through this man is preached unto you the for^
giveness of sins." Ch. Xvii. ver. 3 : " Opening and
alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and
risen again from the dead ; and that this Jesus,
whom I preach unto you, is Christ."
Thus we find the Apostles never hesitated to hazard
their lives by declaring before the Jews that their
master was a Prophet, the expected Messiah, the

247
Son of the hving God ; which was equally bffensivp
to their countrymen, as if they had called him God
himself; yet in none ofthe Sermons do we ever find
them representing him as the true God. In the same
manner Jesus himself never assumed that character
to himself, although he repeatedly avowed that he
was the Messiah, the Son of God, whereby he knew
that according to their law he would draw the pe
nalty of death upon himself. As to the nature of
those doctrines of Christianity deemed essential in the
earliest times, I shall content myself with making a
few extracts from the Ecclesiastical History of Mo
sheim, a celebrated author among Trinitarians, which
will prove that the doctrine of the Trinity, so zea^
lously maintained as fundamental by the generality
of modem Christians, made not its appearance as an
essential, or even secondary article of Christian faith,
until the commencement of the fourth century ; and
then it was introduced after long and violent discus
sions by the majority of an assembly, who were sup
ported by the authority of a monarch. Mosheim,
Vol. L p. 100 ! " Nor in this first century was the
distinction made between Christians of a more or
less perfect order which took place afterwards : who
ever acknowledged Christ as the Saviour of mankind,
, and made solemn profession of his confidence in him,
was immediately baptized, and received into the
Church." P. 411 : " Soon after its commencement,
even in the year 317, a new contention arose in
Egypt upon a subject of much higher importance.

248
and with consequences of a yet more pernicious
nature ; the subject of this fatal- controversy, which
kindled such deplorable division throughout the
Christian world, was the doctrine of three persons of
the Godhead ; a do(±-ine which in the three pre
ceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curi
osity of human researches, and been left Undefined
and undeterinined by any particular set of ideas;
The Church indeed had frequently decided against
the Sabellians and others, that there was a real dif
ference betvveen the Father and the Son, and that
the Holy Ghost ivas distirict from them both ; or as
we commonly speak, that three distinct persons exist
in the Deity ; but the mutual relation bf these per
sons to each other, and the nature bf the distinction
that subsists between them, are matters that hitherto
were neither disputed nor explained^ with respect to
which the Church had consequently observed a pro
found silence :-^nothing was declared to the faith of
Christians in this matter, nor were there any modes
of expression prescribed as requisite to be used in
speaking of the mystery. Hence it happened, that
the Christian doctors entertained different sentiments
upon this subject without giving the least offence,
ahd discoursed variously concerning the distinction
between father. Son, and the Holy Ghost, each one
followirig his respective opinion with the utmost li
berty." On this quotiation I beg leave to remark,
that if, in the firSt and purest ages of Christianity, the
followers of Christ entertained such different opinions

249
on the subject bf thei distinction between Father*,
Son^ and Holy Spirit, without incurring the charge
of heresy arid heterodoxy, arid without even breaking
the tie of Christian affection towards each other, it is
a melancholy contrast that the same freedom of
opinion on this subject is not now allowed, nor the
same mutual forbearance maintained amongst those
who call themselves Christians. Mosheim, p. 412 :
" In an assembly of Presbyters of Alexandria, the
Bishop of that city, whose name was Alexander,
(expressed his sentiments on this head with a high
degree of freedom and confidence^ and maintained
among other thirigs, that the Son was not only of the
same eminence and dignity, but also of the same es
sence with the Father : this assertion was opposed
by Arius, one of the presbyters, a man of a subtile
turn, and remarkable for his eloquence." Page 414:
" The Emperor Constantine, looking upon the subject
of this controversy as a matter of small importance,
and as little connected with the fundamental and
essential doctrines of religion, contented himself at
first with addressing a letter to the contending par-
tiesj in which he admonished them to put an end to
their disputes ; but wheri the Prince saw that hiS
admonitions were without effect, and that troubles
and commotions, which the passions of men too often
mingle with religious disputes^ were spreading and
increasing daily throughout the empire, he assembled
at length, in the year 325, the famous Council of
Nice in Bithynia, wherein the deputies of the Church

260
Universal were summoned to put an end to this
controversy. In this general council, after many
keen debates and violent efforts of the two parties,
the doctrine of Arius was condemned ; Christ de
clared consubstantial or of the same essence with the
Father ; the vanquished Presbyter banished among
the Illyrians, and his followers compelled to ^ve
their assent to the. creed or confession of faith which
was composed by this coUncil." It must not escape
the notice of my readers, that so late as the year
314, the doctrine of the Son being of the same nature
with the Father, was supposed to be a matter of
small importance, and little connected with the fun
damental and essential doctrines bf religion.
The reason for the majority being in favour of the
three persons ofthe Godhead at the Council of Nice,
may he easily accounted for, as I noticed before.
More than nine-tenths of the Christians of that age,
including the emperor and princes, were Gentile con
verts, to whom the idea of a plurality of Gods was
most familiar and acceptable, and to whose reason
as well as practice the worship of a deity in the hu
man shape was perfectly consonant, as appears from
the following quotation, as well as from the Roman
and Grecian histories. Mosheim, [Vol. I,] p. 25 ;
" The deities of almost all nations were either ancient
heroes renowned for noble exploits and worthy deeds,
or kings and generals who had founded empires, or
women become illustrious by remarkable actions or
useful inventions : the merit of these distinguished

251
and eminent persons, contemplated by their posterity
with an enthusiastic gratitude, was the reason of their
being exalted to celestial honours." We find also
in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul declared to be God
by the people of Melita, and both Paul and Barna
bas regarded as gods by the inhabitants of Lystra j
and the Saviour was ranked in the number of false
gods even by professed Heathens, Acts, ch. xxviii.
ver. 6 : " Howbeit they looked when he (Paul)
should have swollen or fallen down dead suddenly ;
but after they had looked a great while, and saw no
harm come to him, they changed their minds, and
said he was a God." Acts, ch. xiv. ver. 11 : "The
gods are come down to us in the likeness of men."
Mosheim, [Vol. L] p. 65 : " Many who were not wil-^
ling to adopt the whole ofthe doctrines of Christianity,
were nevertheless, as appears from undoubted re
cords, so struck with the account of his life and
actions, and so charmed with the sublime purity of
his precepts, that they numbered him (Jesus) among
the greatest heroes, nay, even among the gods them
selves." Page 66 : " So illustrious was the fame of
Christ's power grown after his resurrection from the
dead, and the miraculous gifts S'hed from on high
upon his apostles, that the Emperor Tiberius is said
to have proposed his being enrolled among the gods
of Rome, which the opposition of the senate hindered
from taking effect." If some of the Heathens from
the nature of their superstitions could rank Jesus
among their false gods, it is no wonder if others,-

252.
wheri nominally converted to Christianity, should
have placed him on an equality with the true God, and
should have passed a decree, constituting him one of
the persons of the Godhead. These facts coincide
entirely with my own firm persuasion bf the impos
sibility, that a doctrine so inconsistent vvith the evir
dence of the senses as that of three persons in bne
being, should ever gain the sincere assent Of any one,
into whose mind it has' not been instilled in early
education. Early, impressions alorie can induce a
Christiari to believe that three are orie, and one is
three ; just as by the same means a Hindoo is made
to helieve that millions are one, and one is millions ;
and to imagine that ari inanimate idol is a living
substance, and capable of : assuming various forms.
As I have sought to attain the truths of Christianity
from, the v^ords of the author of this religion, and
from the Undisputed instructions of his holy apos
tles, and not from a parent Or tutor, I cannot help
refusing my assent to any doctrine which I do not
find scriptural.
Before concluding, I beg to revert to one Or two
argumerits respecting the nature of Jesus Christ,
whicih have been already partly touched upon. It
is maintained that his nature was double, being divine
as Son of God, and human as Son of man— that
in the former capacity he performed miracles and
exercised authority over the wind and the sea, and
as man was subject to and experienced human feel--
ings, joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain. Is it possi-

253
ble to consider a being in the human shape, acting
daily in a manner required by the nature of the
human race, as the invisible God, above mortality
and all the feelings of mortal beings, from a mere
figurative appUcation of the terms " Son of God," or
" God," to him, and from the circumstance of his
performing wonderful works contrary to the usual
course of nature ? If so, what can prevent one from
esteeming Moses and others, as possessed of both
divine and human nature? since Moses likewise is
called God distinctly, (Exodus, ch. vii. ver. 1 : "I
have made thee a God to Pharaoh ;") and he is also
Called man, (" wherewith Moses, the man of God,
blessed Israel," Deut. ch. xxxiii. ver. 1)"; and con
sequently it may be alleged, that in his divine capa
city Moses performed miracles, and commanded the
heavens and the earth, (" Give ear, O ye heavens^
and I will speak ; and hear, O earth, the words of
my mouth," Deut. ch. xxxii. ver. 1 ; " For it (the
word of Moses) is not a vain thing for you, because
it is your life" ver. 47;) and that in his human
capacity he suffered death and other miseries. Neir
ther Jesus nor Moses ever declared, " I say so, and
perform this as God; and I say so, and perform
that as man." If We give so great a latitude to the
modes of reasoning employed to justify the idea qf
one -being possessed of two sorts of consciousness, as
God and man ; two sorts of minds, divine and
human; and two sets of souls, eternal and perish
able ; then we shall not only be at a loss to know

254
what is rational and what is absurd, but shall find
our senses snid experience c£ little or no use to us.
The mode of interpreting the Scriptures which is
universally adopted, is this, that when two terms
seemingly contradictory are applied to one person,
then that which is most consistent with reason and
with the context should be taken in a literal, and
the other in a figurative sense. Thus God is de
clared to be immaterial, and yet to have hands, eyes,
&c. The latter expressions taken literally, being
inconastent with reason, and with other passages of
the Scriptures, are understood as metaphorically im
plying his power and knowledge, while the former is
interpreted in its strict and literal sense : in like
manner the term " Lord Crod,"' &,c. applied to any
other than the Supreme Being, must be figuratively
understood. Were any one, in defiance of this gene
ral mode of inteipretation, to insist that the term
" God," applied to Jesus, should be taken in its
literal sense, smd that consequently Jesus should be
actually considered God in the human shape, he
would not only acknowledge the same intimate con
nexion of matter with God, that exists between mat
ter and the human soul, but also would necessarily
justify the application of such phrases as " Mother
of God" to the Virgin Mary, and " Brother of God"
to James and others, which are higWy derogatory to
the character ofthe Supreme Author ofthe universe;
and it is the use of phrases similar to these which
has rendered the religion of the Hindoos so grossly

255
absurd and contemptible. To admit that all things,
whether possible or impossible to our understanding,
are possible for God, is certainly favourable to the
idea of a mixed nature of God and man ; but at the
same time would be highly detrimental both to reli
gion and society ; for all sorts of positions and tales,
however impossible they may be, might in that case
be advanced and supported on the same plea.
I now conclude my reply with noticing in a brief
manner the modes of illustration that Trinitarians
adopt both in conversation and in writing in support
of ithe unity ofthe Godhead, in consistency with the
distinction bf three persons, 1st, That as the soul,
will, «nd perception, though they are three things,
ys^ are in fact one, so God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost, though distinct persons,
are to be esteemed as one. Admitting for a moment
the propriety of this analogy, it serves to destroy
totally their position, as to the three existences of the
Godhead being distinct substances ; for, according to
the established system of theology, the soul is be
lieved to be the substance, and will and perceptions
its properties, which have no distinct existence ; iri
the same manner as weight and locality are the pro
perties of matter, without having existence as separate
substances. If this analogy then were to hold good,
the Father would be acknowledged as a separate
existence like the soul, but the Son and the Holy
Spirit must be considered his attributes, as will and
perception are of the soul : a doctrine which re-

256
sembles that of the heretic Sabellius and the early
Egyptian Christians.
It is therefore necessary, that, in endeavouring to
prove the reasonableness of the idea respecting the
.unity of three distinct substances of the Godhead,
from Comparisqn between them, and the soul and its
will and perceptiqn, they shquld establish first that
the soul, will, and perpeptiqn, are three substances,
and that they are at the same time one ; and then
^should draw such an analogy, .shewing the possibility
of the position which they assume.
2ndly, That as notwithstandirig the distinct ^exist^
ence ofthe sun, his rays of light and his rays of heat,
they are considered as, one; so God the Father, God
the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, though separate
substa.nces, are one. Were we to adniit the separate
existenpe qf hqat, a pqint still disputed amongst phi
losophers, it would serve as an analpgy so far as
these three distinct substances, though differerit'tin
nature, are connected together.; but by no means
.would answer the purpose of illustrating their ppsi-
tiqn, that these distinct persons are one in nature
and essence : for the sun is acknowledged, to, be a
compact body ; rays of light are fluid substances sub
ject to absorption, and frequently found . emanating
from other bodies as well as the sun ; and heat, an
.existence of which the most remarkable property is
its power of expanding other substances, is frequently
unaccompanied by the rays of the sun. But, it is
.universally acknowledged,^ that v^hatpver;. argument

257
tends to prove a distinction between substances, must
necessarily overturn their unity in essence and exist
ence; and therefore the unity in nature and essence
which they assert to exist in the three persons of the
Godhead not being found in the sun, light, and heat,
the analogy attempted to be drawn must be aban
doned. Again, it is advanced, that as a single sub
stance possesses various qualities, and consequently
is viewed differently ; so the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, are in fact one God ; yet the Deity
in his capacity of Creator of the world is called the
Father, and in his capacity of Mediator is termed the
Son, in which he ¦ is generally supposed inferior to
the Father; and in his office of sanctification is named
the Holy Ghost, in which he is deemed inferior to
both. I know not whether to consider such an argu
ment as reasoning, or as a mockery of reason ; since
it justifies us in believing, that one and the same
being in one of his capacities is superior tohimself,
and again in reference to ariother quality is inferior
to himself; that he is in one case his own beloved
Son, and then in another capacity is at the disposal
of himself according to the entreaty of his Son.
This mode of arguing after all serves to deny the
Trinity, which represents the Godhead as consisting
bf three distinct persons, and not as One person pos
sessing different attributes, which it is the object of
Tririitarians to prove. They allege the united state
of the soul and the body as analogous to the union
of the Father and Son ; but no one who believes in

258
the separate existence of the soul, can for a moment
suppose it to be of the same essence as the body :
so that unless they admit the immateriality of the
-Father alone, and assert the materiality of the Son
in his pre-:.e3i;istent state, this illustration also must
be set aside.
Some allege, that as the Son of Man designates
human nature, so the Son of God expresses the na
ture of God. Were we to admit the term " God"
as a common nouri,, and not a proper name^ and
Godhead as a genus like ntankind, &c., and that
Jesus was actually begotten of the Deity, this mode
of reasoning would stand good ; but Godhead must
in this case be brought to a level with other genera,
capable of performing aaimal functions, &c.
Some represMiitfe God as a compound substance,
consisting of thipee parts, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, a r^resentation in support of which
they can offer no scriptural aajtifeoitty. I would how
ever wish to know, whether these parts (Father, Son
and Spirit) are of the same nature and existence, or
each possessed of a di^rent nature or essence. In
the former case, there would be a total impossibility
of composition ; for compcDsitipn absolutely requires
articles or fatiss- of different identity and essence ;
nothing being capable of c^mpodtion with itself.
Besides, the idea of such a compound Substance is
inconsistent with that distinct personality of Father,
So% and Spirit, which they maintain, — In the latter
cas^ (that is, the Father, the Son, Mid the Holy

259
Spirit, being of different natures,) a Composition of
these three parts is not impossible ; but it destroys
the opinion which they entertain respecting the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being of
the same nature and essence, and of course implies,
that the Godhead is liable to divisibility.
The argument so adduced by them would include
in reality a denial cjf the epithet God to each part
of the Godhead ; for no portion of an existence,
either ideal or perceptible in a true sense, can be
called the existence itself; as it is one of the first
axioms of abstract truth, that a part is less than the
whole : but we find in the Scriptures the Father con-
st-antly called God in the strict and full signification
of the term. John, ch. xvii, ver. 3 : " This is life
eternal, that they may know thee the only true God!,
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." 1 Cor. ch.
XV. ver. 24 : " Then cometh the end, when he shall
have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father." 1 Cor. ch. viii. ver. 6 : "To us there is
but one God, the Father." Ephesians, ch. iv. vers.
5, 6 : " Orie Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God
and Father of all, who is above all, and through all,
and in you all."
Another argument which has great weight with
that sect is, that unless Jesus is God and man, he
cannot be considered as qualified to perform' the
office of mediator between God and man ; because
it is only by this compound character that he inter
cedes for guilty creatures with their offended God, —
s 2

260
This mode of reasoning is most evidently opposed to
common sense, as well as to the Scriptures ; though
their zeal in support of the Trinity has not permitted
them to see it. I say, opposed to common sense ;
because we observe, that when any one feels angry
with and inclined tb punish one of a herd of cattle
which may have trespassed on his grounds, or when
a rider wishes to chastise his horse on account of its
viciousness, it is his friend or neighbour generally
who intercedes in its behalf and is successfiil in pro
curing mercy to the offending animal, in his simple
nature, without assuming in addition that of the crea
ture in whose behalf he~ intercedes. — I say, opposed
to scripture ; because we find in the sacred writings,
that Abraham,: Moses, and other Prophets, stood
mediators and interceded successfully in behalf of an
offending people with their offended God ; but none
of them possessed the double nature of God and man.
Numb. ch. xi. vers. 1, 2: "When the' people com-.
plained it displeased the Lord ; and the Lord heard
it, and his anger was kindled, and the fire of the
Lord burnt among them, and consumed them that
were in the uttermost parts of the camp. : And the
people cried unto Moses ; and when Moses prayed
unto the Lord, the fire was quenched." Ch. xiv.
vers. 19, 20, Moses prayed to the Lord, " Pardon,
I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people, according
unto the greatness of thy mercy," and as thou hast
for^ven this people, from Egypt even until now.
Andthe Lord said, I have pardoned them according

261
to thy word." Ch. xSci. ver. 7 : " Therefore the
people came to Moses, and said. We have sinned, for
we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee :
pray unto the Lord that he take away the serpents
from us : and Moses prayed for the people." Exod.
ch. xxxii. ver. 30 : " And it came to pass on the
morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have
sinned a great sin, and now I will go up unto the
Lord, peradventure I shall make an atonement for
your sins." Gen. ch. xviii. ver. 32 : " And he
(Abraham) said, O let not the Lord be angry, and I
will speak yet but this once — Peradventure ten shall
be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it
for ten's sake." I find several others performing the
office of mediator and intercessor in common with
Jesus, as I noticed before ; and indeed this seems to
have been an office common to all Prophets : but
none 6f them is supposed to have been clothed with
Godhead and manhood in union. Jeremiah, ch.
xxvii. ver. 18 : " But if they be Prophets, and if the
word of the Lord be with them, let them now make
intercession to the Lord of Hosts," &c. Deuter.
ch. V. ver. 5 : " I (Moses) stood between the Lord
and -you at that time, to shew you the word of the
Lord." I regret very much that a sect generally so
enlightened should on the one hand have supposed
the divine and human natures to be so diametrically
opposed to each other, that it is morally impossible
for God even to accept intercession from a mere
human being in behalf of the human race, and on

2G2
the Other hand should have "advanced that the Deity
joined to his own nature that of man, and was made
flesh, possessing ail fhe members and exercising all
the functions of nianr-^prqpositions which are morally
inconsistent with each other.
To avoid the supposed dishonour attached to the
appointment of a mediator less than divine, the Deity
is declared by them to have assumed the human
shape, and to have subjected himself to the feelings
and inclinations natural to the human species ; which
is not oidy inconsistent with the immutable nature
of God, but highly derogatory to the honour and
glory which we are taught to ascribe to him.
Other arguments of the same nature are frequently
advanced, but they are all together much fewer in
number, and far less convincing, than those which
are commonly brought forward by Hindoos to sup
port their Polytheism. Since, then, in evincing the
truth and excellence of the Precepts of Jesus, there
is no need of the aid of metaphysical arguments, and
since as a last resource they do not depend for their
support on the ground of njystpry, the Compiler has
in the discharge of his duty towards his countrymen,
properly introduced them as a Guide to Peace and
Happiness.

263

APPENDIX.

No. I.

On the Quotations from the Old Testament con
tained in the New.
It cannot have escaped the notice of attentive readers of
the Scriptures, that the bare quotations in the New Tes
tament from the Old, when unaccompanied with their
respective contexts, are liable to be misunderstood. Those
who are not well versed in the sacred writings, finding in
those references such phrases as apparently corroborate
their already acquired opinions, not only lay stress upon
them, in support of the sentiments generally adopted, but
even lead others very ofte^n, though unintentionally, into
gre^t errors.
Thus Matthew ii. 15 s " Qut <rf iEgypt have I called my
Son." The Evangelist refers to chapter xi, verse 1 of
Hosea; vrl^ich, though really applied to Israel, represented
there as the Son of God, is used fey the apostle in refer
ence to the Saviovjr, jii consideration of a near resem
blance between their circumstances in this instance : —
laoth Israel arBid Jesus were caitried into Egypt and recalled
from thence, and both were denojtftinated in the Scriptures
the " Son of God." The passage of Hosea thus runs
from chaptey xi. vers. 1st to the 3d : " When Israel was a
child, then I loved hini, j?,iKf catted mj Son out of JEgypt.
As they called them, so they went fr©m them : they sacri-

264
ficed unto Baalim, and burnt incense to graven images.
I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms ;
but they knew not that I healed them." In which Israel,
who is represented as a child of God, is declared to have
sacrificed to Baalim, and to have burnt incense to graven
images — circumstances which cannot justly be ascribed to
the Saviour.
With a view, therefore, to remove the possibility of such
errors, and to convince my readers that all the references
in the New Testament with their contexts manifest the
unity of God and natural inferiority of the Messiah to the
Father of the universe, I have endeavoured to arrange
them methodically, -beginning with such quotations as
were made by Jesus himself, agreeably to the proposal of
the Reverend Editor.
Quotations by Jesus himself exaJctly agreeing with the .
Hebrew.
i Mfitthew iv. 4, " Man shall not live by bread alone^
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God :" the same in Luke iv. 4, compared with Deut. viii.
3, " And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger,
and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither
did thy fathers know ; that he might make thee know,
that man shall not live by bread' alone, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man
live." Matthew iv. 7, " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
God" — compared with Deut. vi. 16, 17, " Ye shall not
tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord
your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he
hath commanded thee."

265
Matthew ix, 13, " But go ye and learn what that
meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" — compared
with Hosea vi. 5, 6, " Therefore have I hewed them by
the prophets ; I have slain them by the words of my
mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth
forth. For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice ; and the
knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."
Matthew xix. 19, xxii, 39, " Honour thy father and
thy mother : and. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy
self" — compared with Exodus xx. 12, " Honour thy father
and mother, that thy days may be long upon the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee" — andJ^eviticus xix.-
18, " Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against
the children of thy people j but thou shalt love thy neigh
bour as thyself: I am the Lord."
Matthew xxi. 42, " The stone which the builders re
jected, the same is become the head of the corner : this
is the Lard's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes ;" —
the same in Mark xii. 10, Lmke xx. 17, compared with
Psalm cxviii. 22, 23, " I (says David) will praise thee ;
for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.
The stone which the builders refused is become the head
stone of the comer. This is the Lord's doing; it is mar
vellous in our eyes." To decide whether this passage is
principally applied to David, and in the way of accommo
dation to Jesus, or originally to Jesus himself, is entirely
left to the discretion of my readers ; but it is evident in
either case, that it is "God that has raised the stone so
refected, Matthew xxii. 44, " The Lord said unto my Loird, Sif
thou on my right hand, till I make thme enemies thy foot
stool :" the same in Mark xii. 36, Luke xx. 42, compareds
with Psalm ex. 1, 2, " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit

266
thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength
out of Zion : rule thou in the midst of thine enemies."
This passage is simply applied to the Messiah, manifest
ing that the victory gained by him over his enemies was
entirely owing to the influence of God.
John X. 35, " Ye are gods"— compared with Psalm
Ixxxii. 1, 6, 7, " God standeth ifl the congregation of the
mighty ; he judgeth among the gods. I have said. Ye are
gods, and all of y«u are children pf the Most High : but
ye shall die like men, and fall like one oi the princes;"
wherein Jesys shews fi-om this quotation, that the term
Gpd is figuratively applicalile in the Scriptures to creatures
pf a spp^rior nature.
Quotations made hy Jesus himself, nearly agreeing with the
Hebrew.
Matthew iv. 10, "Thou sh^ worship the Lord thy
God, and him onJy thou shalt serye" — compared with
Deut. vi. 13, " Thou shalt fear the Xiord thy Gad, and
serve him, and shalt swear by Ma name."
Matthew xiii. 14, " By Ihearkig ye shall hear, Mid shaU
not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not
perceive"">Gompared with Isaiah vi. 9, and its context,
" I heard the choice of the Lord, saying. Whom shall I
send, and who wUl go for us ? Then said I, (Igai^,)
Here am I, send me. And he said. Go and tell this peo
ple. Hear ye indeed, but understand not; aud see ye
indeed, but pecceive not." This censure has original
refevence to the conduct ofthe people to whom Isaiah was
sent, hut it is applied by Jesus in an accommodated sense
to that of tbe Jews of his time.

267
Matthew xix. 5, " For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and they
twain shall be one flesh" — compared with Genesis ii. 23,
" And Adam said. This is now bone of my bone, and flesh
of my flesh : she shall be called woman j because she was
taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father
and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife ; and they
shall be one flesh."
Matthew xLx. 18, 19, " Thou shalt do no murder. Thou
shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou
shajt not bear false witness. Honour thy father and thy
mother : and. Thou shaft love thy neighbour as thyself"—
compared with Exodus xx. 12 — 16, " Honour thy father
and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land
which the Liord thy God giveth thee. Thou ^halt not
kill. Thou shalt not conmiit adultery. Thou shalt not
steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour." Matthew xxii. 32, ^' I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" — compared with
Exottus iii, (5, ** Moreover he sald^ J am the God of thy
father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob. And Hoses hid his face ; for he was a&aid to
look upon God."
Mfitthew xxii. 37, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with ajl thy mind :"
the same in Mark ;xii, 30, Luke x, 27, compared with
lieut. vi. 5, " And thou shalt love thg Lprd thy God with
all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all tjiy
might." Matthew xxvi. 31, " Then saith Jesus unto them. All
ye shall be offended becaugp qf me this night : for it is
written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the

268
flock shall be scattered abroad" — compared with Zechariah
xiii. 7, " Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and
against the man that is my fellow,* saith the Lord of
hosts : smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scat
tered ; and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones."
Verse 7 either was originally applied to Agrippa,
(ns'iJK) the last king of the Jews, whose subjects were
scattered after he had been smitten with the sword, and
in an accommodated sense is applied by Jesus to himself,
whose disciples were ih like manner dispersed, while he
was suffering afflictions fi-om his enemies-^or is directly
applicable to Jesus j but in both cases his total subordina
tion and submission to the Father of the universe is too
obvious to be disputed,
¦John vi. 45, " It iS written in the Prophets, And they
shall be all taught of God; Every man, therefore, that
hath heard' and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto
me" — compared with Isaiah liv. 13, " And all thy children
shall be taught of the Lord ; and g^eat shall be the peace
of thy children." -
John xiii. 18, "1 speak not of yon aU ; I know whom I
have chosen : but that the Scripture may be fulfilled. He
that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heels against
me" — compared with Psalm xli. 9, " Mine own familiar
friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath
lifted up his heel against me," is immediately applicable
to David ahd his friend Ahithophel, who betraiyed him ;
and 'secondarily, to Jfcsus, and Judas, his traitorous
apostle. * The word m'Dtf found iu the original Hebrew scripture, signi
fies one that lives near another ; therefore the word " fellow" in the
EngUsh translation is not altogether correct, as justly observed by
Archbishop Newcome.

269
John XV, 25, "But this cometh to pass, that the word
might be fulfilled that is written in their law. They hated
me without a cause" — compared with Psalm cix. 2, 3,
" They have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
They compassed me about also with words of hatred;
and fought against me without a cause." Verse 3d was
originally applied to David and his enemies, and in an
accommodated sense to Jesus and the Jews of his day.
Quotation made by Jesus' himself j agreeing with the
Hebrew in sense, but not in words,
Matthew xxi. 16, " Out of the mouth of babes and
sucklings thou hast perfected praise" — compared with Ps.
viii. 2, and its preceding verse, ¦" Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength, because
of thine enemies ; that thou mightest still the enemy and
the avenger."
Quotation taken from combined Passages of Scripture.
Mattlvew xxi. 13, " And said unto them. It is written.
My house shall be called the house of prayer : but you
have made, it a den of thieves" — compared with Isaiah,
Ivi. 17, " For mine house shall be called the house of
prayer for all people." Ch. vii. 11, " Is this house which
is called by my name become a den of robbers in your
eyes ? "
Quotation differing from the Hebrew, but agreeing with
the Septuagint.
Matthew X.V. 7—9, " Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias
prophesy of you, saying. This people draweth nigh unto

270
me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips ;
but their heart is far ftom me. But in vain they do wor
ship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men" — compared with Isaiah xxix. 13, which in the Sep-
tuagiiit corresponds exactly with the Gospel, but which
in verse 9, differs &om the original Hebrew, thus trans
lated in the common version: " And their fear toward me
is taught by the precepts of men."
Quotations in which there is reason to suspect a d^erent
Reading in Hebrew, or that the Apostles understood the
words in a sense different from that expressed in our
Lexicons.
Matthew xi, 10, " This is he of whom it is written.
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall
prepare thy way before thee" — compared with Malachi
iii. 1, " Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall
prepare the way before me." Matthew xxvi. 31, " I will
smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be
scattered abroad" — compared with Zechariah vii. 8, "Smite
the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
Luke iv. 8, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve" — compared with Deut.
vi. 13, " Thou shalt fear the Lord thy Godj and serve
him." Quotations slightly varying from the Septuagint.
Luke iv. 18, 19, " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he hath anointed me to preacJh 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 Uberty them that are bruised; to

271
preach the acceptable year of the Lord"— compared with
Isaiah Ixi, 1,2, " The Spirit ofthe Lord God is upon mej
because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings
unto the meek : he hath sent me to bind up "the broken
hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the open
ing of the prison to them that are bound ; to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord."
Now I beg the attention of my readers to these quota
tions ascribed to Jesus himself, and appeal to them, whe
ther he assumed in any of these references the character
of the Deity, or even equality with him. I am certaim
that they will find nothing of the kind : Jesus declared
himself in these instances entirely subordinate to the
Almighty God, and subject to his authority, and fre
quently compared himself to David or some of the other
Prophets.

272

No. II.
On the References made to the Old Testament in
Support of the Deity qf Jesus.
Trinitarian Divines quote John i. 14, " And the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we be
held his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father,) full of grace and truth," as a reference to Isaiah
ix. 6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,
and the government, shall be upon his shoulder ; and his
name shall be called Wonderfiil, Counsellor, The mighty
God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace,"—
though the evangelist John made no allusion to this pas
sage of Isaiah in the verse in question. The passage of
Isaiah thus referred to was applied to Hezekiah, the son
of Ahaz, figuratively designated as the son of the virgin,
the daughter of Zion, to wit Jerusalem, foretold by the
Prophet as the deliverer of the city from the hands of its
enemies, though its utter destruction was then threatened
by the kings of Syria and Israel. The words " a virgin,"
according to the English translation, are " the virgin,"
both in the original Hebrew and in the Greek ofthe Gospel
of Matthew, as well as in the Septuagint. But unless
Ahaz was aware of the allusion of the Prophet, the use of
the definite article in this passage must be quite inexpli
cable ; and no one will contend for a moment, that it was
given to that wicked king to understand that the mother
of Christ was the virgin alluded to ; what then could Ahaz
have comprehended by the expression "the virgin" ? On

273
referring to 2 Kings xix. 21, we find the same Prophet
make use of the very expression, where he informs the
king, Hezekiah, ofthe denunciation of God against Senna
cherib, the blasphemous king of Assyria, who was at that
time besieging Jerusalem. " This is the word that the
Lord hath spoken concerning him j JTie virgin, the daugh
ter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to
scorn." — It is impossible to conceive that these words,
expressly spoken of the king of Assyria, bear any allusion
to the virgin, the mother of Christ; and it illustrates
clearly the otherwise obscure expression of the Prophet
addressed to Ahaz, when he foretold to him the happy
reign of his successor Hezekiah. In Isaiah x. 32, " He
(the king of Assyria) shall shake his haiid against: the
mount of the daughter of Zion, the hiU of Jerusalem."
The epithet " The daughter of Zion," which in the last
passage was used as synonymous with " the virgin," here
signifies Jerusalem itself, in which sense it was commonly
used in the figurative language of the Prophet, and no
doubt weU understood by Ahaz : for we find the same
words in many other passages used to signify either a city
or the people of a city. Isaiah xxiii. 12 : "And he said.
Thou shalt no more rejoice, O thou oppressed virgin,
daughter of Zion." Ch. xlvii. 1 : " Come down, and sit
in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon." — Jeremiah
xiv. 17 : " Therefore thou shalt say this word unto them:
Let mine eyes run down with tears night and day, and let
them not cease ; for the virgin daughter of my people is
broken with a great breach." Ch. xviii. 13 : "Therefore
thus saith the Lord; Ask ye now among the heathen, who
hath heard such things : the virgin of Israel hath done a
very horrible thing." Ch. xxxi. 4: "Again I will build
thee, and thou shalt be buUt, O virgin of Israel : thou
T

274
shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth
in the dances of them that make merry." Ver. 13 : "Then
shall the virgin rejoice in the dance," &c. Ver. 2J : " Set
thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps : set thme heart
toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest :
turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy
cities." Lam. i, 15 : " The Lord hath trodden the virgin,
the daughter of Judah, as in a wine-press." Ch. ii. 13 :
" What thing shall I take to witness for thee ? what thing
shall I liken to thee^ O daughter of Jerusalem ? what thing
shall I liken to thee, O virgin daughter of Zion ? for thy
breach is great Uke the sea; whq can heal thee ?" Amos
V. 2 : " The virgin of Israel is fallen, she shall no more
rise : she ia forsaken upon her land ; there is none to raise
her up."
To shew that the passages in question, as well as all
that is foretold in this and the succeeding chapters, refer
to the reign of Hezekiah, nothing more than a comparison
of them with the records of that reign is requisite. 1 shall
therefore lay before my readers all those verses in these
chapters that are (commonly referred to hy Trinitarians as
9,lluding to the coming of Christ, with their contexts,
together with such parts of the history of the reign of
Hezekiah as appear to me to he clearly indicated by those
passages. Isaiah vii. 1 : "And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz,
the son of Jotham, the son of Ueaah, king of Judah, that
Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of RemaUah,
king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against
It, but eould not prevail against it. 2, And it was told
the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with
Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his
people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

275
3, Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet
Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the
conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuUer's
field ; 4, And say unto him. Take heed, and be quiet ;
fear not, neither be fainthearted, for the two tails of these
smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with
Syria, and of the son of RemaUah. 5, Because Syria,
Ephraim, and the son of RemaUah, have taken evil counsel
against thee, saying, 6, Let us go up against Judah, and
vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a
king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal : 7, Thus
saith the Lord God, It shaU not stand, neither shaU it
come to pass. 8, For the head of Syria is Damascus, and
the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore
and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a
people. 9, And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the
head of Samaria is RemaUah's son. If ye will not believe,
surely ye shaU not be established. 10, Moreover, the
Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 11, Ask thee a sign
of the Lord thy God ; ask it either in the depth, or in the
height above. 12, But Ahaz said, I wiU not ask, neither
will I tempt the Lord. 13, And he said. Hear ye now,
O house of David, Is it a small thing for you to weary
men, but wiU ye weary my God also ? 14, Therefore the
Lord himself shall give you a sign ; Behold, the virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shaU caU his name
Immanuel. 15, Butter and honey shaU he eat, that he
may know to refuse the evU, and choose the good. 16,
For before the chUd shall know to refiise the evil, and
choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be for
saken of both her kings. 17, The Lord shaU bring upon
thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house,
T 2

276
days that have not come, fi-om the day that Ephraim de
parted from Judah ; even the king of Assyria."
Chap. viii. 5 : " The Lord spake also unto me again,
saying, 6, Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters
of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Rema-
Uah's son ; 7, Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth
up upon them the waters qf the river, strong and many,
even the king of Assyria, and aU his glory : and he shaU
come up over all his channels, and go over aU lus banks :
8, And he shall pass through Judah; he shaU overflow
and go over, — he shall reach even to the neck ; and the
stretching out of his wings shaU fill the breadth of thy
land, O Immanuel."
Chap. ix. I : " Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be
such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly
afflicted the land of Zebulon, and the land of Naphtali,
and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way
of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. 2,
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great
light : they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death,
upon them hath the light shined. 3, Thou hast multiplied
the nation, and not increased the joy : they joy before
thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice
when they divide the spoil. 4, For thou hast broken the
yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod
of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian. 5, For every
battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments
roUed in blood ; but this shaU be with burning and fuel of
fire. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given :
and the government shall be upon his shoulder : and his
name shall be called Wonderfiil, CounseUor, The mighty
God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7,

277
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
the Lord of hosts wiU perform this."
Chap. X. 5 : " O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and
the staff in their hand is mine indignation. 6, 1 will send
him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people
of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil,
and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire
of the streets. 7, Howbeit he meaneth not sp, neither
doth his heart think so, but it is in his heart to destroy
and cut off nations not a few. 8, For he saith. Are not
my princes altogether kings ? 9, Is not Calno as Carche-
mish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Da
mascus ? t 10, As my hand hath found the kingdoms of
the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of
Jerusalem and of Samaria; 11, Shall I not, as I have done
unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her
idols ? 12, Wherefore it shaU come to pass, that, when
the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount
Zion and on Jerusalem, I wiU punish the fruit of the stout
* Those that are at all versed in scriptural language will attach no
weight to the terras " no end" and " for ever," found in ch. v. 7 ; for
the former often signifies plenteousness, and the latter long but not
eternal duration. Vide Eccl. iv. 16 : "There is no end of all the people,
even of all that have been before them." Isaiah ii. 7 : " Neither is
there any end of their treasure, neither is there any end of their cha
riots." Nahum ii, 9 : " There is none end of their store." Ch. iii. 3 :
" And there is none end of tlieir corpses." Psalm cxlv. 2, 9 : "I will
priuse thy name for ever and ever," Deut. xv. 17 : " And he shall be
thy servant /or ever,"
+ Compare vers. 9 — 11, with the historical relation of the vain
boastings of the Assyrian, narrated in 2 Kings xviii. 33 — ^35.

278
heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high
looks."— 16, "Therefore shaU the Lord, the Lord of hosts,
send among his fat ones leanness ; and under his glory he
shaU kindle a burning like the bumuig of a fire. 17, And
the light of Israel shaU be for a fire, and his Hob/ One for
a flame : and it shaU burn and devour his thorns and
briers in one day."— 24, " Therefore thus saith the Lord
God of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not
afraid of the Assyrian : he shaU smite thee with a rod,
and shall Uft up his staff against thee, after the manner of
Egypt. 25, For yet a very Uttle while, and the indigna
tion shall cease, and mine anger, in their destruction."
27, * "And it shall come to pass in that day, that his
burden shaU be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his
yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke.shaU be destroyed
because of the anointing."
2 Kings xvui. 1 : " Now it came to pass, in the third
year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah
the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2, Twenty
and five years old was he when he began to reign; and
he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem : his mo
ther's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3,
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,
according to aU that David his father did. 4, He removed
the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the
groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses
had made : for unto those days the children of Israel did
burn incense to it ; and he caUed it Nehushtan. 5, He
trusted in the Lord God of Israel ; so that after him was
none like him among aU the kings of Judah, nor any that
* Compare with 2 Kings xvi. 7, " So Ahaz sent messengers to
Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son,"
&c., and ch. xviii. 7, as above.

279
were before him. 6, For he clave to the Lord, and de
parted not from following him, but kept his command
ments, which the Lord commanded Moses, 7, And the
Lord was with him : and be prospered whithersoever he
went forth : and he rebelled against the king of Assyria
and served him not, 8, He smote the Philistines, even
unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the
watchmen to the fenced city.*'— 17, "And the king of
Assyria sent Tartan, and Rabaaris, and Rab-shakeh, from
Lachish to king Hezekiah, with a great host against Jeru
salem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And
when they were come up, they catne and stood by the
conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the
fiiUer's field."— 28, " Then Rab-shakeh stood, and cried
with a loud voice in the Jews' language, and spake, saying,
Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria ; 29,
Thus saith the king. Let not Hezekiah deceive you i for
he shaU not be able to deliver you out of his hand : 30,
Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying.
The Lord wiU surely deliver us, and this city shaU not be
deUvered into the hand of the king of Assyria, 31, Hearken
not unto Hezekiah i iat thus saith the king of Assyria,
Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out
to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and
every one of his fig-tree, and drink ye every ane the waters
of his cistern : 32, Until 1 come and take you away to a
land Uke youtr own land ; a land of com and wine, a land
of bread and vitleyafds, a land of oil-olive and of honey,
that ye may Uve, and not die ; and hearken ndt unto Heze
kiah, when he persuadeth y<m, saying. The Lord will
deliver us. 33, Hath any of the gods ofthe nations deli
vered at aU his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?
34, Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad ? where

280
are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah ? have they
deUvered Samaria out. of mine hand? 35, Who are they
among all the gods of the countries that have delivered
their country out of mine hand, that the Lord should de
Uver Jerusalem out of mine hand ?"
Chap. xix. 15 : "And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord,
and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dweUest between
the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all
the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and
earth. 16, Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear: open.
Lord, thine eyes, and see : and hear the words of Senna
cherib, which hath sent him to reproach the Uving God."
19, "Now therefore, O Lord our God, I beseech thee save
thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth
may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only.
20, Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying,
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, That wWch thou hast
prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria I have
heard. 21, This is the word that the Lord hath spoken
concerning him ; The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath
despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn ; the daughter of
Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. 22, Whom hast
thou reproached and blasphemed ? and against whom hast
thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high ?
even against the Holy One of Israel. 23, By thy messen
gers thou hast reproached the Lord, and hast said. With
the multitude of my chariots I am come up to the height
of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon, and wUl cut
down the taU cedar trees thereof, and the choice fir trees
thereof: and I wiU enter into the lodgings of his borders,
and into the forest of his Carmel."— 27, " But I know thy
abode, and thy going out, and thy commg in, and thy rage
against me. 28, Because thy rage against me and thy

281
tumult is come up into mine ears, therefore I wUl put my
hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I wiU
turn thee back by the way by which thou camest." 32,
" Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the king of
Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an
arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a
bank against it. 33, By the way that he came, by the
same shall he return, and shaU not come into this city,
saith the Lord. 34, For I wUl defend this city, to save it,
for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake. 35,
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord
went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hun
dred fourscore and five thousand : and when they arose
early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
¦ 36, So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went
and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. 37, .And it came
to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch
his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote
him with the sword ; and they escaped into the land
of Armenia : and Esar-haddon his son reigned in his
stead." 2 Chron. xxx. 24 : " For Hezekiah king of Judah did
give to the congregation a thousand buUocks, and seven
thousand sheep ; and the princes gave to the congregation
a thousand buUocks, and ten thousand sheep : and a great
number of priests sanctified themselves. 25, And aU the
congregation of Judah, with the priests and the Levites,
and aU the congregation that came out of Israel, and the
strangers that came out of the land of Israel, and that
dwelt in Judah, rejoiced. 26, So there was great joy in
Jerusalem; for since the time of Solomon, the son of
David king of Israel, there was not the like in Jerusalem.
27, Then the priests the Levites arose and blessed the

282
people : and their voice was heard, and their prayer came
up to his holy dweUing-place, even unto heaven."
Chap. xxxi. 20: "And thus did Hezekiah throughout
all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and
truth before the Lord his God. 21, And in every work
that he began in the service of the house of God, and in
the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he
did it with all his heart, and prospered."
Chap, xxxii. 23 : " And many brought gifts unto the
Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of
Judah : so that he was magnified in the sight of aU nations
from thenceforth." 33, " And Hezekiah slept with his fa
thers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres
of the sons of David : and all Judah and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem did him honour at his death. And Manasseh
his son reigned in his stead."
If, as ia declared by Trinitarians, the chUd promised in
ch. VU. 14, be the same that is alluded to in ch. ix. 6, and
ch. X. 17, it is quite evident from the context, that he was
to be the deliverer of the Jews fi-om the hands of the king
of Assyria, and was to be distinguished by the excellence
of his administration and the respect in which he was to
be held by aU nations. Making aUowance for the hyper
bolical style of Eastern nations, nothing can more aptly
apply as prophecy than these passages do to the reign of
Hezeliiah, as described in the above extracts from Kings
and Chronicles. But what, it may be asked, had the birth
of Christ to do vrith the destruction of the king of Assyria ?
or how could it be said that before he " knew to refuse
the evil and choose the good," the land of Syria and of
Israel should be deserted of their respective kings Rezin
and Pekah, who were gathered to their fathers many years
before his birth ?

283
This iUustrious son of Ahaz was not the only king
among the select nation of God, that was honoured with
such names as Hezekiah or " God my strength," and
" Emmanuel" or ".God with us ;" and also with such epi
thets as " Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the
Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace." We find
several other chiefs of that tribe that used to walk in the
way of God, dignified' in Scripture vrith epithets of a si-
mUar import. Genesis xxxu. 28 : " And he said. Thy
name shall be caUed no more Jacob, but Israel (Prince of
God) : for as a prince hast thou power with God and with
men, and hast prevailed." Psalm Ixxtlix. 18: "For the
Lord is our defence ; and THE HOLY ONE of Israel is
our king. 19, Then thou spakest in vision to thy Holy
One, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty :
I have exalted one chosen out of the people. 20, I have
found David my servant ; with my holy oil have I anointed
him : 27, Also I vriU make him MY FIRSTBORN, higher
than the kings of the earth,"
As to the word " a virgin," found in the English trans
lation, I request my readers to advert to the original
Hebrew nnVj?n " the virgin," as weU as to the Greek both
of the Septuagint and the Gospel of Matthew, )j wapSfwoj
" the virgin," leaving it to them to judge, whether a trans
lation which so entirely perverts the meaning preserved
throughout, by men whom we cannot suspect of ignorance
of the original language, must not have proceeded fi-om a
previous determination to apply the term " virgin," as
found in the Prophet, to the mother of Christ, in order that
the high titles applied to Hezekiah might in the most un
qualified manner be understood of Jesus.
The Evangelist Matthew referred in his Gospel to
Isaiah vu. 14, merely for the purpose of accommodation ;

284
the Son of Ahaz and the Sariour resembUng each other,
in each being the means, at different periods, though in
different senses, of estabUshing the throne of the house of
David. In the same manner he referred to Hosea xi. 1,
in ch. u, 15 of his Gospel, and in many other instances.
How inconsistent is it that a sect, which maintains the
omniscience and omnipotence of Jesus, should apply to
him a passage, by which he is made subject to such a de
gree of ignorance, as not to be able at one period to dis
tinguish between good and evil. (Isaiah vn. 16 : " For
before the chUd shaU know to refiise the evil, and choose
the good," &c.) Admitting that these quotations in Isaiah
were originaUy applicable to Jesus, they cannot assist in
proving the Deity of the Messiah ; just as they fall short
of proring the divinity of Hezekiah when appUed to him :
— for we find in the sacred writings the name of God, and
even the term of Jehovah, the pecuUar name of God,
applied as an appellation to others, without establishing
any argument for asserting the Deity of those to whom
such names are given. Jeremiah xxxiu. 16 : " In those
days shaU Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shaU dwell
safely : and this is the name wherewith she shall be called,
JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." In the En
glish version, the word Jehovah is rendered " Lord " in
this and in other passages. — Exodus xvii. 15 : " And
Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-
nissi, or ' JEHOVAH MY BANNER.' " It is fortunate
that some sect has not hitherto arisen, maintaining the
Deity of Jerusalem, or of the altar of Moses, from the
authority of the passages just mentioned.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. i. 8, 9, reference is
made to Psalm xiv. 6, 7, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever, &c. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest

285
wickedness : therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee,"
&c. I have frequently noticed "that the term "God" in
an inferior sense is often applied in the Scriptures to the
Messiah and other cUstinguished persons ; but it deserves
particularly to be noticed in this instance, that the Mes
siah, in whatever sense he is declared God, is in the very
same sense described in ch. v. 6 (" God thy God") as
having a God superior to him, and by whom he was ap
pointed to the office of Messiah.

Supposed application ofthe term " Jehovah** to Jesus in
references made to the Old Testament.
Lukei. 16, 17: "And many of the children of Israel
shaU he (John the Baptist) turn to the Lord their God.
And he shaU go before him in the spirit and power of
Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the chUdren, and
the disobedient to the wisdom of the just ; to make ready
a people prepared for the Lord" — compared with Isaiah
xl. 3, "The voice of him that crieth in the wUdemess,
Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the de
sert a highway for our God :" and also in Malachi iii. 1,
" Behold, I wiU send my messenger, and he shaU prepare
the way before me : and the Lord whom ye seek, shall
suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the
covenant, whom ye delight in : behold, he shall come,
saith Jehovah of hosts." From this, it is concluded by
Trinitarians, that because the Prophet John is described
as the forerunner of Jehovah, and in the evangelist as. the
forerunner of Jesus, therefore Jesus must be Jehovah.
In reply to this, it may be simply observed, that we find
in the Prophet distinct and separate mention of Jehovah
and of the Messiah as the messenger of the covenant ;

286
John therefore ought to be considered as the forerunner of
both, in the same manner as a commander sent in advance
to occupy a strong post in the country of the enemy, may
be said to be preparing the way for the battles of his king,
or of the general whom the king places at the head of his
army. They also refer to Isaiah vi. 5, " For mine eyes have
seen the King, the Lord of hosts" — comparing it with
John xu. 41, " These things said Isaiah, when he saw his
glory, and spake of him." The passage in the evangelist
is more correctly explained by referring to John vni. 56,
" Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day ;" which
cannot be understood of qcular vision, but prophetic an
ticipation ; whereas the glory seen in the vision of Isaiah
was that of God himself in the deUvery of the commands
given to the Prophet on that occasion.
Corinthians i. 30, " But of him are ye in Christ Jesus,
who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness,";
&c. is compared with Jeremiah xxiii. 6, " He shall be
caUed Jehovah our righteousness." In reply to which I
only refer my reader again to the passage in Jeremiah
xxxiu. 16, in which Jerusalem also is caUed "Jehovah
our righteousness," and to the phrase "is made unto us of
God" found in the passage in question, and expressing
the inferiority of Jesus to God. Also 2 Cor. v. 21, " That
we might be made the righteousness of God in him,"
where St. Paul says, that all Christians may be made the
righteousness of God.
Mr. Brown, a celebrated Trinitarian Commentator, re
tains the common version oi Jeremiah xxui, 6, and appUes
it to Jesus, whom he supposes to be "Jehovah our
righteousness." But m ch. xxxUi. 16, where the con
struction in the original Hebrew is precisely the same, he

287
alters the version, and thus renders it in the margin, " he
who shall call her is Jehovah our righteousness," instead
of applying the phrase "Jehovah our righteousness" to
Jerusalem, in the same manner as he had applied it to
Jesus in the former passage. — I therefore deem it neces
sary to give the original Hebrew of both texts, and a verbal
translation of them. The reader wiU judge how strongly the
judgment of the learned Commentator was biassed in sup
port of a favourite doctrine. Jer. xxiii. 6, mm* j?tyin vo'a
upy nin» i«np' na^w iDtr? nn ntoa^ pu>» ^«ii»'i " In his
, days shall be saved Judah, and Israel shaU dweU in safety,
and this his name which (man) shall caU him, Jehovah
our righteousness." Jer. xxxUi. 16, pu^in ^:=inr\ C3>n>3
upny nin' ¦— i^ «np' ~\xd\h ,— in noi^ p3ii>n ta^t^nn r-nin»
" In those days shaU be saved Judah, and Jerusalem shaU
dweU in safety, and this (name) which (man) shall call
her, Jehovah our righteousness."
In altering the common translation of the latter pas
sage, Mr. Brown first disregards the stop after T\h «-ip»
that is, "shall caU her;" which, by separating the two
parts of the sentence, prevents Jehovah from being em
ployed as the agent of the verb " shaU caU." 2ndly, He
entirely neglects the estabUshed mode of construction, by
leaving i— it or " this," untranslated, and by omitting to
point out the name by which Jerusalem should be called.
3dly, He totaUy overlooks the idiom of the Hebrew, in
wliich verbs are often employed unaccompanied with their
agent, when no specific agent is intended, as appears from
the following passages : —
Gen. xxv. 26, iti^i? apya f-iin« n>i i»n« [nv] «yi p nn«i
3pB» mis «ip'i "And after that came his brother out, and
his hand took hold on Esau's heel, and (man) called his

288
name Jacob." 2 Samuel ii. 16, mm inri tt>«na »'« ipmn
ntt>« D'lyn np^n «inn oipnV Mip'r nn» li-B'i ipiyn nya
tiraja " And they caught every one his feUow by the
head, and thrust his sword in his fellow's side ; so they
feU down together : wherefore (man) called that place
Helkath Hazurem, which is in Gibeon." Genesis xvi. 14,
»«i >nS i«a i«aV «ip ja V» "Wherefore (man) caUed
the weU Beer-lahai-roi."
They again adduce Isaiah xiv. 23, " Unto me (God)
every knee shaU bow, every tongue shaU swear" — com
pared vrith Romans xiv. 10, 12, "But why dost thou judge
thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?
For we shaU all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.
For it is written. As I Uve, saith the Lord, every knee
shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to
God." Between the Prophet and the Apostle there is a
perfect agreement in substance, since both declare that it
is to God that every knee shaU bow, and every tongue
shaU confess, through him before whose judgment-seat we
shaU aU stand : — for at the same time both Jesus and his
Apostles inform us, that we must stand before the judg
ment-seat of Christ, because the Father has committed
the o&ce oi final judgment to him.r-From this passage,
they say, it appears that Jesus swore by himself, and that
thereby he is proved to be God, according to the rule, that
it is God only that can swear by lumself. But how can
they escape the context, which expressly informs us, that
"the Lord" (Jehovah), and not Jesus, swore in this man
ner ? We must not however overlook what the Apostle
says in his epistle to the Philippians, ch. U. 9—11, where
he declares, that at the name of Jesus every knee shaU

289
bow and every tongue shall confess ; but neither must
we forget, that Jesus is declared to have been exalted to
these honours by God, and that the only confession re
quired is that he is Lord, which office confession of his
dignity is to the glory of God the Father. 9, " Where
fore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a
name which is above every name ; 10, That at the name
of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and
things in earth, and things under the earth ; 11, And that
every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the glory of God the Father."
Some have adopted a most extraordinary way of esta
blishing the deity of Jesus. Any epithet or act, however
common it may be, ascribed to God in the Sacred Writings,
and also to Christ in the New Testament, is adduced by
them as a proof of his deity; and I observe with the
utmost surprise, that the prejudice of many Christians in
favour of the dcictrine of the Trinity induces them to lay
stress upon such sophisms. For instance, Isaiah xUii. 3,
" For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy one of Israel, thy
Saviour" — compared with 2 Peter Ui, 18, " Our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ." The conclusion they draw from
these passages is, that unless Jesus were God, he could
not be a Saviour: but how futUe this reasoning is wiU
clearly appear fi-om the following passages : Nehemiah
ix. 27, " Thou gavest them saviours, who saved them."
Obad. 27, " And saviours shaU come up on Mount Zion."
2 Kings xiii, 5, " And the Lord gave Israel a Saviour, so
they went out from under the hand of the Syrians : and
the chUdren of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime."
Isaiah xix. 19, 20, " In that day shaU there be an altar to
the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pUlar at
the border thereof to the Lord. And it shaU be for a sigh
u

290
and iox a witness, unto, the Lord of Hosts in the land of
Egypt: for they shall, cry unto the Lord because ofthe
oppiressors, and he, shall send then^i a Saviour, and a great
one, and he shaU deUver them," If this argument pos-
s,es§esi any force, then it would lead ua to acknowledge the
(iei^y not.oiily of Jesus, but- that of those different in(Uvi-
duals to whom the term " Saviours" or ". Saviour" is
appUed. in the. above, citations. The phrase in Isaiah,
^:- Besides me there ia no Saviour,"' is easUy accounted for
by considering, that aU those who have been instrumental
in effecting the deliverance of their fellow-creatures fi-om
evils, of whatever nature were dependent themselves upon
God, and only instruments in his hamjs; and thus all
appearance of inconsistence is removed.
Againi> Ps. x^^ni. 1, ". Jehovah is my Shepherd" — com-
pared.;withj Johk. Xi. 16, ": And other -sheep I have, which
^fe, nfiS^ of his. [tMs] fold: -them also. 1) must bring, and
tfepy, shrill hear my vqioeij and there shall be one fold, and
oji^; Shepherdi." In. the focmer text, David decliE^iied God
4q b^ his. shepherd, or .prolie(;tor ; in the latter, Jesus repre
sents hiipself as the one shepherd of the one fold of Ohris-
tiaii^g, some of whom were already attached to him, and
oft#rs were afterwards to, become converts : but Trinita
rian writers tibua comjclude fi:om these passages : if Christ
¦^nQt one with Jehovah, he couM not be called a Shep-
h.erd, and, thus there would, be twa shepherds : but a
Ufitle reflection on the following passages wiU convince
eve,5y unhiasged person,, that Moses ia caUed a shepherd in
Eke n^anner, wd bis^foUowers a flock; and that the term
**. skephesd" is applied to. othera also, without -conveying
tj^ei^id^a oi their, unit<y with. Jehovah, j^'aAilxUi. 11,
";Th05i hQ-iienj.en>hered the daysiof old, Moses amd his
^eophy saying. Where, is he that brought them up out pf

291
the sea with the shepherd of his flock ?" Ezekiel xxxir.
23, 24, " And I will set up one s/iepherd over them, and
he shaU feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed
them, and he shaU be their shepherd. And I the Lord
vrill be their God, and layservant David a prince among
them. I the Lord havB spoken it." If they insist (though
without any ground) upon interpreting the name David
as pat for Jesus, they must stUl attribute his shepherdship
over his flock to divine commission, and must relinquish
the idea (rf u!ai1gF between God the employer, and the
Messiah his servient. Jeremiah xxiii. 4, " I wiU setup
shepherds over them, which shall feed them: and they
shall fear nd more, nor be dismayed, neither shaU they be
laekingj saith the Lord."
Psalm' l&xviii. 56, " They tempted and provoked the
mOsthigh God"— compared with [1] Cof.x. 9, "Neither
let us tempt Chri'Stj assomeoftheniialso tempted." They
thug' ctihclude : the former passage declares the mo^t
high God to have been tempted by rebeUious IsraeUtes,
and in the latter; Jesus is represented to have been the
person tempted by some of them, consequently Jesus is
tihe most high God. H(>w far cannot prejudice fead
astray men of sense ! Is it not an inSult to reason, fo^ infer
the deity of JeSiis irova. the circumsfence of his being' in
common with God; tempted by Israel and others ?'Are
w*enbtall, in eOmmon vrith Jesus, liable to be tempted
be(th- by men and by Satan ? HeVrews iv. 15, " For we
halve not an high priest who cannot be touched with the
feeUng of our infirmities ; but was in aH ^kAnti tempted
Wc& as^ we ffl^e,"y«t without sini" Cfeniesis xxU. I, " And
ig'"canie''to- pass' afti^r these things, that God did tempt
AhMiam;" Cafi'^the liabUit^ to temptation common t(3
6od,to JesUs,' to 'Abi^tfiam, and to aU mankind, be of arij^
u2

292
avail to prove the divinity and unity of these respective
subjects of temptation ?
We find Moses in common with God is spoken against
by the rebelUous IsraeUtes. Numb. xxi. 5, " And the peo
ple (Israel) spoke against God, and against Moses." Are
we to (include upon this ground, that [because] God as
weU as Moses is declared to have been spoken against by
Israel, that Moses therefore is God himself? In the same
text quoted by them, we find the most high God provoked
also — (they tempted and provoked the most high God)—
so we find Moses and David provoked at dififerent times.
Numbers xxi. 1, " And Satan stood up against Israel, and
provoked Darid;" and Psalm cvi. 32, 33, " It went Ul
with Moses for their sakes : because they provoked his
spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips." Can
any one fi:om the circumstance of Moses and Darid having
been the subjects of provocation, in common with God,
be justified in attempting to prove the deity of either of
them ?
Ps. [Isaiah] Uv. 5, " Thy Maker is thine husband, the
Lord pf hpsts is his name"— cnmpared with Jo/m in. 29,
" He that hath the bride is the bridegroom," &c. [JSpA.]
V. 23, " For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the Chur(±," &c. From these they
infer, that as the Church is one bride, so on the other
hand there is one husband, who is termed in one place
God, and in another place Christ. My readers will be
pleased to examine the language employed in these two
instances : in the one, God is represented as the husband
of aU his creatures, and in the other, Christ is declared to
be the husband or the head of his foUowers ; there is,
therefore, an inequality of authority evidently ascribed to
God and to Jesus. Moreover, Christ himself shews the

293
relation that existed between him and his Church, and
himself and God, in John xv. 1, " I am the true vine, and
my Father is the husbandman"— [5,J " I am the vine, ye
are the branches." Would it not be highly unreasonable
to set at defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus between
God, himself, and his Church, and to attempt a conclusion
directly contrary to his authority, and unsupported by
revelation ?
Revelation xxn. 13, " I am Alpha and Omega, the begin-
ing and the end, the first and the last" — compared with
Isaiah xliv. 6, " Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel,
and his redeemer the Lord of hosts ; I am the first, and
I am the last ; and beside me there is no God." From a
comparison of these verses they conclude, that there is no
God besides him who is the first and the last ; but Jesus
is the first and the last ; therefore besides Jesus there is
no other God. I must embrace this opportunity of laying
before my readers the context of the verse in Revelation,
which wUl, I presume, shew to every unbiassed mind how
the verse in question has been misapplied ; since the verse
cited in defence of the deity of Jesus, when considered in
relation to the passages that precede and follow it, most
clearly declares his inferiority and his distinct nature from
the Father. Revelation xxii. 6, " And he (the angel) said
unto me, These sayings are faithful and true :. and the
I-rfird God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew
unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
7, Behold, I come quickly : blessed is he that keepeth the
sayings of the prophecy of this book. 8, And I John saw
these things and heard them. And when I had heard and
seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel
who shewed me these things. 9, Then saith he unto me,
See thpu do it not : for I am thy feUow- servant, and of

294
thy brethren ^he prpphefe ^d pf theni which keep tihe
sayings pf this Jjppk : worship Gpd. 10, And he saith
untp nje, Se^l not the sayjings pf the prpphecy of this
boqk : for the tirn0 is at hand. 11, He that is unjust, let
him be unjust StiU : and he which is filthy, let bim be
filthy still : and he that is righteous, let him be righteous
StiU : and he that is hply, let him be holy stiU. 12, .And,
behold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to
give every man according as Ms WPrk shaU be. 13, I am
-Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first
^d the last. 14, Bless^ed are they that do his cpmmand-
ni^nts, that ithpy may have ri^t to the tree pf life, and
ni9,y,?nter in through the gates intp the city. 15, For
-witfeDut are dpgs, and sprcererg, and whoremongers, and
pjurderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh
a Ue. 16, I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto
you these things in the churches. I am the root and the
offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
If they ascribe verse 13, (" I aiji Mpha and Omega,''
&e.,) tp Jesus, a^ not to the angd mentione(ii in th,e above
passage, they must also unavoidably ascribe to Jesus thie
passage coming immediately before or after it, iuclndihg
of course verse the 9th, " Then saith he unl© me. See
thpu dp it npt I fpr I am thy feUpw-servant,"^ &c., for there
is but pne agent described by the pronpun " I^" in thjs
whole train of the verses abovje quoted, who is pointed Put
clearly by the repetition of the phrase, " Behpld I come
quickly,'' in verses 7th and 12th. In this case the pas-?
sage, although it speaks of Jesus as Alpha and Om^gft,
&c., yet must be considered as denying him the diviae
nature, and ranking him ampng the chosen servants of
God (" For I am thy feUow- servant"). If they asrarih*
aU the verses of chap. x:^u. as far as verse the 16th, to the

295
angel, they cannot justify themselves in founding their
conclusipn with regard tp the deity of Jesus upon the
force of verse the 13th, " I am Alpha and Omega," &c,,
which in the latter case can bear no relation to Christy
since their system requires them to apply it to an inferior
angel. I beg the attention of my readers to five particu
lar circumstances in this instance. 1st, That*th|i angel
whom the Lord sent, as intiniate<i in verse the "^th, was
intended to shew his servants in general things that
would shortly happen ; and the angel sent by Jestis, as
found in verse 16th^ was to testify to John and other dis
ciples the things relating to the churches. 2dly, Jesus
declares in vCrse 16th, and in the subsequent versds; that
he is the offspring of David, and that il is God that has
the power of punishing any pne who either takes away
fi:pln or adds any thing to his revelation. 3dly, That the
passage in Revelation xxii. 13, is not pfer&Uel tb that con
tained in the prophecy of Isaiah xliv. 6, since thfe phrase
" Besides vie tliere is no God" which is found in the lat
ter, and upon which the whole coiitroversy tui-nS; is not
contaiiifed in th6 foriheri 4thlyi That wheh the angel
rejected the worship oi John addressed to himself, he
ordered hiin to wor&hip God, without mentioning the
liame either jointly or separately of the Lamb; by wJiieii
Jesus is distinguished thrpughbut the Revelation : — •
" Worship God," vfer. 9; Sthly, id the vfery next verse;
after the speakel-j whether Jesus or dn arigel; describes
himself as Alpha and Obiega^ he n^es the expression,
" Blessed are they that do his commandments^" eieariy
indicating the existeride bf Mother being td whose cam-
mrnidments obedience is required.'
It is worth noticing here, that the terms " Alpha and
OmBga^ beginning alnd ehd," are in a finite sense justly.

296
applicable to Jesus as the first of all created existences',
and the last of those who wiU be required to resign the
authority with which he is invested by the Father. See
Colossians i. 15, " The first-born of every creature ;'^'
I Corinthians xv. 28, " Then shaU the Son also himself be
subject unto him that put all things under him."
Isai<f/i xl. 10, " Behold, the Lord God wiU come with a
strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him : behold, his
reward is with him, and his work before him" — is com
pared with Revelation xxii. 12, "I come quickly ; and my
reward is with me." From the circumstance of the com
mon application of the phrase, " his reward is with him,"
to God and to Jesus, they infer the deity of the latter ; in
answer to which I beg to refer my readers to the foregoing
paragraphs illustrating vei-se 11th, which immediately
precedes the verse in question of the Revelation, and also
to John V. 30, 22, " As I hear, I judge : and my judgment
is just ; because I seek not mine own will, but the wiU of
the Father who hath sent me. The Father judgeth no
man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son ;"
and to Matthew xvi. 27, " For the Son of man shall come
in the glpry pf his Father with his angels ; and then he
shaU reward every man accprding tP his works." Do not
these passages point out evidently, that the power of
exercising judgment and pf distributing rewards has been
given to Jesus by the Almighty, and that Jesus ppssesses
this authprity in behalf of the Father of the universe ?
Ephesians iv. 8, " When he (Christ) ascended up on
high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men" —
compared with Psalm Ixviii. 18, " Thou hast ascended on
high, thou hast led captivity captive : thou hast received
^fts for men, yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord
God might dweU among them." The Jews are of opinion

297
that David in this verse spoke of Mpses, who when he
ascended to Mount Sinai, received gifts (i. e. the divine
commandments) for men, even for the rebellious Israelites;
in this case the Apostle Paul in his epistle, must have
applied the verse in an accommodated sense to Jesus-
The verse in the Psalm may be directly appUed to Jesus,
who, on his ascension, received gifts of pardon even for
those who had rebelled against him. Mr. Brown, a cele
brated Trinitarian Commentator, and several others, con
sider the 18th verse in this Psalm, and verse Sth in this
chapter of Ephesians, as imme(Uately applicable to Jesug
as the Messiah. But another writer, Mr, Jones, with a
view to establish the deity of Christ by a comparison of
Ephedans iv. 8, with Psalm Ixviii. 18, omits carefully the
latter part of the verse, (" Thou hast received gifts for
men, yea, for the rebelUous also, that the Lord God might
dwell among them,") which is altogether inapplicable to
God, and quotes only the first part of the verse, (" thou
hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive ;")
and thence draws this conclusion — " The Scripture here
(in the Epistle referred to) expressly affirms the person
who ascends, &c, to be the Lord God." From a view of
the whole verse, the sense must, according to this mode
of reasoning, be as foUows — " The person who ascended
on high, and who received gifts for men, that tlie Lord God
might dwell among them, is the Lord God;" an interpre
tation, which as implying that the Lord God ascended
and received gifts from a Being of course superior to him
self, in order that he might dwell among men, is equaUy
absurd and unscriptural.
Zechariah xii. 10, as found in the English Version, " In
that day they shaU look upon me whom they have
pierced"— compared with John xix. 37, " They shaU look

298

on him whom they pierced 3" from which comparison he
has thus concluded — " As it stands in the Prophet, the
Lord Jehovah was to be pierced ; so that unless the man
Christ who hung upon the cross was also the Lord Jeho
vah, the Evangelist is found to be a false witness, in
applying to him a prophe(gr that could not possibly be ful-
fiUed in him." In order to shew the source of Mr. Jonefe's
error, I beg to lay befpre my readers the verse in H-ebrew,
and a translation thereof from the Arabic Bible, as ^eU as
a correct translation into EngUsh.
D»j-i^nni in nn o^tt^iv aa>v hif) ti'i n>a hjf 'iiastfi
Tn»n hv iBDM vbs nQW npi w« n« ¦<'?» ito'am
niaan bo nana vhs nnrti
" And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, tUe spirit of grace and of sup
plication : and they shaU look toward me on account of him
whom they have pierced, and they shaU mourn for him as
one mourneth for hia own son, and shall be in bitterness
for lum, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born."
This translation is strongly confirmed by the Septuagint^
whose words I subjoin with a literal rendering—
" And they shall look towards nie, on account oi th(jse
wkom they pierced."
In the Prophet the Lord speaks of I^ttel at the approach
of their restoration, when they will look up to Gcfd fbr

299
mercy on account .of their cruelty to the Messiah, whom
they pierced, and for whom they will mourn and lament.
Hence the prophecy in question has been fulfilled in Jesus,
without representing the Lord (Jehovah) as the object
pierced ; and consequently no false testimony is charge
able upon John the EvangeUst, who, by changing the
object of the verse from " me" found in the Hebrew and
Septuagint intP " him," we may suppose had in view the
general impert rather than the particular expyessipns of
the prophecy, pointing out that they looked to the Mes
siah also, whom they had pierced. Without referring to
the Hebrew phrase, which shews beyond doubt the inac
curacy of the English translation of the verse, common
sense is, I presume, sufficient to shew, that since in the
last two clauses in the verse under consideration the Lord
God speaks of the Messiah in the third person — (" for him
they (i. e. the Israelites) wiU mourn and lament,") he
must be supposed to have spoken of the same third person
as pierced by them unjustly, and thus to have pointed
out the cause pf their lamentatipn. If Jehovah had been
pierced, he woidd have been mentioned throughout in
the first person, also as the object of lamentation and
bitterness. I Peter ii.' 6, " Wherefore also it is contained in the
Scripture, Behold, / lay in Zion a chief corner-stone,
elect, precious : and he that beUeveth on him shall not be
confounded, 7s Unto you therefore which beUeve he is
precious : but unto them who are disobedient, the stone
which the builders disaUowed, the same is made the head
of the pprner, 8, And a stone pf stumbling, and a rpck of
pffence, even to them which stumble at the werd, being
^sobedient; whereunto also they were appointed" —
compared with Isaiah xxviu. 16, " Therefore thus saith

300
the Lord God, Behold, / lay in Zion for a foundation, a
stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foun
dation; he that believeth shall not make haste;" and
Isaiah viu. 13, "Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; let
him be your fear, and let him be your dread, 14, And
he shaU be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbling,
and for a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel ;
for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
These passages shew, that the Lord God placed the
Messiah as a corner-stone for the temple, and that who
ever stumbles at that stone so exalted by the Almighty,
stumbles at or disobeys him who has thus placed it. But
Mr. Jones omits the words found in 1 Peter U. 6, and
Isaiah KK.vni, 16, "I lay in Zion a chief comer-stone,
precious," &c. which shew the created nature of the Mes
siah, and after quoting a part of vers. 7 and 8 of 1 Peter,
ch. ii. (" The stone which the buUder disaUowed, the
same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stum
bling, and a rock of offence,") and only verse 13th and
part of the 14th of ch. viu. of Isaiah, he has thus con
cludes : — " This stone of stumbling and rock of offence,
as it appears from the latter text, (the text in Peter,) is
no other than Christ, the same stone which the buUders
rejected. Therefore Christ is the Lord of hosts himself."
— Here the Apostle Peter, in conformity with the Prophet,
represents God as the founder of the corner-stone, and
Jesus as the same corner-stone, which, though it be disal
lowed by the Jews, yet is made by the same founder, the
head of the corner ; but the Jews fi-om their disobedience
stumbled directly at the stone so exalted, rendering it a
stone of stumbling and rock of offence ; and hereby they
stumbled secondarily at the founder of this stone, and
offended the Lord God ; who, though he was the rock of

301
defence of Israel, (rock of refuge. Psalm xciv. 24,) became
a stone of stumbling and [a] rock of offence.
Thus in Luke x. 16, Jesus declares to his disciples,
" He that despiseth you, despiseth me ; and he that de
spiseth me, despiseth him that sent me ;" intimating by
these words, that contempt for the holy doctrines which
Christ commissioned his disciples to teach, argued con
tempt for him by whom Christ himself was sent ; but no
one will thence infer the deity of those disciples. In vers.
6 and 7 in question, and in ver. 4 of the same chapter of
Peter, {" To whom coming as unto a living stone, disal
lowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious,")
Jesus is distinctly declared to be " a stone of stumbling,"
"a living stone chosen of God;" the indefinite article
" a" here denoting that he is only one of many such stones.
It is surprising that Mr. Jones could overlook these
phrases, and conclude upon the identity of Jesus with
God from metaphorical language, which represents God
as " a stumbling stone" of Israel, and Jesus a stumbling
stone of those who never believed him. That there is
npthing pecuUar in Jesus being caUed a stone or a shep
herd, see Genesis xlix. 24, where in a metaphorical sense
Joseph is called " the shepherd and the stone of Israel."
The Hebrew language, in common with other Asiatic
tongues, frequently indulges in metaphor; and conse
quently the Old Testament, written m that language,
abounds with expressions which cannot be taken in their
literal sense. This indeed Jesus himself points out in
John X. 34—36, in which he justifies the assumption of
the title of Son of God, to denote that he was sanctified
and sent of the Father, by shewing that in the Scriptures
the name even of God was sometimes metaphorically ap
plied to men of power or exalted rank. Hence we find

302
epithets which in their strict sense in their most cpmmon
application are pecuUar to God, applied to inferior beings^
as I have already noticed. But the Scripture avoids
affording the least pretext of misunderstanding the real
nature pf such olgects, by various adjuncts and epithets
of obvious meaning, quite inapplicable to the Deity. It
is melancholy, however, to observe, how frequently men
overlook the idiom of the language of Scripture, and (ap
parently misled by the force of preconceived notions) set
aside every expression 4;hat modifies those that suit their
peculiar iiieas.
Were we to admit cpmmbn phrases appUed both tp Gpd
and tp Jesus as a prppf of the divinity pf the latter, we
must upon the same grpund be led tp acknowledge the
deity of Mioses, of DavM, and of other Prophets, who are
in- common with- God the subjects of ' peculia* phrases.
Moses in Deut. xxx. 15 declares, " Sfee, I have set before
thee this day life and gpod, and death and evil." Se
Jehpvah declares in tZercmia A xxi. 8, "Beholdy I set before
you the way of life, and the way of death." In confijrmity
to this mod&pf argument adppted by Trinitarian writers,
we should thus cpnclude from these pass%es-^unless
Mpses were pne with Jehpvah, he could not in his own
name employ the same authoritative phrase which is used
by Jehovah. In the same manner the term worship is
equaiHy applied to God and David in Clirmiicles xxix. 20,
"And' David said to aU the congregation, Now bless the
Lord your God. And aU the congregation- blesSed the
Lord God of their fathersj, and bpwed'dpwn their heads^
and worshipped the Lord and the king.'' Whence; ae-
cordihg to their mode of argument^' every pne must find
himself justified in drawing the foUowing coticlnsion':
God is the only object of worship-^but the term worship.

303
is in the Bible appUed to David-r-David must therefore
be aeknpwledged as God.
I have now noticed all the arguments founded on Scrip-
tme that I have heard of as advanced in support of the
doxstrine of the Trinity, except such as appeared to me so
futUe as to be unworthy of remark ; and in the course of
my examination have plainly stated the grounds on which
I conceive them to be inadmissible. Perhaps my opinions
may subject me to the severe censure of those who dissent
from me, and some wUl be ready to discover particular
motives fpr my presuming tp dififer from the great majp-^
pity of Christian teachers of the present day in my view
of Christianity, with the doctrines of which I have become
but recently acquainted.— Personal interest can hardly be
aUeged as likely to have actuated me, and therefi>re> the
lave, of distinction or notorietyi may perhaps be resorted to,
to account for conduct which they wish- it to be believed
honest conviction could never direct. — In reply to such an
accusation, I can only protest in the most solemn manner,
that even in the belief that I have been successful in- com
bating the doctrine of Trinitarian^ I cannot assume to
myself the smaUest merit :-^fbr what credit can be-gaiued
in proving that one is not thj-ee, and that the same being
cannot be at once man- and God ; or in opposing those who
maintain, that all who dp not admit dpctrines so incom
prehensible must be therefore subjected by the All-merciful
t(a eternal punishment ? It is too true to be denied, that
we are led by the force of the senses to believe many
things that we cannot fuUy understand. But where the
evidence of sense dc)es not compel us,, how can we believe
wJiat is. not pnly- beyond our comprehension, but contrary
to- it and-tp. the common course of, nature, and directly
against revelatipn,; which decl^-res ppsitively the unity of

304
God, as well as his incomprehensibility; but no where
ascribes to him any number of persons, or any portion of
magnitude ? Job xxxvi. 26, " Behold God is great, and
we know him not." Ch, xxxvii. 23, " Touching the Al
mighty, we cannot find him out." Psalm cxlv. 3, " His
greatness is unsearchable." Neither are my attempts
owing to a strong hope of removing early impressions
from the breasts of those, whose education instilled certain
ideas into their minds from the moment they became
capable of receiving them ; for notwithstanding great and
long- continued exertions on my part to do away Hindoo
polytheism, though palpably gross and absurd, my success
has been very partial. This experience, therefore, it may
he suggested, ought to have been sufficient to discourage
me firom any other attempt of the kind ; but it is my reve
rence for Christianity, and for the author of this reUgion,
that has induced me to endeavour to vindicate it from the
charge of Polytheism as far as my limited capacity and
knowledge extend. It is indeed mortifying to my feelings
to find a reUgion, that fi-om its sublime doctrines and pure
morality should be respected above all other systems, re
duced almost to a level with Hindoo theology, merely by
human creeds and preju(Uces ; and from this cause brought
to a comparison with the Paganism of ancient Greece;
which, whUe it included a pluraUty of Gods, yet main
tained that 0£O5 lii 11?, or " God is orie," and that their
numerous divine persons were all comprehended in that
one Deity ."^1
Having derived my own opinions on this subject en
tirely from the Scriptures themselves, I may perhaps be
excused for the confidence with which I maintain them
against those of so great a majority, who appeal to the
same authority for theirs ; inasmuch as I attribute the

305
different views, not to any inferiority of judgment com
pared with my own Umited abUity, but to the powerful
effects of early reUgious impressions; for when tliese are
deep, reason is seldom aUowed its natural scope in exa
mining them to the bottom. Were it a practice among
Christians to study first the books of the Old Testament
as found arranged in order, and to acquire a knowledge bf
the true force of scriptural phrases and expressions with
out attending to interpretations given by any sect ; and
then to study the New Testament, comparing the one
with the other, Christianity would not any longer be liable
to be encroached upon by human opinions.
: I have often observed that English divines, when ar
guing, with those that think freely on religion, quote the
names of Locke and Newton as defenders of Christianity;
but they totally forget that the Christianity which those
iUustrious persons professed did not contain the doctrine
of the Trinity, which our divines esteem as the funda-*
mental principle of this religion. For the conviction of
the public as to the accuracy of this assertion, I beg to be
allowed to extract here a few lines of their respective
works,' referring my readers to their pubUcations upon re
ligion for more complete information.
^ Lockers fFbrks, Vol. VII, p. 421 : " But that neither he
nor others 'may mistake my book, this is that in short
which it says — 1 st. That there is a faith that makes men
Christians — 2dly, That this faith is the believing 'Jesus
of Nazareth to be the Messiah' — 3rdly, That the believing
Jesus to be the Messiah, includes in it a receiving him for
our Lord and King, promised and sent from God; and sp
lays upon aU his subjects an absolute and indispensable
necessity of assenting to all that ' they can attain of the
X

306
knowledge that he taught, and of sincere obedience to aD
that he commanded,"
Sir I. Newton's Observations upon the Prophecies, p.
262 : " The Beasts and Elders therefore represent the
Christiana pf all nations; and the worship of these Chris
tians iri their churches is hete represented under the form
of worshipping God and the Lamb in the Temple, God
for his benefaction in creating aU things, and the Lamb
for his benefeiction in redeeming us with his blood : — God
as sitting upon the throne and livfng for ever, and the
Lamb exalted above all by the merits of his death."
It cannot be alleged that these personages, in imitation
of several Grecian phUosophers, published these sentiments
only iri conformity to the vulgar opinion, and to the esta
bUshed religion of their country; for both the vulgar opi-
taxm and the religion of the government of England in
their days Vere directly opposite to the opinions which
these celebrated men entertaiked.
The mention of the name of Sir Isaac Newton, one of
the greatest mathematicfens (if not the greatest) that ever
existed, hus bronght into my recoUectipn a mathematical
ai^ument which I some time ago heard a (Uvine adduce in
support of the Trinity, and which I feel inclined to con
sider here, though I am afraid some of my readers may
censure nle for repeating an ailment of this kind. It is
as foUows : that as three Unes compose one triangle, sp
three persons compose one Deity. It is astonishing that
a mind so conversant wifth mathematical truth as was that
of Sir Isaac Newten, ^d not discover this argument in
favou'T of the poesiMe existence of a Trinity, brought to
Ught by Ti?feiitarians> considering that it must have lain so
much ift his way. If it did pccur to him, its force may

307
possibly have given way to some such considerations as
the following :— 'This analogy between the Godhead and a
triangle, in the first instance, denies to God, equally with
a line, any real existence ; for extension of all kinds, ab
stracted from position or relative situation, exists only in
idea. Secondly, it destroys the unity which they attempt
to estabUsh between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for
the three sides of a triangle are conceived of as separate
existences. Thirdly, it denies to each of the three persons
of God, the epithet " God," inasmuch as each side cannot
be designated a triangle; though the Father of the universe
is invariably called God in the strict sense of the term.
Fourthly, it will afford to that sect among Hindcxis who
suppose God to consist of four persons or t-3^<t-M.<t, an
opportunity of using the same mode of arguing, to shew
the reasonableness of their sentiments, by comparing the
compound Deity with the four sides of a quadrilateral
figure. Fifthly, this manner of arguing may be esteemed
better adapted to support the Poljrtheism of the majority
of Hindoos, who believe in numerous persons under one
Godhead ; for instead of comparing the Godhead with a
triangle, a figure containing the feTvest sides, and thereby
prcrving the three persons of the Godhead, they might
compare God with a polygon, more suitable tp the dignified
rank of the Deity, and thus establish the consistency with
reason, of the belief, that the Godhead may be composed
of numerous persons. Sixthly, this mode of illustration
would, in fact, equaUy suit the Atheist as the Polytheist.
For as the Tririity is represented by the three sides of a
triangle, so the eternal revolution of natui-e Without any
divine person may be compared to the circle, which is
considered as having no sides nor angles : or. Seventhly, as
some great mathematicians cpnsider the circle as a poly-
x2

308
gon, having an infinite number of sides, the illustration of
the Trinitarian doctrine by the form of the triangle wUl by
analogy justify those sects, who maintain the existence of
an infinite number of persons in the Godhead, in referring
for an illustration of their opinions to the circular, or
rather perhaps to the globular figure, in which is to be
found an infinity of circles, formed each of an infinite
number of sides.
As I was concluding this Appendix, a friend to the doc
trine of the Trinity kindly lent me Serle's " Horae Soli
tariae." I confine here my attention only to four or five
arguments, which the author has adduced in the beginning
of his work, and that for several reasons. 1st, Because
a deliberate attention to the nature of the first-mentioned
arguments may furnish the reader with a general idea
of the rest, and justify me in neglecting them. 2ndly,
Because such of the others as seem to me at all worthy
of notice have been already considered and replied to ; and
Srdly, Because I am unwilling to protract further discus
sion, which has already grown to a length far beyond my,
original intention.
At page 10, Mr. Serle alleges, that " God says by Moses
in the book of Genesis, In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth ; and then just afterwards, the Spirit
moved upon the face of the waters. Here are three persons
in one power ; the beginning, God, and the Spirit." If a
bare mention, of the word "beginning" and " spirit," (or
properly speaking,- " wind,") in the two flrst verses of
Genesis, justifies the numbering of them as two persons
ofGod, how can we conscientipusly omit the "water"
mentioned in the same verse as coexistent with " spirit,"
making it the fourth person, and darkness, which is men
tioned before spirit, as a fifth person of God : and if under^

309
any pretence we are justified in classing " beginning," an
abstract relatipn, as a perspn pf Gpd, hpw can we deny the
same dignity tp the " end," which is equally an abstract
relation ? Nay, the very words of chap. i. 8, of Revela
tion might be quoted to prove one of the persons of God
to be the " ending :" — " I am Alpha and Omega, the
BEGINNING and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and
which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." We
have then God, the Beginning, the Spirit, and the Ending,
four persons at least whom we must admit into the God
head, if Mr. Serle's opinion have any foundation.
Page 12, " They (the ancient Chaldee Jews and Caba-
lists) expressed their idea of the Trinity by this particular
type, ©) where the three jods denote Jah, Jah, Jah, or
that each of three persons (according to our Athanasian
Creed) is by himself Jah or Lord : — the point ., (kametz)
as common to each, impUes the divine nature in which the
three persons equally existed; and the circle, inclosing
all, was intended to exhibit the perfect unity, eternity,
and conjunction, of the whole Trinity." This type, if it
existed at any time, can bear varipus interpretatipns,
Theistical, Polytheistical, pr Atheistical ; but in Hebrew
and Chaldee, the sign which is generally used tp denpte
the Deity has two jods only ; a reference to the Targums
of Jonathan and Onkelps, written in the Chaldee language,
and to other Targums in Hebrew and Chaldee, will estar
blish the fact beyond doubt. This practice, which, accord
ing to Mr.' Serle's mode of arguing, estabUshes the duality
of God, is entirely overlooked by him.
In the same page again he says, that " in a very ancient
book of .the Jews, the .first person, or Hypostasis, is de
scribed as in3 Kather, the crown, or admirable and pro-

310
found Intelligence; the second person na:in Chochma,
wisdom, or the intelligence iUuminating the creation, and
the second glory; and the third person nJ'a Binah, or
the sanctifying inteUigence, the worker of faith and the
father of it." He immediately after tJiis assertion notices
in page 13, " they believed^ taught, and adored three pri
mordial existences in the Godhead, which they called
sometimes nnn middoth, or properties, and sometimes
niTBD sephiroth, or numerations." The force of truth
here impels the author to contradict himself directly;
since he at one time asserts that the Jews beUeved them
to be the three persons of God, and again forgetting what
he said, he affirms that the Jews caUed them properties, or
numeration of properties. The fact is, that when the inter
course between the Jews and Greeks was great, the for
mer, in imitation of some of the latter, entertained the
idea that the Supreme Deity used ten superior intelli
gences or quaUties in the creation of the world ; namely,
¦ina Crown — noan Wisdom — nj'a Understanding — .— iVu
Greatness— .-miaa Mightiness — m«Bn Beauty— nyj Ever
lasting — iin Glory— iiD» Foundation — maVn Kingdom.*
But a Godhead consisting of ten persons not suiting Mr.
Serle's hypothesis, he omits the seven last, and mentions
only the three first, which he denominates a proof of the
Trinity. In page 14, Mr. Serle represents " R, Simeon and the
famous Jonathan treating upon the Trisagion, or thrice
holy, in the 6th chapter of Isaiah," as saying, " that the
first Holy impUes the Father, the second Holy the Son,
and the third Holy the Holy Gbost." I therefore give the
* This opinion is still to be found in the conversation as well as
writings of the learned amongst Eastern theologians.

311
eoramentary of Jonathan,* which I have been so fortunate
as to procure, in order to shew how zeal in behalf of the
Trinity has sometimes led men to forget the claims of care
and prudence. Jonathan's targum on the term " Holy"
thrice repeated in Isaiah vi. 3, is as foUows : 'atr>a t^'ip
jynp .— I'lrnaj naij? k»*j?i« hs u^np rrnja© rra r\»hv «onn
«'of?r 'n"?!?"?! chsh " Holy in the most high heavens, the
place of his glory — Holy upon the eartJi, the work of his
power — Holy for ever and ever and ever."
Again, in page 14, he says, that "The Jews before
Christ had a title for the Godhead consisting of twelve
letters, which Maimonides, the most learned of aU their
writers, owns to have been a compounded name, or name
(as was common among the Rabbins) composed .of the
initial letters of the names, Galatinas from R. Hakka-
dosh, (who lived about A. D. 150, or rather from Porciie-
tus Salvaticus, or Raymundus Martini,) believes tliat
these twelve letters were ii>npn fli'ni .t3j a«, i. e. Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit."
There is no impossibUity in the existence of a name of
God consisting of twelve letteiis, as is stated to have been
the case on the authority of Maimonides, becaimse we find
different names of God, consisting of various numbers
pf letters. But Mr. Serle, on the authority pf Galatinus,,
a Christian wi-iter, repcesents these twelve letters as ex
pressing the names oi Faliher, Son, and Holy Spirit. I
therefore make a few lemariis on this head. 1st, Mr.
Serle himself expresses his doubts respecting the source
* The copy which is now in my hands was printed in London, by
Thomas Roycroft, in the year 1656. Tt contains, besides the targum
of Jonathan, the original Hebrew text, together with the Septuagint,
Syriac, and Arabic translations, each accompanied with a Latin inter
pretation.

312
frbm which Galatinus had obtained his information, " whe
ther from R. Hakkadosh, from Porchetus Salvaticus, or
from Raymundus Martini." 2n(Uy, The construction of
this sentence of twelve letters, is conformable to the
European style of writing, but is quite foreign to Hebrew
idiom, which requires a conjunction before ja, or Son;
but the ommission of this shews that it must have been
invented by one more accustomed to the idiom of Euro
pean languages, than to that of the Hebrew. 3rdly, Mair
monides, the original authority of Mr. Serle, owns that
these twelve letters were the initials of other names ;
whereas Mr. Serle in the explanation of them represents
them as composing in themselves three complete names.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, instead of giving a name
for each of the twelve letters.
I am not aware how many arguments and iUustrations
of simUar weight and importance to those already dis
cussed may stUl remain, that have not been brought to
my. notice ; but I trust the inquiry has proceeded suffici
ently far to justify me in still adhering to the unity of
God as the doctrine taught aUke in the Old and in the
New Testaments.
I now conclude this Appendix, with repeating my
prayer, that a day may soon arrive, when religion shall
not be a cause of difference between man and man, and
when every one will regard the Precepts of Jesus as the
sole Guide to Peace and Happiness.

313
P. S. Dr, Prideaux, in the fourth volume of his " Con
nection," (which has very lately come into my hands,)
takes a different view of Isaiah, ch, ix. vers. 6, 7, from
that which has been offered in the preceding pages. After
quoting the words of the prophet according to the English
Versicffi, he says, " Christians all hold that this is spoken
of the Messiah ; and Jonathan, in the Targum which is
truly his, doth on that place say the same." Hereby he
gives out that this prophecy, including the epithets
" Wonderful, CounseUor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting
Father, and the Prince of Peace," is applied by Jonathan,
as by Christians, to the Messiah : — I therefore give here
the explanation given by Jonathan to verses 6 and 7,
which wUl sufficiently shew the error Dr. Prideaux has
committed.
«J^ a'n>n« na mh T^'ris >an nw tit Ti>af? h,*'ai ins
r— lyir «''?3o canp [o n'oa? npnwi siiod'? >m'?» «n'"n« !?>api
: 'mni'a mbj) ud> «aVi:>-i s*n'trD s'd^p'? ca<p wiaj nhVk
hs^ -l^•\ 'OTia hs ^^OT\^h wnW ntfli^i «nniK nar^ lan ud
»oh]> -IS) f»an «niatai KJna njan^i iTn* «jpn«^ n'ni3!?a
:«T larnn rni«ay "T sna'aa
" The prophet says, to the house of David a chUd is
born, to us a son is given, and he wUl take upon himself
the preservation of the law; from the presence of the
causer of wonderful counsels, the great God enduring for
ever, his name will be called the anointed, (in Heb. Mes
siah,) in whose days peace shall be -multiplied upon us.''
" Greatness shall be multiplied to those who qbey the
law, and to those who keep peace, there will be no end to
the throne of David and of his government : for establish
ing and for building it with judgment and with justice now
and for ever,"

314
Here J(Hiathan, in direct opposition to Cbristians,
denies to the Son so born, the epithets " Wonderful, Coun-
sellpr. Mighty God, and Everlasting Father ;" and appUes
to him only the title of *' the Prince of Peace," (nearly
synonymous with Messiah,) on account of his preserving
peace during his reign, as was promised of the Messiah.
{2 Kings XX, 19, " Is it not gopd (says Hezekiah) if peace
and truth be in my days?" 2 Chran. xxxii. 26, " The
wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of
Hezekiah.") This appUcation of the term anointed (or
Messiah) is made to Hezekiah in the same manner as to
other eminent kings, often caUed Messiah in the Sacred
Writings :t— 1 Samuel xii. 3, " Behold here I am J witness
against me before the Lord, and his anointed (or his
Messiah), the king." 2 Samuel xxiii. 1, " David the son
pf Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the
Messiah of the God of Jacob," &c. Ch, xxiL 51, " He is
•tihe tbwer of salvation for his King, and sheweth mercy
to his Messiah, unto David, and to Ids seed for evermore."
1 Samuel ii. 10, " The Lord shall judge the ends of the
earth ; and he shall give strength unto his King, and
exalt the hom of his Messiah." Psalm xx. 6, " Now
knpw I that the Lord saveth his Messiah." Isaiah xiv. 1,
" Thus saith the Lord to his Messiah, to Cyras." The
reign of Hezekiah was so accompanied with pea(5e and
success, that some Jewish commentators entertained the
opinifim that Hezekiah was really the last Messiah pro-
mused by God.
R. HUlel, -witot* laatt^ !?«i»'V nwn onb t'K bbn -an in«
:,n'p,tn »D»a
" There is no Messiah for the Israelites, for they
enjoyed it (i. e. they had him) at the time of Hezekiah,"

,315
If Trinitarians stiU insist, in defiance of the above autho
rities, and under pretence of the word " anointed" or
" Messiah," found in the Targum of Jonathan, that his
interpretation should be understood of the expected Mes
siah, then as far as depends upon the interpretation given
by him of verses 6 and 7, they must be compelled to
relinquish the idea that he expected a divine deliverer.
Moreover, all other celebrated Jewish ^vriters, some pf
whom are more ancient than Jonathan, apply the passage
in question to Hezekiah, some of them differing however
from him in the appUcation pf the epithets contained in
verse 6.
Talmud Sanhedrim, ch, 11, " God said. Let Hezekiah,
who has five names, take vengeance upon the king of
Assyria, who has taken upon himself five names also."
R. Sholomo foUows the annotation made by Shammai.
" For a child is bom, &c. Though Ahaz was wicked, his
son, who was born to him to be a king in his stead, shaU
be righteous, the government of God and his yoke shall
be on his shoulder, because he shaU pbey the law and keep
the commandments thereof, and shall incline his shoulder
to the burden pf God. — ^And he caUs his name, &c. God,
whp is the wonderfiil counseUor, and the mighty and ever
lasting Father, called his name the Prince of Peace, for
peace and truth shaUbe in his days." *
* It is worth notiomg, that " to be called" and " to be" do not
•invariably signify the same thing ; since the former does -mot always
imply that the thing is in reality what it is called, but the use of it is
justified when the thin^ is merely taken notice (f in that view. See
Luke i. 36, " This is the sixth month with her who was called (that
is, reputed) barren." Isaiah Ixi. 3, " That they might be called (or
accounted) trees of righteousness." This is more especially the case

316
The reader wUl not suppose the application of the terms
" wonderful counsellor, mighty God, everlasting Father,
and prince of peace," to Hezekiah, to be unscriptural
when he refers to page 283 of. this work, and considers
the following passages, in which the same epithets are
used for human beings, and even for inanimate objects.
2 Chron. ii. 9, " The house which I am about to buUd shall
be wonderfiil great." Micah iv. 9, " Is there no king
in thee? Is thy counsellor perished?" Genesis xiii. 6,
" Hear us : thou art a Mighty Prince amongst us."
Judges ix. 13, " Should I leave my wine which cheereth
God and man ?" that is, master and servant. 2 Thess.
U. 4, " Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that
is called God." Gen. xlix. 26, " Tp the utmost bound
of the everlasting hUls." 1 Samuel iv. 8, "Whp shaU
deliver us out of the hands ofthese mighty gods ?" which
Cruden interprets of the Jewish ark. Isaiah xu. 11 — 28,
[xlui. 28,] " Therefore I have profaned the princes of the
sanctuary." I wonder how those who found their opinion respecting
the Trinity on terms applied in common to God and crea
tures, can possibly overlook the plain meaning of the term
" Son," or " Only-begptten," continu.aUy applied to the
Savipur throughout the whole of the New Testament ; for
should we uncierstand the term God, in its strict sense,
as denoting the First Cause, (that is, a being not born nor
begotten,) we must necessarUy confess that the idea of
God is as incompatible with the idea of the '•' Son," or
when the phrase " to be called" has for its subject not a person, but
the name of a person." See Deut. xxv. 10, " And his name shall be
called in Israel, the house of him that hath his shoe loosed." Genesis
xlviii. 16, " Let my name be named on them."

317
" Only-begPtten," as entity is with non-entity ; and there
fore that to apply both terms to the same being will
amount to the grossest solecism in language.
As to their assertion, that there are found in the Scrip
tures two sets of terms and phrases, one declaring the
humanity of Jesus and another his deity, and that he must
therefore be acknowledged to have possessed a twofold
nature, human and divine, I have fully noticed it in pp.
167 — 169, 252, 253, pointing out such passages as contain
two sets of terms and phrases applied also to Moses and
even to the chiefs of Israel and to others ; and that, if it
is insisted upon, that each word in the Sacred Writings
should be taken in its strict sense, Moses and others,
equally with the Saviour, must be considered as gods, and
the -reUgion of the Jews and Christians will appear as
Polytheistical as that of Heathens.
Although there is the strictest consistency between all
the passages in the sacred books, Trinitarians, with a view
to support their opinion, charge them first with inconsis
tency, and then attempt to reconcile the aUeged contradic
tion by introducing the doctrine of the union of two
natures, divine and human, in one person, forgetting that
at the same time the greatest incongruity exists between
the nature of God and man, according to both revelation
and common sense.
If Christianity inculcated a doctrine which represents
God as cpusisting pf three persons, and appearing some
times in the human form, at other times in a bodily shape
like a dove, no Hindoo, in my humble opinion, who
searches after truth, can conscientiously profess it in pre
ference to Hindooism ; for that which renders the modern
Hindoo system of religion absurd and detestable, is, that
it represents the divine nature, though one, (-^^"^ If^), as

318
consisting of many persons, capable of assuming different
forms for the discharge of different offices, I am, how
ever, most firmly convinced, that Christianity is entirely
free from every trace of Polytheism, whether gross or
refined. I therefore enjoy the approbation of my consci
ence in publishing the Precepts of this reUgion as the
source of Peace and Happiness.

jFinfe.

Printed by G. SMALiiFiELD, Hackney.

#(nal ^^pjpeal

THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC,

IN DEFENCE OF THE

PRECEPTS OF JESUS:

BY

RAMiMOHUN ROY.

CALCUTTA.:
PRINTED AT THE UNITARIAN PRESS, DHURMTOLLAH,
1823.

ILontion,
REPRINTED BY THE UNITARIAN SOCIETY, AND SOLD BY R. HUNTER,
72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD ; DAVID EATON, 187, HIGH
HOLBORN ; AND C. FOX AND CO. 33, THREAD.
NEEDLE STREET.

1823.

George SMAtLriELD, Printer, Hackney.

BY THE ENGLISH EDITOR.

Some months after the republication in
London of " The Precepts of Jesus," and the
First and Second " Appeals" of the Author in
defence of that Work, the " Final Appeal"
was received in England ; and it is now printed
by the Unitarian Society, in order to present the
British Public with the whole of the writings
of Rammohun Roy on the subject of Chris
tianity, and in vindication of his own par
ticular views of the Christian Doctrine. The
numerous " Errata" of the Calcutta edition
have been carefully corrected; as have also
several other typographical errors not noticed
in the Author's list. Some of the principal of
these latter corrections have been included in
brackets. The Paging follows that of the
London Edition of the preceding Tracts, to
which the references that are made in the
Final Appeal to the First and Second Appeals
have been adjusted. T. R.
December 1, 1823.

NOTICE.

All the preceding works of the Author, on the subject
of Christianity, were printed at the Baptist Mission Press,
Calcutta ; but the acting proprietor of that Press, having,
since the publication of the Second Appeal, declined,
although in the politest manner possible, printing any
other work that the Author might publish on the same
subject, he was under the necessity of purchasing a few
types for his own use, and of depending principaUy upon
native superintendance for the completion of the greater
part of this work. This must form an Apology to the
PubUc for the imperfections that may appear in its typo
graphical execution.

PREFACE.

Notwithstanding the apprehension of exciting
displeasure in the breasts of many worthy men, I
feel myself obliged to lay before the public at large
this my self-defence, entitled " A Final Appeal to
the Christian Public." I, however, confidently hope
that the liberal among them will be convinced, by a
reference to the first part of this Essay, and to my
two former Appeals, that the necessity of self-vindi
cation against the charge of being an " injurer of
the cause of truth," has compelled me, as a warm
friend of that cause, to bring forward my reasons for
opposing the opinions maintained by so large a body
of men highly celebrated for learning and piety — a
consideration which, I trust, will induce them to
regard my present labours with an eye of indul
gence. I am well aware that this difference of sentiment
has already occasioned much coolness towards me
in the demeanour of some whose friendship I hold
very dear, and that this protracted controversy has
not only prevented me from rendering my humble
services to my countrymen by various publications
which I had projected in the native languages, but
has also diverted my attention from all other literary

328
pursuits for three years past. Notwithstanding these
sacrifices, I feel well satisfied with my present en
gagements, and cannot wish that I had pursued a
different course, since, whatever may be the opinion
of the world, my own conscience fully approves of
my past endeavours to defend what I esteem the
cause of truth. ' <
In my present vindication of the unity of the
Deity, as revealed through the writings of the Old
and New Testaments, I appeal not only to those
who sincerely believe in the books pf revelation, and
make them the standard of their faith and practice,
and who must, therefore, deeply feel the great im
portance of the divine oracles being truly interpreted ;
but I also appeal to those who, although indifferent
about religion, yet devote their minds to the investi
gation and discovery of truth, and who will, there
fore, not think it unworthy of their attention to
ascertain what are the genuine doctrines of .Christi-
anity as taught by Christ and his apostles, and how
much it has been corrupted by the subsequent inter
mixture of the polytheistical ideas that were familiar
to its Greek and Roman converts, and which have
continued to disfigure it in succeeding ages. I ex
tend my appeal yet further; I solicit the patient
attention of such individuals as are rather unfavour
able to the doctrines of Christianity as generally
promulgated, from finding them at variance with
common sense, that. they may examine and judge

329
whether its doctrines arc really such as they are
understood to be by the popular opinion which now
prevails. I feel assured that if religious controversy be car
ried on with that temper and language which are
considered by wise and pious men as most consistent
with the solemn and sacred nature of religion, and
more especially with the mild spirit of Christianity,
the truths of it cannot, for any length of time, be
kept concealed under the imposing veil of high-
sounding expressions, calculated to astonish the ima
gination and rouse the passions of the people, and
thereby keep alive and strengthen the preconceived
notions with which such language has in their minds
been, from infancy, associated. But I regret that
the method which has hitherto been observed in
inquiry after religious truth, by means of large pub
lications, necessarily issued at considerable intervals
of time, is not, for several reasons, so well adapted
to the speedy attainment of the proposed object, as
T, and other friends of true religion, could wish.
These reasons are as follows :
1st. .Many readers have not sufficient leisure or
perseverance to go through a voluminous essay, that
they may make up their minds and come to a set
tled opinion on the subject.
2ndly. Those who have time at their command,

330
and interest themselves in religious researches, find
ing the real point under discussion mixed up with
injurious insinuations and personalities, soon feel dis
couraged from proceeding further, long before they
can come to a determination.
3rdly. The multiplicity of arguments and various
interpretations of numerous scriptural passages, that
bear often no immediate relation to the subject, or
to each other, introduced in succession, distract and
dishearten such readers as are not accustomed to
Biblical studies, and interrupt their further progress.
As Christianity is happily not a subject resting
on vague metaphysical speculations, but is founded
upon the authority of books written in languages
which are understood and explained according to
known and standing rules, I therefore propose, with
a view to the more speedy and certain attainment
of religious truth, to establish a monthly periodical
publication, commencing from the month of April
next, to be devoted to Biblical Criticism, and to sub
ject Unitarian as well as Trinitarian doctrines to the
test of fair argument, if those of the latter persuasion
will consent thus to submit the scriptural grounds on
which their tenets concerning the Trinity are built.
For the sake of method and convenience, I pro
pose that, beginning with the Book of Genesis, and
taking all the passages in that portion of Scripture,

331
which are thought to countenance the doctrine of
the Trinity, we should examine them one by one,
and publish our observations upon them ; and that
next month we proceed in the same manner with
the Book of Exodus, and so on with all the Books
of the Old and New Testaments, in their regular
order. If any one of the Missionary Gentlemen, for him
self, and in behalf of his fellow-labourers, choose to _
profit by the opportunity thus afforded them, of de
fending and diflfusing the doctrines they have under
taken to preach, I request, that an Essay on the
Book of Genesis, of the kind above-intimated, may
be sent me by the middle of the month, and if con
fined within reasonable limits, not exceeding a dozen
or sixteen pages, I hereby engage to cause it to be
printed and circulated at my own charge, should the
Missionary Gentlemen refuse to bestow any part of
the funds, intended for the spread of Christianity,
towards this object ; and also, that a reply (not ex
ceeding the same number of pages) to the arguments
adduced, shall be published along with it by the
beginning of the ensuing month. That this new
mode of controversy, by short monthly publications,
may be attended with all the advantages which I, in
common with other searchers after truth, expect,
and of which it is capable, it will be absolutely ne
cessary that nothing be introduced of a personal
nature, or calculated to hurt the feelings of indivi-

332
duals — that we avoid all offensive expressions, and
such arguments as have no immediate connexion
with the subject, and can only serve to retard the
progress of discovery; and that we never allow our
selves for a moment to forget that we are engaged in
a solemn religious disputation.
As religion consists in a code of duties which the
creature believes he owes to his Creator, and as
" God has no respect for persons ; but in every
nation, he that fears him and works ri.ghteouMess, is
accepted with him ;" it must be considered presump
tuous and unjust for one man to attempt to interfere
with the religious observances of others, for which
he well knows, he is not held responsible by any
law, either human or divine. Notwithstanding, if
mankind are brought into existence, and by nature
formed to enjoy the comforts of society and the
pleasures of an improved mind, they may be justi
fled in opposing any system, religious; domestic, or
political, which is inimical to the happiness of so
ciety, or calculated to debase the human intellect ;
bearing always in mind that we are children of ONE
Father, '' who is above all, and through all, and in
us alV
Calcutta, January 30, 1823.

INDEX.

CHAPTER I.
Page
Thanks to the Reverend Editor for his labours  349
Author's Vindication of himself from the charge of pre
sumption  •  350
Necessity has driven the Author to these publications  i5.
Quotation of a part of" The Introduction to the Precepts
of Jesus," in proof of this  ib.
Author's precaution in the Second Appeal  35 1
Quotation of some parts of the First Appeal  ii.
The assertion of the Editor as to his ignorance of the Au
thor's belief  352
Author's public avowal of his faith  353
Author's vindication of himself from the charge of vanity . . ib.
Unbiassed common sense suffices to find the unscripturality
ofthe Trinity  354
Experiment proposed  •  ib.
The Editor's ridiculing of the suggestion offered as to the
study of the Bible  ib.
The reason assigned for his disapproval of the suggestion . . ib.
Impossibility of a belief in the Trinity and Hindoo Poly
theism, unless inculcated in youth • • •  355
No liberal parent can take advantage of the confiding credu
lity of his children  «  ib.
The duties of liberal parents  ib.
The force of early-acquired prejudices  • 357
Traditional instructions inculcated in childhood one of the
causes of prevailing errors in Christianity  «*¦
The Editor's "ironical remarlcs on the success ofthe Author in
scriptural studies, noticed  358
7.

334

The reason assigned by the Editor for his omission of several
arguments in the Second Appeal, noticed  359
The Editor's position of the insufficiency of the Precepts of
Jesus to procure men salvation, noticed  360
The irregular mode of arguing adopted by the Editor  361
The sufficiency of the Precepts of Jesus for salvation, proved 362
Mark xii. 29, " Hear O Israel, the Lord oiir God is one
Lord," referred to  • ii.
Matthew vii. 24^ " "Whosoever hear,eth th^sfi sayings of
mine," referred to  363
John XV. 10, " If ye keep my commandments," &c., and
ver. 14, referr^ tg  j$.
Matthew xxv. 3 1 , et sec(., referred to • ^i  •  ib.
The argument adduced by th^ Editor to depreciate thp
weight of the passage, " This dq, and thpu shalt live,"
examined « •  ,  • . • . ib.
The Editor's c^estion, " Did Jesus, regard the lawyer as
sinless?" answered  ,....,...,.,...,,....... 3Q5
The verse " If righteousness, qame by [the] l^W," &.c. ex
plain^  ,...^......v  r  • 3Q6
The Editor's omission to notice those pass^g^s that repre
sent repentance as a sufficient m^ans for procuring pardon ib.
Luke V. 32, xxiy, 47, xjii, 3, referred to • »  • 367
The Parable of the Prodigal Son, ref^rj-ed to ,...,..  ib.
Psalm li, 1 7, " The sacrifices of God are a brokei;! spirit,'' ^c,
Ezekiel xviii. 30, referred to •••••  .^...,. ....... .. 368
Prpjr. xvi. 6, " By mercy and truth iniquity is purged," kfi.,
Isaia^ i. 18, referred to- • • • • • »  •  ^ • • •  t- «6.
Hjiman justice referred to ••,•.•.•.•,•,••,•.•.•••••  iP-
CHAPTER II,
Inquiry into the doctrine of tlie Christian A,tpnement,-^A
change of arrangement by the Editpr* ••••:••  • ¦ 3?0
Genesis iii. 1^. "I wiU put ep^ity hetweeji tjiee and the,
woman," jBjg.. ejfwijed ........,..*  '  r* »*•

335

ee

Genesis iv. 4, The sacrifice offered by Abel, and approved
of God, in preference to his brother Cain's, examined . • 373
John viii. 56, noticed •••...  <  j-j_
Hebrews xi. 26, nPtieed  374
Hebrews xi. 4, referred to  ,-5_
How far sacrifices are divine' institutions  375
Micah vi. 7, 8; Hosea vi. 6; Isaiah i. 11, [16—18,] re
ferred to>  376
Psalm 1. 8, [8—15,] referred to ••• ^  377
[1] Sam. XV. 22 j Prov. xxi. 3 j Eccles. v. 1, referred to • • ib.
In what sense such expressions as " This man after he had
offered one sacrifice for sins," andothers like them, should
betaken  377,378
Common notions of justice . • • •  380
Exodus XX. 5 ; Matthew xviii; 8, referred to • • • • > • . ..... ib.
Numbers xiv. 19, 20j 2 Chronicles xxx. 18 — 20; Psalm
cvi. 23, xxxii. 5, referred to  380, 38 1
Psalmcxli.2; Isaiah Iv. 7 j Jeremiah vii. 2 1 — 23, referred
to i-.  381,382
Hebrews x. 4, " It is'not possible that the blood of bulls,"
&c., examined' •  r  id.
Genesis xxn. 3', [ 13,] rfeferred to  * • •  383
Hebrews x. 5, is referred to • « . • •  • • • 384
The. death of Jesiis was a spiritual and virtual sacrifice .... ib.
Such terras as" sacrifice," " atonement' fcfr sin," &c., being
familiar to the Jews, were adopted by the apostles  ib.
Priesthood withbiit sacrifice exists under the Christian dis
pensation •  •  385
1 Peter ii. 4, 5, quoted in proof of spiritiial sacrifices  ib.
Revelation i. 6, xx. 6 ; 1 Peter ii. 5, referred' to • •  386
Protestants explain' such phrases as, " Unless ye eat his
flesh," &c., in a spiritual sense  • • •  ib.
The Editor's reference to Noah's sacrifice, and God's promise
to Abraham, aiid his quoting' Jbb, [xix. 25,] " I know
that my Redeemer liveth," &c,, examined  386, 387
z2

336
' Page
Matthew V. 3—1 1 ; Luke xi, 28, referred to  387
Isaiah Ijmi. 16, Ix, 16, referred to  388
Job xix, 24— 26, referred to ••..  339
The sense in which the appUcation of the term "Lamb" is
made to Jesns, discussed  ib.
John xxi. 15; Luke x. 3; Genesis xxii. 7, 8; Jeremiah
M. ] 9, " But I was like a Lamb," &c., referred to  390
The account of the scape-goat examined  391
Exodus xxviu. 38, referred to  ib.
Psalm u. 1, compared with Acts iv. [25, 26,] and Psalm xvi.
8—11, c<Hnpared with Acts ii. 25, 27, &c. &c., noticed as
bearing no relation to the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus . . 392
Psalm xl. 6 — 8, examined by referring to their context .... 393
The object of Jesus's mission was to deliver divine instruc
tions  394, 395
John X. 17, " Therefore doth my Father love me," Sec., ex
amined  >••••••  ib.
Jesus's aversion to death like many other prophets •  39&
Matthew xxvi. 36, [37 — 39,] 42, referred to  ii.
Mark »v, 36 ; Luke xai. 42 — 44, referred to  396, 397
The assertion of the Editor that " This iniquity, if it be
such, the Father willed," examined  ib.
The Editor's objection to the appUcation of human notions
of justice to judge the unsearchable things of God, ex
amined  •••...•  .«.».•.•..  399
The Editor's applying human notions of justice to divine
things  400
TTie orthodox divines, Uke the Editor, have recourse to human
notions of justice in their attempt to prove the atonement
of Christ  401
Examination of Isaiah vii. 14, deferred to the subsequent
chapter •  • 402
Iswah M. [3], " And he shaU make him of quick under
standing," , &c. examined  *•••• «*•
Isaiah xix. 19, 20, noticed  •*•

337

The Editor's attempt to prove the atonement from the appli
cation of the term " Saviour" to Jesus, examined . . 402 — 404
Matthew ix, 8 j John v. 24, -vi, 63, xv. 3, referred to • • • • ib.
Answer to the question, " When previously to Christ's
coming, did the Egyptians cry to Jehovah ?" &c.  ib.
Isaiah xxxv. 10, " The ransomed of the Lord," &c. ex
amined •  • ib,
Isaiah xUi. [2,] 21, " He shaU not cry," &c., " The Lord is
well pleased," examined  405
2 Corinthians v. 21, examined  ib,
Isaiah liii., examined  ib.
Answer to the question, " Is not our repentance sufficient ?"
&c.  406
Jer. xxiu. [5], xxxi. [31, 33] ; 1 Cor, i. 30, examined 406, 407
Ezekiel xxxiv. 23, examined  ib.
Daniel ix. 26, examined  •• ib.
Hosea iu. [5] ; Joel ii. 28 ; Amos ix. [II]  408
Obadiah ver. 21, examined  • • • • 409
Micah iv. and v., noticed  410
Nahum i. 15 j Habakkuk, [ii. 4,] " The just shall live by his
faith," compared with Romans i. [17] ; Galatians iii.
2, [Unnoticed  410, 411
Haggai ii. [6, 7, 9], examined  ib.
Zechariah iii. 8, 9, vi. 12, 13, noticed  412
Malachi iii. I, noticed • • • i i  ib.
Jesus made no direct declaration respecting the design of his
death  •  ib.
Such expressions as " Jesus came to. give himself a ransom
for many," explained  413
Romans iii. 24, "Being justified freely," &c,, ch. viii. 32, 15,
16, 18, referred to  416
Locke's paraphrase on Rom. iii. 24, quoted ............. ib.
Locke's note on the word " Redemption"'  417
Locke's note on the word " Mercy-seat"  418

338

«e

Reference to a few texts explaining the )terms " sacrifice,"
" ranspm," " offering," &c.  .....•.••••'••'••> 419
Of a two-fold nature in Christ  ib.
Allusion to the three-fold naturp of a Hindoo incarnatipn , . 420
Solemn denial pf ridiculing Chj:ist's intercession ,,.,,  ib.
The Editor's assertion, that " the blood of no mere crea
ture could take away sin," noticed ..................... jb.
The Editor's assertion, " As to the appointment of Jehovah
by Jehovah, and his atoning for sin," noticed  421
Arguments in proof of the finite effects of Christ's appear
ance on earth, adduced  • . •  422
The Israelites punished finitely for sins committed against
the infinite God  » ^ • • • 423
1 Chronicles xxi. 11 [12] and 15 j Judges xiii. 1, referred to ib.
Infinite reward for a good act performed for the propitiation
of the infinite God  424
The phrases " everlasting fire," and " everlasting punish
ments," explained  425
Genesis xvu. 8, xlix. 26 ; Habakkuk iii. 6, referred tp • • • • ii,
CHAPTER III.
Inquiry into the doctrine of the Trinity .,,.,,.,...,.... 426
The term Trinity not found in the Scriptures • •  i$.
Genesis xl viu. 16, " The angel whicli redeemed we j'' xxxi,
13, " I am the God of Bethel j" Exodus iii. 2, " In a
flame of fire," examined  - ii.
Judges ii. I, " I brought you out of Egypt j" Genesis juiii.
12, " Thou hast not withheld thy spn," examined ...... ib.
Isaiah bdii, 9 j Ruth iv, 14 5 Nehem, v, 8, referred to, 427, 428
An allusion to a three-fold jiature of Christ ....»•»••••• ib.
Psalm xcvii, 7; Judges xiii. 21, 22 ; Job i. 6, " The sons
ofGod," &c., referred to •  •••'•«  *  429
Judges xiii. 16 j 2 Samuel x.?,iY, 1?, referred to ••••••• ••• «f.

339 Page
Isaiah x. 4—7, xxix. 1, [1—3,] referred to  • 43d
Micah iv. 13, v. I, referred fo ..................... i * . 431
Exodus iii. l4, " Thus shdt thoii say, I am thiat I am ;" John
viii. 24, " If yfelielieVe ii6t that I am," vei-. 58, examiriM ib,
Matthew xxiv. 5, " I am Christ," and John iv. 25, 26, re
ferred to  432
John ii. Id— 21, referred to  •  433
Psalm Ixxxix. 27, referred to • • • • •  436
[I] Chronicles xiv. 8, !xVlii. 1—8, referred to ••••»••••*. • ib.
[1] Chronicles xx. 2, 3, tefert-ed to •  ^ .... i ... . 4^f
2 Kings V. 2B, 27 ; Exodus xxiii. 21, referred to  i . . . 439
ProptetS performing miracles sometimes without oral ad
dresses to God. • .... 4 1 . i  i . .i.i. .i.ii  ik ii. ib,
John xi. 41, 42, referred to .a.'.i  a.i . . ..i. ib.
The phrase " Tp .trUSt iii hira," fei^amined tt. ...*..<..*.. 446
Provet-hrs Xxxi. 1 1 ; Isaiah xi\r. 32, referred tb •• i •••••»*• • ibi
Jeremiah xvii. 5, explained .... ; i ....... i '... i .• »  • • ib.
Psalm xxiv. [I, 2] " The earth is Jehovah's," Sec,; compared
with John i. 3, examined  *  •  • ioi
tiebrews i. 2 ; E'ph'e'sidiis iii. 9, referred to ; 1 Cbfinthilihs x.
25, 26, " Whatsoever iS Sold," &C., conlpaf-ed with Psalm
xxiv. 1, examined  i,t. ....i.a.j.i... ... 441,442
Itfebrew's i. 2 ¦ Jdhii iii. 35, fefefrfed tP ^ ! ' • s " ' ' 1 i s 1  443
1 Cor. X. 22, " Dd \Ve pfdVoke the Ldrd ?" &c.i eicamiiied ib.
I Kings' Six". 10, fefeffed to .".'.'sii.-.-;....i«» .4  i..i 444
Psalra xxiv. 8, fcbMpstred frith Ephesians iv. £f, exafflihed • • ik
Psalnl Ixviii. 18, i-feferrfed £0 .a. a  i j v . . . . 445
Locke's note quoted . . . 4 . w i . . . i . d * 4 . . . i . . , ; . . * . . j * . t 446
PiUca xxXvi. 6, " O Jehdvah, thdft pteservest," &c., c6rfiiJ
pared M-ltb Colossiails i. 17; Hebreivs i. 3, examined •• 447
John Xvii. 2, V. 30, AuA xiv. 24/" The frprdfrhich ie heiri"
8tc., Mittkvf xx^-iii, 18, rtferred to .'•.••¦»••••••"• ¦ 449
Psalm Xiv. 6, as quoted iii Hebrews i; 8, " "Thy throne, O
God," &e., ex&mitied .....*.» 4 .< rf. ..... i ••••••«•• • ib.

340 Page
The Editor's substitution ofthe term " Jehovah" for " God"
noticed  •  .....< 4  449
Direct application of Psalm xiv. to Solomon, illustrated .. 451
Psalm cii. 25—27, referred to  452
Hebrews i. 10—12, " Thou, Lordj in the beginning," &c.,
examined  •  ib.
Deuteronomy xxxii. 10; Isaiah xlix. 16; Psalm xlvii. 3,
referred to  -  453
Matthew xxii. 45, referred to  ib.
The Editor's substitution of the term '• Jehovah'' for " Lord"
noticed  ;..  454
The Editor's endeavour to weaken the force of the evidence
respecting the changeable nature of Christ  455
I Corinthians xv. 24, 25, 28, referred to  ib.
Application of the term " shepherd," examined  456
Isaiah Ixiii. 1 1 5 Jeremiah xxiii. 4, " I will set np shep
herds over them," 8cc., referred to  456, 457
Ezekiel xxxiv. 23, " I will set one shepherd,'' &c., examined ib.
Ephesians iv. 18, compared with Psalm Ixviii. 18, " Thou
hast ascended on high," examined  •  459
Alquoran, ch. i. quoted t.....  461
From a Jewish book of prayers, " Sabbath Morning Service,"
quoted  ib.
" Jewish Morning Service" quoted  ib.
Alquoran ii. 5, quoted  462
Hosea ii. 15 — 17, 19, referred to  ib.
The context of ver. 18, referred to  463
The Editor's attempt to invalidate the argument founded on
John X, 34  464
Figurative application of the terms " The sons of God,''
" The first-born of God," 8tc,, noticed  465
Lukeii. 7, 21, 40, 42, 51, 52 ; Matt, xi, 19 ; Mark iii, 5 ;
John iv. 6, xii. 27, xiii. 5, 21 ; Luke xxii, 44; Mark xiv.
34 } Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Philippians ii, 8, referred to, 465, 46fi

341

The commonly-received doctrine of Christ's two-fold nature
noticed  467
Moses and the chiefs of Israel termed gods and men, and
equally with Jesus said to have performed most wonderful
miracles  •  •••• ib.
Terms, phrases, or circumstances strictly applicable to God
alone, when ascribed to created beings, to be interpreted
in an inferior sense  468
The argument of Moses and others being types of Christ,
noticed  •  ib.
Exodus xxv. 8; Deut, vii. 6, x. 15, xiv, 1, referred to .... 469
Deuteronomy x. 17 ; John xx. 17 ; Psalm xiv. 7, referred to 470
The context of ch. xv. [John x.] 34, referred to  ib.
1 Corinthians x. 9, " Neither let us tempt Christ," examined 471
The Editor's last assertion on this subject examined  472
Isaiah Ixiii. 5, " Mine own arm ;" and Revelation i. 8,
" I am Alpha and Omega," examined  472, 473
Gen. xxv. 30, [Jer.] xlix. 7, 13, 8, 9, II, referred to, 473, 474
Inconsistency of ascribing to Jesus the following expressions :
" I will tread them," " Their blood shall be upon my gar
ment''  •  ib.
Isaiah lix. 15—17 ; Daniel vii, 9, referred to ?  475
Revelation i. 8, and its context, examined  ib.
Psalm Ixxviii. [13], " He divided the sea," noticed  477
Psalm xcv. [6, 7], " For Jehovah is a great God," examined ib.
Examination of John x. 30, " I and my Father are one,"
defen-ed  478
Hebrews iii. 3, 4, noticed  ib.
Ver. 6, referred to  479
SECTION SECOND.
On the Prophets  479
Proverbs viii. 1, " Doth not wisdom cry ?" &c., ver. 22,
27, 30, examined •••  •.  •  ib.

342 Page
PsalBi cxxx. 7, Ixxxv. 10; Numbers xvi, 46, referred to . . 482
1 John iv. 8 ; Jphn i. I ; 1 Cor, i. 24, 30 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ;
Deut. xxviii. 37 ) Zech. viii. 13 ; Get. xii. 2 ; Zech.
ii. 5, referred to •'• 4 >  ^'i.
Isaiah vi. 1, 10, CPmp'al-ed with John xii. 41, examined .... 483
The context Pf ver. 41, referred to  ib.
Romans xi. 7, 8 ; Isaiah Ixiii. 17, referred to  484
Verse 41, compared with Jphh viii. 56  • 485
Deut. xxviii; 29, xxix. 4 ; 1 Kings xviii. 37, referred to . . 487
Isaiah vii. 14, " Behold, a Vil-gin shall conceive," compared
with Matthew i. 22, 23, examined  4  H,
The term " shall conceive," considered  4  488
Genesis xvi. 11, 4, 5 ; Jer. xxxi. 8 5 2 Sam. xi, 5, and Isaiah
xxvi. 17 ; Genesis xxxviii. 24, 25, referred to  488, 489
texodnsxxi. 22 ; 2 Kings viii. 12; Amos i. 13, referred to ib,
Isaiah vii. 1 6, referred to.  ib,
Micah iv. 10; Isaiah xxiii. 12, referred to  490
The iiiCdnsistency between Chtist's being possessed of all
power in his human capacity, aud his uot knowing good
from evil in that very capacity . • »  491
Luke ii. 46 — 50, referred to  •••  • ib.
The Context df Isaiah vii. 14, compared with 2 Kings xVi, 5,
et seq., referrtd to "4  j , . . .492 — 494
Matthew's reference to Isaiah vii. 14, in his goSpel, compared 495
Dr. Campbell's a<ith6rity quoted- • • « 4  * 15.
Hosea xi. 1, 3, noticed  497
Isaiah ix. 6, "For unto us a child is borri," examined .... ib.
The context of the Verse' in question, compared [with]
2 Kings XT. 29i &c., xviii. 7, &c., tefeffed to  498—501
The decision left to the public  ib.
Difference between " to be," and " to be called," noticed 502
The phrases " no end," and " for ever," or " everlasting,"
explained •  }6,
Verses 1, 2, of Isaiah ix. applied in an accommodated sense
to Jesns  ...., i ....... 4  ib.

343

Matthew i. 23, " And tliey shall call his name Immanuel,"
explained  503
Christian emperors addressed by the style " your divinity,"
" your godship" •  504
Psalm Ixxxix. 19, examined by a reference to its context 505
Isaiah xxviii. 16, compared with Isaiah viii. 13; 1 Peter
ii. 7, 8, " The stone which the builders," &c., examined 506
A proof of Christ's changeable nature  506
Isaiah xl. 3, " Voice of him," &c. and Mai. iii, 1, examined ib
Reference to Mark i. 2, 3  ib
The verse in question in the original Hebrew  5 1 (
Luke i. 69 ; John i. 29, 30, referred to  ib
Isaiah xl. 10, compared with Revelation xxii. 12, examined 511
Acts xvii. 31 ; John viii. 28; xvii. I, 2; Hebrews i. 8, 9,
. shewing that Jesus, whether as man, son of man, or son
of God, was inferior to the Most High, referred to  51;
Isaiah xliv. 6, compared with Revelation i. 8, and xxii. 13,
examined ••  •  51J
Joshua V. 14 5 Numb. xxii. 31 ; Dan. ii.46, referted to 515, 511
Revelation iii. 14; Col. i. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 24, referred to 51!
Prophets and apostles represented as the searchers of hearts 51!
Revelation xxi. 5, explained  •  52(
Revelation xxii. 6—13, noticed  52
Phrases in Revelation i, 1, and xxii. 6, compared  521
Jesus calls himself a servant of God, addresses Christians as
his brethren, &c.  «  52'
Several questions put to shew the inferiority of the Lamb . . 52i
A query in reply to one of the many insinuations of the
Editor's 4  52i
Isaiah xiv. 23, " Unto me every knee shall bow," compared
with. Romans xiv. 10 — 12, examined  il
John iii. 29 ; Ephesians v. 23, compared with Isaiah liv. 5,
examined *  52l
Jeremiah xxxiii. 16, examined  53:
1 Corinthians xi. 3, referred to ....  53,

344 Page
The simple term " Jehovah" exclusively applied to God. . . . 634
Jeremiah v. 22, examined  •  535
The Editor's position that Jesns " exercised absolute do
minion in no name beside his own," examined  536
John X. 25, referred to  ji,
Jeremiah X, 11, examined  537
Hebrews iv, 13, examined  < 539
The reason for the different expressions used by God to the
Prince of Tyrus, and to Jesus, explained  ib.
1 Corinthians iv. 5, explained  541
That others besides Jesus were endued with the power of
knowing the state of the heart, shewn  ib.
The perishable nature of Jesus and his kingdom, explained 542
The epithet " Most holy,'' applied even to inanimate things 543
The Editor's remarks on Hosea xi. 1, noticed  ib.
Hosea iii. 5, examined  544
Acts ii. 21, examined  545
1 Corinthians i. 2, examined  ib.
Locke's paraphrase on 1 Corinthianss i. 2, and his note on
Romans X. 13, quoted  545, 546
Amos iv. 13, noticed  547
Zechariah iii. 2, and ii. 8, noticed  »  ib.

CHAPTER IV,
On the Editor's Replies to the Arguments contained in
Chapter II. of the Second Appeal. Christ's possessing all
power as a mediator noticed  551
Mercy ascribed to the Son, and justice to the Father, accord
ing to the Trinitarian system, noticed  552
All the power Jesus enjoyed was given unto him by God . . 553
Attributes peculiar to God never ascribed to Jesus  554
Jesus was like the sun, an instrument in the hands of God 556
Performing miracles and enabling others to perform them
were not peculiar to Jesus  ib.

345 Page
Tlie alleged compound nature of Jesus noticed  559
The terms " for ever" and " everlasting" explained .... 561
Genesis xvii. 8 ; Jeremiah vii. 7 ; Daniel vii, 18, referred to ib.
Philippians ii. 6, " Who being in the form of God," See.,
examined  4  2'i.
The term " first-born'" explained  566
Exodus iv. 22, [Jer.] xxxi. 9 ; Psalm Ixxxix. 27, referred to 567
Romans viii. 29 ; I John iv. 7, referred to  ib.
Instances wherein Jesus himself and his apostles spoke of
him as a creature  568
Jesus's alleged two natures again noticed  569
The phrase " from the beginning" noticed  570
The Editor's introducing the two-fold nature of Christ .... 571
Inconsistency of God's emptying himself of his glory and
offering up supplications for the same, to himself  572
John xvii. 22, referred to  573
Micah V. 2, examined  ib.
The force of the words " son" and " own son" noticed . . 576
Psalm Ixvii. 6 ; I Timothy i. 2, referred to • •  578
The phrase " only-begotten" noticed  579
John X. 30, " I and my Father are one," examined  580
One's calling God his Father cannot amount to his unity in
nature with the Deity  582
Genesis ii. 24; Ezekiel xxxvii. 19; 1 Corinthians x. 17,
referred to  584
Such phrases as '" he in God, and God in him," " God
dwelleth in him, and he in God," noticed  ib.
John X. 36, containing a disavowal of deity by Christ, ex
plained  585
John X. [34 — 36] examined by its context  587
Jesus having died under the charge of making himself the
Son of God, noticed  589
Hebrews [i, 8,] " Thy throne, O God," originally applied
to Solomon, again noticed  592
Tlie phrase " for ever" again noticed  593

346 Page
John XX. 17, acribed to Jesus in liis human nature  593
According to the Editor, one part ofi the same sentence
spoken by Jesus in his divine, and another in his human
capacity  ib,
John XX. 18',"MyLord and my God;" examined .»  594
John i. 1, " In the- begiu'uing was the wotd," &c., examined 595
Hindoo Polytheism compared with that maintained by the
Editor  4  604
John xvi. 30, " Now are we sure that thou knowest all
things," examined ..•..«,..  '. ib,
Paul, " God our Saviour;" 1- Peter, " The righteousness
of God j" Jude, " To the only wise," &c,, quoted by the
EditoE, noticed  605
Perishable nature of fictitious gods, noticed  606
Answers to the- Editor's queries  ib.
The, will of God the Father so'metinies found at variance
with that of the Son, in Matt. xxvi. 39, and Mark xiv. 36, 607
CHAPTER V.
Remarks- on .the Replies to the Arguments found in Chapter
Third of the Second Appeal  611
The Editor's First Position' as to the ubiquity of Jesus, dis
cussed  ib.
John iiii 13, " No man hath ascended up;" &c., examined. . ib.
Translation of this verse by Dr. Campbellj quoted  621
Paikhurst's authority quoted  .-.^ -... . 622
Matthew'xviii. 20, " For where two or three are gathered,'^
&c.,- examined.  '•'  • 623
The-Editor's queries answered  624
The Editor's Second Position as to Jesus's ascribing tohiin-
self a knowledge and an incomprehensibility of ' nature
equalno. God, discussed  • »  626
Matthew xi. 27, " No man knoweth the Son/' &c., ex
amined  •  •  ib.

347 Page
1 John iii.. 1, referred to ..... *»*.  ,. 628"
The Improved Version quoted  ib.
The Editor's Third Position, as to Christ's exercising in an
independent manner the power of forgiving sin, dis
cussed  629
Mark ii, 5 ; Mattliew i-V. 2, examined  ib,
Matthew ix. 8, referred to  ib.
Acts V. 31j xiii. 38, referred to  631-
The Editor's Fourth Position, respecting almighty power
being claimed by Jesu^ discussed  632
John V. 19 — 36, explained ....,...,,.,  ib.
The work of jjidging, men is not peculiar to Jesus ....,..,. 635 .
John V. 23, separately examined  036
Gal. iv.. 14; Matt. x. 25, xix. 19; Gen. iii. 22, referred to 637
Matthew xx. 14, noticed  638
Matthew xx,, 23, referred to  ib.
Tbe Editor's Fifth Position, as to all judgment being com
mitted to, Jesus, discussed  • • •  639
Mark xiii, 32, referred to  640
The Editor's Sixth Position, as to Jesus' accepting worship
due to Gpd, di,scusse.d,  ,.,.,.... ..... ...... j3.
The term " worship" defined •  ?..... 64 1
The apcient prophets' receiving worship in the same sense
that Jesu?, received it  642i
Invocation by Stephen explained  .•  ii,:
Christ's offering woisship, prayers, and thanks to God, men
tioned  "  643,,
The Father, his Christ, and the apostles, acquitted of the
charge of encouraging idolatry. «. > . ..j  •>  6.44
The Editor's Seventh Position, as to the Deity of the Son,
and Personality of the Holy Ghost from the institution of
baptism, discussed  645
Exodus.xiv.Sl ;.[2] Chronicles xx. 20 ; Luke iii. 16, referred
to  646,647
The terms " son" and " servant" equally manifest infe
riority  •  648

348 Page
The Editor's queries answered  •  649
Matthew xxviii. 20, examined  650

CHAPTER VI.
On the Holy Spirit and other subjects  •  65 1
Brief notice of the Holy Spirit by the Editor, noticed .... ib.
Acts X. 38 ; Luke iii. 16, referred to  652
Such expressions as " The Holy Spirit will teach you," 8cc.,
noticed  653
Acts V. 3, examined  ib.
Matthew x. 40 ; 1 Corinthians viii. 12, referred to  654
Acts X. 20, examined  ib.
Isaiah xlviii. 16, with its context, examined  655
2 Corinthians xiii. 14, examined  658
Zechariah xii. 10, " And I will pour upon the house of
David/' 8h!., examined  659
Parkhurst's authority quoted  660
Exodus i. 1 ; Genesis xliv. 4, iv. 1 ; Deut. vii. 8, referred to 662
Zechariah xiii. 7, " Awake, O sword, against my shepherd/*
examined  ib.
Romans 1x4 5, " God blessed for ever," examined  664
] Corinthians viii. 6 ; Ephesians i, 17, iv. 5, 6, referred to 665
1 John V. 20, " This is the true God," examined  ib.
The practice of the primitive Christians noticed  666
Mosheim's authority noticed  ib.
John XX, 31, quoted  667
Authority of Locke and Newton noticed  ib.
The term " Antichrist" examined  670
The doctrine of Polytheism is-similar to that of a plurality
of persons  671, 672
The Author's expression of thanks to God for enjoying Civil
and Religious Liberty  ifi. -

FINAL APPEAL.

CHAPTER I.
Introductory Remarks.
Nearly a month having elapsed after the pub
lication of the fourth number of the Quarterly Series
of the *' Friend of India" before it happened to reach
me, and other avocations and objects having subse
quently engaged my attention, I have not, till lately,
had leisure to examine the laborious Essay on the
doctrines of the Trinity and Atonement at the con
clusion of that Magazine, offered in refutation of my
" Second Appeal to the Christian Public." For the
able and condensed view of tfie arguments in sup
port of those doctrines, which that publication pre
sents, I have to offer the Reviewer my best thanks,
though the benefit I have derived from their perusal
is limited to a corroboration of my former senti
ments. I must, at the same time, beg permission
to notice a few unjust insinuations in some parts of
his Essay; but in so doing I trust no painful emo
tions, neither of that salutary kind alluded to by the
Editor, nor of any other, will make their appearance
in my remarks.
The Reverend Editor charges me with the arro
gance of taking upon myself " to teach doctrines
2a

350
directly opposed to those held by the mass of real
Christians in every age." To vindicate myself from
the presumption with which I am here charged, and
to shew by what necessity I have been driven to the
publication of opinions, unacceptable to many es
teemed characters, I beg to call the attention of the
public to the language of the Introduction to " The
Precepts of Jesus," compiled by me, and which
was my first publication connected with Christi
anity; They may observe therein, that so far fi'om
teaching any " opposite doctrines," or " rejecting the
prevailing opinion held by the great body of Chris
tians," I took every precaution against giving the
least offence to the prejudices of any one, and con
sequently limited my labour to what I supposed best
calculated for the improvement of those whose re
ceived opinions are widely different firom those of
Christians. My words are, " I decline entering into
any discussion on those points, (the dogmas of
Christianity,) and confine my attention at present
to the task of laying before my fellow-creatures the
words of Christ, with a translation fi-om the English
into Siingscrit, and the language of Bengal. I
feel persuaded that, by separating from the other
matters contained in the New Tiestament, the moral
precepts found in that book, these will be likely to
produce the desirable effects of improving the htearts
and minds bf men of different persuasions and de^
greies of understanding." (Introduction, p. xxvii.)
The Precepts of Jesus, which I was desirous of

351
teaching, were not, I hoped, " opposed to the doc ¦
trines held by the mass of real Christians," nor did
my language in the Introduction imply the " rejec
tion of those truths which the great body of the
learned and pious have concurred in deeming fully
contained in the Sacred Scriptures."
Notwithstanding all this precaution, however, I
could not evade the reproach and censure of the
Editor, who not only expressed, in the " Friend of
India," No. 20, his extreme disapprobation of the
compilation, in a manner calculated more to provoke
than lead to search after truth, but also indulged
himself in calling me an injurer of the cause of
truth. Disappointed as I was, I took refiige in the
liberal protection of the public, by appealing to
them against the unexpected attacks of the Editor.
In that Appeal I carefully avoided entering into any
discussion as to the doctrines held up as the funda
mental principles of Christianity by the Editor. The
language of roy First Appeal is this : " Humble as
he (the Compiler) is, he has therefore adopted those
measures which he thought most judicious to spread
the truth in an acceptable manner ; but I am sorry
to observe, that he (the Compiler) has unfortunately
and unexpectedly met with opposition from those
whom he considered the last persons likely to op
pose him on this subject." (Page 120.)' " Whether
or not he (the Compiler) has erred in his judgment,
that point must be determined by those who will
candidly peruse and consider the argumenls already
2a2

352
advanced on this subject, bearing in mind the lesson
particularly taught by the Saviour himself, of adapt
ing his instructions to the susceptibility and capa
city of his hearers ; John xvi. 12, ' I have yet many
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now.' " (P. 122.) " What benefit or peace of mind
can we bestow upon a Mussulman, who is an entire
stranger to the Christian world, by communicating to
him, without preparatory instruction, all the pecu
liar dogmas of Christianity ?" (Page 123.) " The
Compiler obviously having in view at least one ob
ject in common with the Reviewer and Editor, that
of procuring respect for the precepts of Christ, might
have reasonably expected more charity fi-om profes
sed teachers of his doctrine." (P. 105.) In reviewing
the First Appeal, the Reverend Editor fully intro
duced the doctrines of the godhead of Jesus and the
Holy Ghost, and of the Atonement, as the only
foundation of Christianity; whereby he compelled
me, as a professed believer of one God, to deny, for
the first time publicly, those doctrines ; and now he
takes occasion to accuse me of presumption in
teaching doctrines which he has himself compelled
me to avow.
The Editor assigns, as a reason for entering on
this controversy, that after a review of " The Precepts
of Jesus, and the First Appeal," he " felt some doubt
whether their author fully believed the deity of
Christ," and, consequently, he " adduced a few pas
sages from the Scriptures to confirm this doctrine."

353
He then adds, that this Second Appeal to the Chris
tian Public confirms all that he before only feared.
(Page 1.) I could have scarcely credited this asser
tion of the Reviewer's unacquaintance with my reli
gious opinions, if the allegation had come from any
other quarter ; for both in my conversation and cor
respondence with as many missionary gentlemen, old
and young, as I have had the honour to know, I have
never hesitated, when required, to offer my sentiments
candidly, as to the unscripturality and unreasonable
ness ofthe doctrine ofthe Trinity. On one occasion
particularly, when on a visit to one of the reverend
colleagues of the Editor, at Serampore, long before
the time of these publications, I discussed the sub
ject, with that gentleman, at his invitation ; and then
fully manifested my disbelief of this doctrine, taking
the liberty of examining successively all the argu
ments he, from friendly motives, urged upon me in
support of it. Notwithstanding these circumstances,
I am inclined to believe, from my confidence in the
character of the Editor, that either those missionary
gentlemen that were acquainted with my religious
sentiments have happened to omit the mention of
them to him, or he has forgotten what they had
communicated on this subject, when he entered on
the review of my publications on Christianity.
In page 503 the Editor insinuates, that vanity
has led me to presume that " freedom from the pow
erful effects of early religious impressions" has ena
bled me to discover the truths of scripture, in it§.

354
most important doctrines, more fully in three or four
years, than others have done by most unremitting
study in thirty or forty." The doctrine of the Tri
nity appears to me so obviously unscriptural, that I
am pretty sure, from my own experience and that
of others, that no one possessed of merely common
sense will fail to find its unscripturality after a metho
dical study of the Old and New Testaments, unless
previously impressed in the early part of his life with
creeds and forms of speech preparing the way to that
doctrine. No pride, therefore, can be supposed for
a moment to have arisen from commonly attainable
success. The Editor might be fully convinced of
this fact, were he to engage a few independent and
diligent natives to study attentively both the Old and
New Testaments in their original languages, and
then to offer their sentiments as to the doctrine of
the Trinity being scriptural, or a mere human in
vention. To hold up to ridicule my suggestions in the
Second Appeal, to study first the books of the Old
Testament, unbiassed by ecclesiastic opinions im
bibed in early life, and then to study the New Testa
ment, the Reverend Editor states, that " could it be
relied on indeed," my compendious method " would
deserve notice with a view to Christian education,
as," on my plan, " the most certain way of enabling
any one to discover, in a superior manner, the ti'uths
and doctrines of Christianity, is to leave him till the
age of thirty or forty without any reUgious impres-

365
sion." (Page 503.) I do not in the least wonder at
his disapprobation of my suggestion, as the Editor, in
common with other professors of traditional opinions,
is sure of supporters of his favourite doctrine so long
as it is inculcated on the minds of youths and even
infants, who, being once thoroughly impressed with
the name of the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Tri
nity, long before they can think for themselves, must
be always inclined, even after their reason has become
matured, to interpret the sacred books, even those
texts which are evidently inconsistent with this doc
trine, in a manner favourable to their prepossessed
opinion, whether their study be continued for three,
or thirty, or twice thirty years. Could Hindooism
continue after the present generation, or bear the
studious examination of a single year, if the belief of
their idols being endued with animation were not
carefully impressed on the young before they come
to years of understanding ?
Let me here suggest, that, in my humble opinion,
no truly liberal and vvise parent can ever take advan
tage of the unsuspecting and confiding credulity of
his children, to impress them with an implicit belief
in any set of abstruse doctrines, and intolerance of all
other opinions, the truth or reasonableness of which
they are incapable of estimating. Still less would he
urge by threats the danger of present and eternal
punishment for withholding a blind assent to opinions
they are unable to comprehend. Parents are bound
by every moral tie to give their children such an

356
education as may be sufficient to render them capable
of exercising their reason as rational and social beings,
and of forming their opinion on religious points,
without ill-will towards others, from a thorough
investigation of the Scriptures, and of the evidence
and arguments adduced by teachers of different per
suasions. Judgments thus formed have a real claim
to respect from those who have not the means of
judging for themselves. But of what consequence ia
it, in a question of truth or error, to know how the
matter at issue has been considered, even for a hun
dred generations, by those who have blindly adopted
the creed of their fathers? Surely the unbiassed
judgment of a person who has proceeded to the
study of the Sacred Scriptures with an anxious desire
to discover the truth they contain, even if his re
searches were to be continued but for a single twelve
month, ought, as far as authority goes in such
matters, to outweigh the opinions of any number
who have either not thought at all for themselves, or
have studied after prejudice had laid hold of their
minds. What fair inquiry respecting the doctrine
of the Trinity can be expected from one who has
been on the bosom of his mother constantly taught
to ask the blessing of God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost, and to hear the very name
of Unitarian with horror ? Have the doctrines of
the Vedant ever succeeded in suppressing polythe
ism amongst the generality of Hindoos brought up
with the notion of the godhead of the sun, of fire.

357
and of water, and of the separate and independent
existence of the allegorical representations of the
attributes of God ? Were the sublime works written
by the learned among the Greeks ever able to
shake the early acquired superstitious notions and
polytheistical faith of the generality of their country
men ? Nay, even when Christian converts became
numerous, did not those who were brought up in the
ancient superstition introduce some vestiges of their
idolatry into their new persuasion ? In fact, nothing
can more surely impede the progress of truth than
prejudice instilled into minds blank to receive im
pressions; and the more unreasonable are the doctrines
of a religion, the greater pains are taken by the sup
porters of them to plant them in the readily suscep
tible minds of youth.
The Editor has filled a complete page in proving
that besides early impressed prejudices, there are also
other causes of error in judgment — an attempt which
might have been dispensed with, for I never limited
the sources of mistake in examining religious matters
to early impression alone. I attributed only the
prevailing errors in Christianity to traditional instruc
tions inculcated in childhood, as the language of my
Second Appeal will shew. " Having derived my
own opinions on this subject entirely from the Scrip
tures themselves, I may perhaps be excused for the
confidence with which I maintain them against those
of so great a majority who appeal to the same autho
rity for theirs, inasmuch as I attribute their different

358
views, not to any inferiority of judgment compared
with my own limited ability, but to the powerful
effects of early religious impressions ; for when these
are deep, reason is seldom allowed its natural scope
in examining them to the bottom." (Pp. 304 — 305.)
If the Editor doubt the accuracy of this remark, he
might soon satisfy himself of its justice, were he to
listen to the suggestion offered in the preceding para
graph with a view to ascertain whether the doctrine
of the Trinity rests for its belief on scri{rf;ural autho
rities or on early religious impressions.
The Editor mentions ironically, (in page 3,) that
my success in scriptural studies was such " as to
prove that the most learned and pious in every age
of the church have been so completely mistaken as to
transform the pure religion of Jesus into the most
horrible idolatry." In answer to this, I only beg to ask
the Reverend Editor to let me know first what a Pro
testant in the fifteenth century could have answered,
if he had been thus questioned by a Roman Catholic :
" Is your success in examining the truths of scripture
such as to prove that the most learned and pious in
every age of the church have been so completely
mistaken as to transform the pure religion of Jesus
into the most horrible idolatry, by introducing the
worship of Mary the mother of God, and instituting
images in churches, as well as by acknowledging the
pope as the head of the church, vested with the
power of forgiving sins ?" Would not his answer be
this ? " My success is indeed so as to prove these

359
doctrines to be unscriptural. As to your inferences,
they are no more divine than mine ; and though I
do not doubt the piety and learning of many Chris
tians of your church in every age, I am persuaded
that many con-uptions, introduced into the Christian
religion by the Roman heathens converted in the
fourth and fifth centuries, have been handed down
through successive generations by impressions made
in the early part of hfe, and have taken such root in
the minds of men, that piety and learning have fallen
short of eradicating prejudices nourished by church
and state, as well as by the vulgar superstition and
enthusiasm." Were this reply justifiable, I also
might be allowed to offer the following answer : " I
find not the doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures;
I cannot receive any human creed for divine truth ;
but, without charging the supporters of this doctrine
with impiety or fraud, humbly attribute their mis
interpretation of the Scriptures to ' early religious
impressions.' "
The Editor assigns as a reason for his omission of
several arguments adduced in the Second Appeal,
that " we have before us a work of a hundred and
seventy-three pages, to an examination of which we
can scarcely devote half that number : and while to
leave a single page unnoticed, might by some be
deemed equivalent tb leaving it unanswered, the mere
transcription of the passages to be answered, were it
done in every instance, would occupy nearly all the
room we can give the reply itself. We shall, there-

360
fore, adduce such evidence for these doctrines as, if
sound, will render every thing urged against them
nugatory, though not particularly noticed." To ena
ble the public to compare the extent of the Second
Appeal with that of the Review, I beg to observe,
that the former contains 173 widely-printed, and
the latter 128 closely-printed, pages, and that, if any
one will take the trouble of comparing the number
of words per page in the two Essays, he will soon
satisfy himself that the one is as long as the other.
I will afterwards notice, in the course of the present
reply, whether or not " the evidence of these doc
trines," adduced by the Editor in the Review, has
still left a great many arguments in the Appeal quite
unanswered. In his attempt to prove the insufficiency of the
precepts of Jesus to procure men peace and happi
ness, the Reverend Editor advanced the following
position, " that the most excellent precepts, the most
perfect law, can never lead to happiness and peace,
unless by causing men to take refuge in the doctrine
of the cross," (No. I. Quarterly Series of the Friend
of India, page 111,) without adducing any argu
ments having reference to the position. I therefore
brought to his recollection (in my First and Second
Appeals) such authorities of the gracious author of
Christianity, as, I conceived, established the suffici
ency of these precepts for leading to comfort, and
solicited the Editor " to point out, in order to esta
blish his position, even a single passage pronounced

361
by Jesus, enjoining refiige in the doctrine of the
cross, as all-sufficient or indispensable for salvation."
(P. 153 of the Second Appeal.) The Editor, instead
of endeavouring to demonstrate the truth of his as
sertion as to the insufficiency of the precepts to con
duct men to happiness, or shewing a single passage
of the nature applied for, introduces a great number
of other passages of scripture which he thinks well
calculated to prove, that the death of Jesus was an
atonement for the sins of mankind. I regret that
the Editor should have adopted such an irregular
mode of arguing in solemn religious discussion ; and
I still more regret to find that some readers should
overlook the want of connexion between the position
advanced and the authorities adduced by the Editor.
Were we both to adopt such a mode of controversy
as to cite passages apparently favourable to our re
spective opinions, without adhering to the main
ground, the number of his Reviews and of my Ap
peals would increase at least in proportion to the
number of the years of our lives ; for verses and
quotations of scripture, if unconnected with their
context, and interpreted without regard to the idiom
of the languages in which they were written, may,
as experience has shewn, be adduced to support any
doctrine whatever : and the Editor may always find
a majority of readers, of the same religious sentiments
with himself, satisfied with any thing that he may
offer either in behalf of the Trinity or in support of
the Atonement.

362
Whether Jesus died actually as a sacrifice for the
sins of men, or merely in the fulfilment of the duties
of his office as the Messiah, as it was predicted, is
merely a matter of opinion, the truth of which can
only be ascertained from a diligent examination of
the terms used and doctrines set forth in the evan
gelical writings. This, however, has no relation to
a proof or disproof of the sufficiency of his precepts
for salvation. In order to come to a conclusion as
to the value of the precepts of Jesus being either
really effectual or merely nominal, I deem it neces
sary to repeat a few passages already quoted in my
Appeals, to ask the Editor, whether they demand
explicit belief, or are unworthy of credit ; — and, in
case he admit the former alternative, I should beg to
ask him, whether they confirm the opinion that the
precepts preached by Jesus are sufficient to lead
men to eternal peace and happiness, or are a set of
sentences delivered by him conformably to the prin
ciples of his hearers, similar to other codes of moral
law written by the ancient philosophers ^ Greece,
Egypt, and India ? The passages in question are as
folbw :
Mark xii. 29 : " Jesus answered him, The first of
all the commandments is. Hear, O Israel, the Lord
our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength : this is
the first commandment. And the second is like unto
it, namely. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

363
There is none other commandment greater than
these." Is there another commandment absolutely
enjoining refuge in the doctrine of the cross, so as to
shew that these two commandments are insufficient
for salvation, and comparatively insignificant ?
Matt. vii. 24 : " Therefore, whosoever heareth
these sayings of mine," (alluding to the precepts
contained in ch. v., vi., and vii.,) " and doth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man who built his house
upon a rock," &c. Are not these sayings declared
by Jesus to afford a stable foundation, on which may
be raised the indestructible edifice of eternal life ?
John XV. 10 : " If ye keep my commandments, ye
shall abide in my love." Ver. 14 : " Ye are my
friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." I
therefore again ask the Reverend Editor to shew a
commandment of Jesus directing refuge in the doc
trine ofthe cross, in the same explicit way as he has
enjoined love to God and to neighbours, and obedi
ence to his precepts as sufficient means for attaining
eternal happiness. Did not Jesus, in Matt. xxv. 31,
et seq., by means of a parable in the description of
the day of judgment, declare that acts of charity and
beneficence toward fellow-creatures wili be accepted
as the manifestation of love towards God, and be the
sufficient cause of eternal life ?
With a view to depreciate the weight of the fol
lowing explicit promise of Jesus, " Do this, and thou
shalt live," the Editor interprets, (page 509,) that
" Jesus/ taking him" (the lawyer) " on his own

364
principles, as though he had been what he vainly
imagined himself, a sinless man who needed no
Saviour, directed him to the whole of the divine
law, adding, ' This do, and thou shalt live,' though
he knew that it was utterly impossible for that law
yer to observe his instructions." The Editor, how
ever, quite forgot, that by his attempt to undervalue
the precepts of Jesus, he was actually degrading the
dignity of the author of them ; for, according to his
interpretation, it appears, that as the lawyer tempted
Jesus by putting to him a question which he thought
the Saviour could not answer, so Jesus, in return,
tempted him by directing him to do what he knew
to be impossible for a man to perform, though this
very teacher forbids others to shew revenge even to
enemies. Did Jesus take also the scribe " upon his
own principles" by instructing him in these two com
mandments?* — a man who was never inclined to
tempt Jesus, but " having heard him reasoning, and
perceiving that he had answered well, asked him.
Which is the first commandment of all?"-|- and
when he heard the reply of Jesus, he said, " Well
Master, thou hast said the truth," — a man whom
Jesus declared to be at least out of danger of hell
fi-om his acknowledgment of the truth of his pre
cepts as the means of salvation, telling him, " Thou
art not far from the kingdom of heaven" ? Did Jesus
on the Mount take also his disciples " upon their
* Mark xii. 29. t Mark xii. 28—34.

365 "
own principle," as flloti^h they had been What thejr
vainly iihagined themselves, sinless tneii, vfhb needed
no Saviour, in directing thetri to his precepts, thfe
observance of which he knew utterly impossible,
and in holding out promi^^* of ^tei^nal saltation as
the netessary eon'kqttene^ of theit obedie^hce to those
sayings ? Wete v^-e to folldwf^ the rhode Of interpre
tation adopted in this instance hy the Editor, the
Bible vt'ould serve drtly to suit Out Convenience, and
would not be eSteeffied any longer as a gi^ide ' to
maittkind ; for, aceotdihg to the Satne' mode of inter-
pretatioin, would it not be! ju'sti#abte to exj^laih Mdtf.
xxviii. 19y " Go ye, therefore, aiid tdafeh all nations,
bap^ti^ing them," &c., Aiaf Jesu^ fodk Ms ajxystles
" upon thieir 0#ri principle;" a^ fi¥rt^">pteVsuaded^ tci
believe in the sanetificatiori attainfabte' by* the baptisfrt'
introduced by JdhW thtft''Ba]ptist/ although he Wa'S
aware that im^fersibrf in v^atet cbuld ^odtrote' no
effect' in- chato^feig thfe siai^ of the fteat^ ?
In reply to hi^ cpeUtMr^^ '^ M^ Mmi- who krieW
the hearts of ally regStd^'this lEWs^j^^i-'aX-'perfefctlj)^ sih'-
less, an exception to all nfsfiSkfctid??"' ^ge 9f,) I niUSt
say, that the ctSttfext seieitty to i^ to shew that nei
ther Jesus considered the lawyer to b^^ a siiltesS','
perfect mani -(as^ is evident fr 61ft hiS^ di^Btfhg him
to thle'Seriptii¥^f3p a gQid^-t(^8al#lttbil"-^" D» this^
and thbu' shalt i"iW|" affd' " Go' and" db' thdtr liket-
wfefe,"). nor did'thB'laWyfet vaiiily ittiag^ti^ WtMselfi
* Matti viii 24, 2^.
2b

366
" a sinless jn an who needed no Saviour," though he
endeavoured to put the claim of Jesus to that title
to the proof, in these words, " Master, what shall I
do to inherit eternal life ?"
Although I declared in the Second Appeal, (page
150,) that by the term " law," in the verse " If righ
teousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain,"
all the commandments found in the books of Moses
are understood, yet the Reverend Editor charges me
with an unintelligible expression, and intimates his
inability to ascertain whether I meant by " law,"
the ceremonial or the moral part of the books of
Moses. (Page 507.) I therefore beg to explain
the verse more fully, that the Reverend Editor may
have an opportunity of commenting upon it at large.
St. Paul, knowing the efficacy of the perfection in
troduced by Jesus into the law given by Moses,
declares, that had the system of the Mosaical law
been sufficient to produce light among the Jews and
Gentiles, without being perfected by Jesus, this at
tempt made by Christ to perfect it would have been
superfluous, and his death, which was the conse
quence of his candid instructions, would have been
to no purpose.
, The Editor notices frequently my expression of
the neglect of duty on the part of man to the Cre
ator and to his fellow-creatures ; nevertheless, he fills
up more than two pages in proving this point. He
has not, however, attempted to counteract the force
of the passages I quoted ih both of my Appeals,

,367
shewing that the guilt occasioned by the want of
due obedience to the precepts in question may be
pardoned through repentance, prescribed by the au
thor of those precepts as the sure and only remedy
for human failure. I therefore beg to ask the Editor
to give a plain explanation of the following passages,
selected from my Appeals, that the reader may be
able to judge whether or not repentance can procure
us the blessings of pardon for our constant omissions
in the discharge of the duties laid down in the pre
cepts of Jesus. Luke v. 32 : "I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Does not
Jesus here declare a chief object of his mission to be
the calling of sinners to repentance ? Luke xxiv.
47 : " That repentance and remission of sins should
be preached in his name among all nations," Did
not Jesus by this commandment to his disciples
declare the remission of sins as an immediate and
necessary consequence of repentance ? In Luke xiii.
3, " Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish,"
the indispensability of repentance for the forgiveness
of sins is explicitly declared. Is not also the mercy
of God illustrated by the example of a father for
giving the transgressions of his son through his sin
cere repentance alone, in the parable of the Prodigal
Son? Those who place confidence in the divine
mission of Jesus, or even in his veracity, will not
hesitate, I trust, for a moment, to admit that Jesus
has directed us to sincere repentance as the only
means of procuring parddh, knowing the inability of
2b2

men, to give, entire obgdi^ee to his precepts; and
th9,t Jesus ^yol|ld haye reg^jnjRended th^ lawyer,
whom he directed: to rightftQUisness, to have recourse
to repentaAce '' ha^- he gone and sincerely a,ttempt-
ed" fo ohey hjp ptecep^g,. " vvatching hia own heart
tp discern thosfii comtaitf neglects, of the duty he
ovy,ed to the. ^r^tog, amA fo^ his feHowj-GreatsweSj,"
and then applJked£to_J[©StSSifo? the remedy oi bis dis
cerned imperfection^..
I fi;Q,4 ^|)iindaBt, p^s^jagggi in th^) Old Testament;
also, rgpr§g^^,tiug) Qthe? spurces; tiian sacrifices, as.
spfficieflfemeagis: of procuring. pardon. for sin, Psalm_
lif. 17,: " Vm saeriiees) of Qod are; a broken spirit :,
a broken. agid-coffi^te..heai5bj OGod, thou wil^ not
de,s^ige,." I^lmhyiym, 3Q; " RjCpeflt, and turn
jf^urselves, frop all your transgressions; so iniquity
sl^li not l^. yqiy ruijfi. " Pxf\w>^ xyi., 6 : " By rnercy
aind trutt^ in,iqwty is purged,^ and by the foar of th.Ci^
I^o^dnjjea depart fi^^i^eyih''^* Z^amA i. 18: "Come
now^. and) l^tj U.s.^fp^Qn together, saith the Lord.
T^ugJ^ypur sin?r be as. scarlet, they shaU be as
VKhkife,as' anow; thpugh th^y, be red li^^e crinj^on,
tb^?]^ sha^be af woqI."-
To shew, the ineffiqacy of repen,tance to procure
pardpn, the Editor appeals to hun;ian justice,, wrhich,
a§,he.sayA." inqui;pes not abput the Jiepent^nce o^ ^>
robber and njuMerer,. hvtX respecting his guilt.. The
l8.Si|».ipd6e^,.feo\VS no rep.eHt;ance," (Page; 50,^); I
thfttefcsSiV^aplfefo know, whether or not hjijmaft, jus
tice sufltoaifcini^ppenfe Jsnp to be killed to, atpae.for

369
the guilt of theft or murder committed by another ?
It is, at all events, more consistent with justice, that
a judge who has the privilegfe of shewing mercy,
should forgive the crimes of those that truly feel the
pain and distress of mind inseparable frbm sincere
repentance, than that he should put an innocent
man to death, or destroy his own life, to atone for
the guilt of some of his condemned culprits.

370
CHAPTER II.
Inquiry into the Doctrine ofthe Atonement.
In his first Review, the Editor began with what
he considered " the most abstruse and yet the most
important of Christian doctrines, the Deity of Jesus
Christ," and then proceeded to substantiate the doc
trine of his atonement. I therefore followed this
course of arrangement in my Second Appeal ; but
as the ^Editor has introduced the doctrine of the
atonement of Jesus first in the present Review, I
will also arrange my reply accordingly.
The Editor quotes first, Gen. iii. 15 : "I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between
thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel." From this passage he
attempts to deduce the atonement of Jesus for the
sins of men, demanding, " What could a reptile feel
relative to the fate of its offspring through future
ages ? Of what individual serpents did the seed of
the woman break the head, so as for it to bruise his
heel ?" " Jesus, then," he affirms, " is the seed of
the woman who suffered from the malice of Satan,
while he on the cross destroyed his power by atoning
for sin and reconciling man to God." (Page 517.)
I admit that a reptile, as far as human experience
goes, is incapable of feeling " relative to the fate of
its offspring through future ages;" but I wish to

371
know if a mere reptile could not have the power of
conversation so as to persuade a woman to adhere to
its advice ? Whether the ass of Balaam could be
possessed of the power of seeing exclusively the angel
of God, and conversing with its own master, Balaam ?
And whether ravens could diligently supply the wants
of Elijah, by bringing him bread and flesh morning
and evening? Are not these occurrences equally
difficult to reconcile to " common sense" as the
case of the serpent is, according to the Editor ? Yet
we find these stated in the sacred books, and we are
taught to believe them as they stand. Can we justly
attempt to represent the ass and those ravens also as
either angelical or demoniacal spirits, in the same
way as the reptile is represented by the Editor to
have been no other than Satan ? We might, in that
case, be permitted to give still greater latitude to
metaphor, so as to take all the facts found in the
Bible as merely allegorical representations ; but would
not the consequence of such interpretations be most
dangerous to the caiise of truth ? The verse in ques
tion, with its context, thus runs : " And the Lord
God said unto the serpent. Because thou hast done
this, thou art cursed above * all cattle and above
every beast of the field : upon thy belly shalt thou
go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise
* ^D», composed of two words, (» and ^3; i. e. out of aU,

thy head, aftd thou shalt bruise his heel," Do not
the phrases, ^' Thou a.rt cursed ahove all cattle^'
and '^ above every ^effsf of the field," shew clearly
that the serpent th,Bs addressed was realjy no spirit
in borrowed form, hut the sninial so denominated ?
Dp§s npt th^ circumstance ©f ^ serpent being con.-
demned tp move upon its belly, an,d to eat dust all
the dj^ys of it^ life, evidently ipcipjy that the serpent
thijs C)irse4 Wf-s pf the sam§ class that we rjo^ see
gyl^edt tP tfc&t yery mgl§im^m to the present day ?
The WiSQf Mhs^'S MS deekjfd in the Scriptures to
have been visited hy God on their posterity ; would
it not b§, ther§fpre, ropi'e emm^mt with scriptural
avithorittes tp ati^ribute thfi misery pf serpents to the
heinPM cojid-poi pf tkek first cgrigin, than to Satan,
of whptn np sitntjon is made throughout the chapter
in question ^ -i) •
Bvtt, in faftj, hm the power of Satan ©yep the seed
of the W0in» hssmk destroyed ? The cpnsequenees
of the §in which pw first patenta eom.Hfiitteii by the
ill ^^vkm Pif the ref^ile* and whkh they implanted
iiii tfcp nateg «>f their posterity, have, h^m, that
women bring forth ehjldr^ in spr^pw, and are ruled
by their feusbasi^^, and that thft easth brings forth
thorns ako and t^i^isles. ii^ mm^ whp, e^ the be?b pf
the fijE^ \yi;thi lahfflu^ and «eitwrn at Imt t© du?*.
(Qm.. 'i\* 16t--19.) K ^miai a«]ii«a%. atwod for
sia^ and, deKvisr^d! men firom its eonsequenees^ how
can those men and women who believe in his atone-
menit h§ StiU, eq«4ly witfe P^^> liahle to tfe* evil

373
effects of the sins already remitted by the vicarious
sacrifice of Jesus ?
If, notwithstanding all the above-stated facts and
arguments, the Editor still insists that Satan should
be understood by the reptile mentioned in the verse,
and Jesus by the seed of the woman, yet his inter
pretation cannot apply in the least to the doctrine
of the atonement. It would imply only, that, as
Satan opposed the power of Jesus to procure salva
tion for all men, as he intended, so Jesus diminished
his power and disappointed him by leading many to
salvation through his divine precepts. I know not
how to answer the question of the Editor, " Of
what individual serpent did the seed of the woman
break the head, so as for it to bruise his heel ?" un
less by referring him to the reciprocal injuries which
man and serpents inflict on each other.
The Editor refers to the circumstance of the sa^
orifice offered by Abel, and approved of God in pre
ference to his brother Cain's, {Gen. iv. 4,) esteeming
it as an illustration of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus
for the remission of sin. (Page 518.) But I am
unable to find out what relation there could exist
between the acceptance of the offering of Abel by
Jehovah, and the death of Jesus, whether sacrificial
or not. The Editor, however, founds his assertion,
that Abel having looked -forward to the atonement
of Jesus, his offerings were accepted by God, upon
the circumstance of Abraham's seeing the day of
Christ by prophetic anticipation, {John viii. 56,) and

374

of Moses having,. esteemed the reproach of Christ
greater riches than the treasures in Egypt, {Heb,
xi. 26,*) they all having been "of the same cata
logue." I therefore should hope to be informed
whether there be any authority justifying this infer
ence. On the contrary, we find the fourth verse of
the same chapter of Genesis points out, that Abel
having been accustomed to do well, in obedience to
the will of God, contrary to the practice of his bro
ther, righteous Jehovah accepted his offering, and
rejected that of Cain ; to which Paul thus alludes,
" By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacri
fice than Cain," {Hebrews xi. 4,) without leaving us
doubtful as to the sense in which that apostle used
the word " faith" in the above verse.
" By faith Abel offered unto God," &c. " By
faith Enoch was translated that he should not see
death," &c. " But without faith it is impossible
to please him ; for he that cometh to God must
believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them
who diligently seek him." Here St, Paul gives us
* (Improved Version of the New Testament,) Gr., "¦ The
reproach of Christ," or, " of the anointed." The Israelites are
called Christ's, or anointed, i. e. a chosen and favoured people.
Psalm cv. 15, Heb. iii, 13. " The meaning is," says Dr. Sykes,
in loo., " that Moses looked upon the contempt and indignity
vyhich he underwent on account of his professing himself a Jew,
as much preferable to all the riches and honours of Egypt." See
also Whitby, in,loc, Dr, Newcome's Version is, " such reproach
as Christ endured," which is also the interpretation ot Photius,
Crellius> and Mr. Lindsey, Sequel, page 278,

375

to understand that the " faith" which procured for
Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all the other patriarchs,
the grace of God, was their belief in the existence of
God, and in his being their rewarder, and not in
any sacrifice, personal or vicarious. What could
prophetic anticipation by Abraham, of the divine
commission of Jesus, have to do with Abel's conduct,
in rejidering his sacrifices acceptable to God, that
any one can esteem the one as the necessary conse
quence of the other ? Moses having called himself
a Jew, gave preference to the term " anointed," or
" Israelite," a term of reproach among the Egyptians
in those days, over all the riches and honour of
Egypt, which he might have obtained by declaring
himself an Egypti-an instead of a Jew ; or Moses
esteemed (according to the English version) in his
prophetic power, the reproach to which Christ would
be made liable by the Jews in the fulfilment of his
divine commission, greater riches than all the gran
deur of Egyptian unbelievers. But neither expla
nation can support the idea that Abel, or any other -
patriarch, had in view the sacrificial death of Jesus
in rendering their offering acceptable to God.
It is true, as the Editor observes, that sacrifices
are divine institutions as a manifestation of obedience
to God, through the oblation of any thing that may
be dear to man, whether common, as an animal, or
dearly valuable, as one's own son. But they are not
represented in any of the sacred books as means
having intrinsically the power of procuring jnen

3?6
pardon and eternal salvation. They seem, in fact^
intended for men unaccustomed tP the worship of
God in truth and spirit. The following passages
suffice to illustrate this beyond doubt. Micah
\'\i 7, 8 : " Will the Lord be pleased with thousands
of ramsj, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ?
Shall I give my first bbrn for my transgression ; the
fruit of my body for the sin of my soUl ? He hath
shewed thecj O man, what is good, and what doth
the Lord require oS thee iMt to do.jiastlyi and to love
m€r^, and to lodlk hurhbly with thy God ?" Here
Jehovah^ while shewing his displeasure at mere
animal sacrifices, enjoins jufet actipns and humility
in lieu of them, as worthy to be accepted by God,
without substituting human sacrifices in their stead.
Hosea vi- 6 : " For I desired mercy, andnot ^er^ee^
and the knPWledgeof God more than burnt-offeringSi'
Isaiah 1—11, [i. 11, 16 — 18 J "To Ivhat purpose
is the multitude of y Pat sacrifices unto me? saith the
Lord* I am full of the buttitiofferings of f ams,- and
thp fat of fed beasts ; and I delight not in the blPod
of bullocksj ot of lambs, or of he-gpats. — Wash
you, make j^ou dlbaan j put away the evil of your
doiilgs from before mine t)f6§ ;¦ tease to do evil ;
learn to d4 well ; sfeek judgment, relieve the op
pressed, judgp the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Corne now, and let us reason together, saith thei
Lord ; thot^h your sins be a^ scarlet,- they shall be
as white as snow," &c. Doies not JehoVah here
substitute g0od works alone for sacrifices, as real

377
means of taking away sins ? Psahn I. 8 [8— ^ll5} : '^ I
will not reprove tliee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt-
offerings, to have been continually before me. I will
take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out
of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine,
and the cattle upon a thousand hills. 1 know all the
fowls of the mountains : and the wild beasts of the
field are mine. If I were hungi-y, I would not tell
thee ; for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
Will I eat tlie fieslx of bulls, or drink tlie blood of
goats ? Offer unto God thanks^ving ; and pay thy
vows unto the Most High ; and call upon me in the
day of trouble : I will delivw thee, and thou shalt
glorify me." Jehovah,, who pootests again^ the idea
of the flesh of bulls beiug auj^osed his food^ and the
blood of goats his dridk, cannpt be supposed to have
had delight in human bloody tlie blood of his beloved
Son. Sam. xv. 22 : " And Samuel said. Hath
the Lord aa great, delight in bamt-offerings and
sacrifices, as in obeying, tlie voice.of the Lord ? Be
hold,, to obey is better thaR sacrifice, and to hearken
than tlte fat of rams." jPtoh* xxi. 3 : " To dp. jus
tice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord
than sacrifice."' Eccles. v, 1 : "^ Keep thy foot wh<^-
tliou goestito the house of God, and^ be more, ready.
to heax than to give th^.sacr^e of fools. Fwfj^y
consider not that tliey rfo evil."
It is now left for us^to ascertaiin: in what sense we,
should, take smeh phrases, as, "This m»n, aftptrhe
had ofl^edonesacrificefpr sins ;" " Christ hat^once

378
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;"
" Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with
his own blood, suffered without the gate ;" " I am
the living bread ;" " If any man eat of this," &c.
Whether do these passages imply that Jesus, though
he preferred mercy to sacrifice, {Matt. ix. 13, xii; 7,)
did actually sacrifice himself, and offer his own blood
to God as an atonement for the sins of others, or do
they mean that Jesus, knowing- already that the ful
filment of his divine commission would endanger his
life, never hesitated to execute it, and suffered his
blood to be shed in saving men from sin through his
divine precepts and pure example, which were both
opposed to the religious system adopted by his
contemporary Jews ? Were we to follow the former
mode of interpretation, and take all these phrases in
their strictly literal sense, we must be persuaded to
believe that God, not being contented with the blood
of bulls and goats and other animal sacrifices, offered
to him by the Israelites, insisted upon the offer of
the blood and life of his Son, as the condition of his
forgiving the sins of men ; and that Jesus accord
ingly offered his blood to propitiate God, and also
proposed to men actually to eat his flesh ! Would
not the doctrines of Christianity, in this case repre
senting God as delighted with human victims, and
directing men to cannibalism, appear monstrous to
every civilized being ? No one, unless biassed by
prejudices, can justify such inconsistency as to inter
pret literally some of the above-mentioned phrases

379
in support of the doctrine of the atonement, and ex
plain the last-quoted figuratively, as they are all con
fessedly alike subversive of every rational idea of the
nature of the Divine justice and mercy.
To avoid such a stigma upon the pure religion of
Jesus, it is incumbent, I think, upon us to follow the
latter mode of interpretation, and to understand from
the passages referred to, that Jesus, the spiritual
Lord and King of Jews and Gentiles, in fulfilment
of the duties of his mission, exposed his own life
for the benefit of his subjects, purged their sins by
his doctrines, and persevered in executing the com
mands of God even to the undergoing of bodily
suffering in the miserable death of the cross — a self-
devotion or sacrifice of which no Jewish high-
priest had ever offered an example.
Ought not this belief in the unbounded benefi
cence of Jesus to excite superior gratitude, love, and
reverence towards our Saviour and King, than the
idea that he, as God above mortal afflictions, bor
rowed human nature for a season, and offered this
fictitious man as a sacrifice for the remission of sin,
while he himself was no more afflicted with that
sacrificial death than with the sufferings of other
human individuals ! If there be in this latter case
any gratitude felt for the afflictions which attached to
the death of the cross, it should be manifested to that
temporary man Jesus, and not to Jesus the Christ,
whom the Editor and other Trinitarians esteem as
God above pain and death.

380
¦ If it be orgedtthart it is inconsistent with common
justice to pardon sin that requires the capital punish
ment of death without an atonement for it, it may
be replied, tliat the perfeotion of divine justice, as
well as other attributes of God, should not be mea
sured by what are found in, and adopted by the
human race. Is' it consistent with- our common
notions of justice to visit the sins of fathers on their
descendants, as God ascribed to himself. Exodus
XX. 5.? Is it consistent with our common notions of
justice to afflict men with infmite punishment for
their finite guilt, as Jesns declares in Matthew
xviii. 8, ? Even in the present casej would it be con
sistent with common notions of jastice to afflid; an
innocent man with the death of the cross, for sins
committed by others,) even supposing' the innocent
man should voluntarily offer his life in behalf of
those others? We can have no idea of the perfec-
tfon of divine justice, merey, andi wrath, unless from
what is revealed to us ; and as we; find ia the sacred
booksj that sins have been paudoned: in. consequence^
of the* intereession of righteous nien> without any
siBicrificial' atonement, w-ei shouM, -thletefote, be con
tented with; those' au^britiesy and should; not etttep.
t^» doubt as to; pardon being bestowed- upom those
whO' have had the- ad^zantage of the intercession of
.fesHSj exalted as he- was by God over all prophets
and' righteous^ men that ever lived ,
NUmbiXiv. 19; 20> Moses prayed' to- the Lord,
" Pardon, Ibeseech thee, the iniquity of this* peo-

381
pie according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and
as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypt even
until now ; and the Lord said, I have pardoned ac
cording to thy wordr 2 Chron. xxx, 18 — 20: " For a
multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim and
Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not cleansed
themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise
than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them,
saying. The good Lord pardon every one that pre-
pareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his
fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the
purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord heark
ened to Hezekiah, and healed the people." Psalm
cvi. 23 : " Therefore he said that he would destroy
them, had not Moses, his chosen, stood before him
in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should
destroy them." Did not Jehovah here forgive the
sins of Israel from the intercession of Moses, with
out having the least reference to the ofler of animal
or human blood ? Psalm xxxii. 5 : " I acknowledged
my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid ;
I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the
Lord, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin."
Were not sins forgiven in this instance also, through
confession and humility, without bipod-offerings ?
Psalm cxh. 2 : " Let my frayer he set forth before
thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as
the evening sacrifice." Isaiah Iv. 7 : " Let the
wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man
his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord,
2 c

382
and he will have mercy upon himi and to our God,
for he will abundantly pardon." Jer. vii. 21 — 23 :
" Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel,
Put your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices and
eat fi£sh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor
commanded them in the day that I brought them
out of the land of Egypt, concerning humt-qffer-
ings or sacrifices. But this thing comimanded I
them, saying. Obey my voice, and I will he your
God, and ye shall be my people," &c. Here we
find prayers and obedience preferred to animal sa
crifices, as means of pardon, and no reference, direct
or figurative,, to propitiation, to be made by human
blood. Such an attempt, therefore, as to represent
human blood, or that of God in human form, in lieu
of animal blood, as an indispensable atonement for
sins, is, I think, unscriptural.
The Editor quotes, (p. 519,) Heb.x., "It is not
possible that the blood of bulls and [of] goats should
take away sins. Sacrifice and oflering thou wouldest
not, but a body hast thpu prepared me ; in burnt-
offerings and sacrifices thou hast had no pleasure."
And he attempts thereby to prove that "sacrifices,
considered in themselves, then, were never desired
by God.; they are approved merely with a view to
his making atonement for whom God had, prepared
a body," and that " they ceased after he had offered
himself a sacrifice for sin." How strange is the
idea, that " God, who preserves man and beast, nor
suffers a sparrow to fall to the ground without his

383
permission," and by whom sacrifices " were never
desired for their own sake," should have caused mil
lions of animals to be slaughtered, at different times,
by men, under the mistaken notion of their being
an atonement for sins, while he has been remitting
iniquity from eternity, referring only to the real and
sufficient atonement made by Jesus for the sins of
all men that ever lived fi-om the beginning of the
world !
How inconsistent is such an idea with the known
mercy of that Providence, whose unwillingness to
receive human sacrifices was such, tha,t when Abra
ham had proved his fidelity by binding his son on
the altar, God stayed his hand from the sacrifice,
and produced a ram, unexpectedly, before him,
which he was graciously pleased to accept as an
offering in th.e stead of Isaac ! (Genesis xxii. 13.)
How can we imagine that God should have received
the offering which he himself had thus prepared,
with reference solely to the future sacrifice of a
being far superior in excellence to Isaac, whose life
he mercifully preseryed ?
As to the above-cited verses, they rather corrobo
rate the second mode of interpretation, noticed in
the preceding paragraphs^ than the; doctrine of a
real human sacrifice in the Christian dispensation ;
for, in verses fifth and sixth, the author of the Epis
tle to the Hebrews declares the dissatisfaction of
God with sacrifices and offerings^ in general tetmsj
without limiting them to any particular species,
2c 2

384
whether of man or of animal. The language of the
fifth verse, " Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
but a body hast thou prepared me," confirms the
idea that the divine disregard of mere sacrifice led
to the preparation of a body for Jesus, through
which he could impart to mankind the perfection
of the will and laws of God in a manner consistent
with the divine nature, teaching them to yield to
God a heartfelt, instead of a ceremonial and outward
obedience, and thereby putting an end to the further
efiusion of blood, as a testimony of humility, grati
tude, and devotion.
Hence, it appears more consistent with the con
text and the general tenor of scripture, to under
stand by the phrase, " The offering of the body of
Jesus Christ," (quoted often by the Editor,) the
death of Jesus as a spiritual and virtual sacrifice for
the sins of all those for whom he became a me
diator; inasmuch as by that death the blessed Sa
viour testified his perfect obedience and devotion to
the will of his heavenly Father, and thereby, vin
dicated to himself the unlimited favour of God.
During his life he instructed mankind how they
might render, themselves worthy of the Divine
mercy; by his death he qualified himself to be their
intercessor at the heavenly throne, when sincere re
pentance was to be offered by them instead of per
fect duty. We may easily account for the adoption
by the apostles, with respect to him, of such terms
as sacrifice and atonement for sin, and their repre-

385
senting Jesus as the high-priest, engaged to take
away the sins of the world by means of his blood.
These were modes of speech made use of in allusion
to the sacrifices and blood-offerings which the Jews
and their high-priest used to make for the remission
of sins ; and the apostles wisely accommodated their
instructions to the ideas and forms of language fami
liar to those whom they addressed.
How inconsistent would it be in the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews to declare, in one place, that
God would not have sacrifice and offering ; and
again to announce, almost at the same moment, that
he was so pleased with sacrifice, even with a human
sacrifice, that for its sake he would forgive the sins
of the world ! Besides, in the Christian dispensation,
sacriflce implies a spiritual offering required by God,
not only from the author of this religion, but also
from his disciples and followers ; a fact which raay
be illustrated by sacred authority. 1 Peter ii. 4, 5 :
" To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed
indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye
also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house,
an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."
I am not at all disposed to dispute the assertion of
the Editor, (page 532,) that " a priest without atone
ment, however, had no existence in the Old Testa
ment ;" but I must say, that a priest without atone
ment, has existence in the New Testament, and
refer the Editor to the following verses, excluding

386
those that are applied to Jesus. Rev. i. 6, "And
hath made us kings and priests unto God ;" xx. 6,
" But th«5y shall be priests of God and of Christ,
and shall reign with him a thousand years ;" 1 Peter
ii. 5, " Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiri
tual house, an holy priesthood." Moreover, in ex
plaining such phrases as, " I am the living bread," —
" If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever,"
-^" The bread that I will give is my flesh,"—" Ex
cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man," and " Un
less ye eat his flesh, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you," — " My flesh is meat indeed, and my
blood is drink indeed ;" Protestant commentators
take upon themselves to interpret, that these phrases
are in allusion to the manner of sacrifice, and that
the eating of the flesh of Jesus, and drinking his
blood, must be understood in a spiritual, not in a
carnal sense. If these writers make so direct an en
croachment upon the literal sense of those phrases,
in ordor to avoid the . idea of cannibalism being a
tenet of Christianity, why should I not be justified
upon the same principles, and on the authority of
the apostle, in understanding by sacrifice, in the lan
guage of the apostle, a virtual oblation — ^that Chris
tianity may not be represented as a religion founded
upon the horrible system of human victims ?
The Editor first refers (page 520) to " Noah's
sacrifice on his Boming out of the ark ;" whence he
concludes, that all the genuine religion of the new
worid was founded on the future atonement made by

387
Christ. He again mentions God having made a
promise to Abraham, that in him "shall all the
families of the earth be blessed," a blessins which
came to the Gentiles through Jesus. He considers
this circumstance of the communication of blessing,
as fully foreteling the atonement of Jesus. The
Editor has also quoted the passage in Job, " I know
that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand in
the latter day upon the earth;" being of opinion,
that the term redeemer being applied to Christ,
proves either his atonement or his deity. I must
Confess my inability to find out the connexion be
tween these authorities and the conclusion drawn by
the Editor from them. Did God, who, according
to the Reverend Editor, had no delight even in ani
mal sacrifice, anticipate great delight in human sa
crifice, when Noah made an offering to him ?
May we not admit, that the divine promise to
Abraham has been fulfilled in the blessings we en
joy, derived from the Sacred instructions of Jesus,
without assuming that other advantages have been
reaped by us from the circumstance of his having
shed his blood for us, exclusively considered? If
not, how can Jesus assure us of the divine blessing
merely through the observance of his instructions ?
Matt. v. 3—11, Lnke xi» 28, " But, said he, (Jesus,)
Yea, rather blessed ate they that hear the wotd of
God, and keep it."
Could not ,Job, ot any one, call another his re
deemer or deliverer, without having allusion to his

388
blood r Caimot one being redeem another without
samficing his own blood ? How is it, flien, we find
Jehovah, the Father of all, called redeemer, though
in that capadty not considered even by Trinitarians
to have had his blood shed as an atonement? Isaiah
IxiiL 16 : " Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Re
deemer." hfdah Ix. 16 • " Shalt know that I, Jeho
vah, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer."
I wmmJo- at the assertion ofthe Editor, that " the
Messiah is not trained a redeemer merely on account
of hb teadung or his example. These," he says,
" could be of no value to Job, who lived so long before
the appearance df Christ in the earth." I wish to
know whe^er Job, an inspired writer, is to be con-
adered as posseted of a knowlege of future events
cw- not : as, in the forma- case, the arcumstances of
Christ's atoning for sin, accorcbng to the Editor, and
the nataie and import of his divine instructions, were
equally known to him, and he could call the Messiah
ledeemQ- in either view. In the latter case, (i. e.
if he was unacquainted %rith future events while
writii^ this parage,) then the doctrine of the atone
ment, and the saving truths inculcated by Christ,
woe, of course, equally hidden from him, and nei-
thor, consequentiy, could be of any value to Job,
" who lived so long before Christ's appearance in
the eartii." The fact is, the verse of Job quoted by
the Editor has no such obvious reference to the
Mesaah, that any one can be justified in applying to
Jesus the term " Redeemer," found in the same

389
verse. I therefore quote it with its context, that my
readers may have a better opportunity of considering
the subject in question. Job xix. 24 — 26 : " That
they (my words) were graven with an iron pen and
lead in the rock for ever! For I know that my
redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the
latter day * upon the earth. And though after my
skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall
I see God."
The Editor having urged in his first Review, (p.
101,) that the circumstance of the term " lamb"
being twice applied to Jesus by John the Baptist,
shewed that Jesus came into the world to sacrifice
his life as an atonement for sin ; I observed to the
Editor in my Second Appeal, (page 212,) that such
terms as " lamb" and " sheep" were applied in
scripture to the disciples of Jesus also ; many of
whom likewise suffered death in their attempt to
withdraw men from sin ; yet in their cases no allu
sion to the sacrificial lamb has ever been made ; and
that it might be, therefore, safely inferred, that the
epithets " lamb" and " sheep" are merely figurative
terms for innocence subjected to persecution. The
Editor, however, without noticing this observation,
quotes in his present Review (page 522) some verses
of the Epistles of Peter and John, in which the
apostles use the same epithet " lamb," applied to
* pinK signifies properly afterwards, without any reference
to a particular day.

390
their gracious Master. It is obvious, from what I
stated in my Second Appeal, that I did not dispute
the application of that term to Jesus in the scriptural
books. I only maintained, that no Christian, whe
ther primitive or modern, could ever apply the word
" lamb," in its literal sense, to Jesus, who, as being
above the angels of God, is of course far above the
nature of a " lamb ;" and that, under this considera
tion, it must have been used for innocence subjected
to persecution, as we find the use of the word " lamb"
very frequent elsewhere when apphed to man. John
xxi. 15, (already, quoted in the Second Appeal,)
" Feed my lambs." Luke x. 3, " Behold, I send
you forth as lambs among wolves." Gen. xxii. 7,
8, " And he (Isaac) said. Behold the fire and the
wood ; but whei-e is the lamb for a burnt-offering ?
And Abraham said. My son, God will provide him
self a lamb for a burnt-offering." Wherein, Abraham
doubtless meant his innocent son about to be sub
jected to a violent death, hiding the commandment
of God from him, as appears from the following
verses : " And they came to the place which God
had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there,
and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son,
and laid him on the altar upon the wood : and Abra
ham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to
slay his son." Jer. xi. 19, " But I was like a lamb
or an ox that is brought to slaughter."
Upon the same principle, the apostles generally
used " blood" for condescension to death, and " sa-

391
crifice" for a virtual one, as I noticed fully in the
preceding paragraphs.
The Editor relates, (page 524,) that the priest
used to lay his hands on the head of a living goat,
" and confess over him all the iniquities of the chil
dren of Israel, putting them on the head of the goat,
and by the hand of a fit person to send it away into
the wilderness as an atonement for all their sins in
every year." He then infers from this circumstance,
that " commandments like these did more than
merely foretel the atonement of Christ." Were we
to consider at all the annual scape-goat as an indica
tion of some other atonement for sin, we must esteem
it as a sign of Aaron's bearing the iniquities of Israel,
both the scape-goat and Aaron having alike borne
the sins of others without sacrificing their lives : but
by no means can it be supposed a sign of the atone
ment of Christ, who, according to the author, bore
the sins of men by the sacrifice of his own life, and
had therefore no resemblance to the scape-goat or
Aaron. Exod. xxviii. 38 : " And it shall be upon
Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity
of the holy things which the children of Israel shall
hallow in all their holy gifts ; and it shall be always
upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before
the Lord." I wonder that the Reverend Editor
himself notices here that the iniquities of Israel were
forgiven by confession over the scape-goat, without
animal or human victims, and yet represents the
circumstance of the scape-goat as a prediction of the

392
sacrificial death of Christ, and insists upon the for
giveness of sins being founded upon the effusion of
blood. The Reverend Editor now begins with Psalm ii.
1, (page 527,) stating that in Jets iv,, the apostles
lifted up " their voices with one accord to God in
the very words of the Psalms ;" adding verse 27,
" For of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, whom
thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate,
with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were
gathered together." Secondly, he quotes Psalm xvi.
8 — 11, comparing them with Acts ii. 25 — 27; 3rdly,
Psalm xxii. 1, comparing it with Heb. ii. 10 — 12 ;
4th\y, Psalm xxxi. 5, while he repeats Psalm xl.
6 — 8, comparing them to Heh. x. 4 ; 5thly, Psalm
xiv. 6, 7, comparing it [them]] with Heb. i. 8 — 12 ;
6thly, Psalm Ixviii. 18, applying it to Ephes. iv.
8 — 11 ; 7thly, Psalm Ixix. I, 2, comparing them
with John ii. T 7, " The zeal of thy house hath eaten
me up," and with Rom. xv. 3, "Even Christ pleased
not himself ; but, as it is written, The reproaches of
them that reproached thee fell on me ;" 8thly, Psalm
Ixxii. 7— 11, 17; 9thly, Psalm Ixxxix. 19—37;
lOthly, P*a/m cii. 4, 5, 10, quoting immediately after
this, Heb. i. 7, without comparing one with the other;
llthly. Psalm cxviii. 22 ; 12thly, Psalm ex. 1, 4.
After having filled up more than six pages (527—
533) with the quotations of the above Psalms, the
Editor observes, that, " notwithstanding the abun
dant evidence of the atonement, and even the deity

393
of Christ, already adduced from the Pentateuch and
the Psalms," &c. But I regret that none of these
Psalms appear to me to bear the least reference to
the principle of vicarious sacrifice as an atonement for
sin, except Psalm fourteenth, in which a declaration
of the displeasure of Jehovah at sacrifice in general
is made, and which I have fully examined in the
preceding paragraphs. I therefore beg my readers
to look over all the Psalms introduced here by the
Editor, and to form their opinion whether these are
properly applied to the discussion of the doctrine of
the atonement; and should they find them having
little or no relation to a proof of the atonement, they
may then judge whether the frequent complaint of
the Editor of the want of room, is or is not well
founded. I will examine his attempt to prove the deity of
Jesus from some of these Psalms, in a subsequent
chapter on the Trinity, but cannot omit to notice
here two or three remarks made by the Editor, in
the course of quoting these Psalms, on some of my
assertions in the Second Appeal, leaving a decision
on them to the free judgment of the public. The
Editor having quoted Psalm xl. 6 — 8, and compared
these verses with Heb. x. 4 — 7, 9, thus concludes
(page 528) : " By these declarations various facts
are established. They inform us, that the grand
design of the Son in becoming man was that of
being a sacrifice ; which fully refutes our author's
assertion, (page 202,) that the sole object of his mis-

394
sion was to preach and impart divine instructions."
The Editor, I am sorry to say, following a frequent
practice of his other orthodox brethren, omits the
immediately following verses, which thoroughly ex
plain whether « the will of God," mentioned in
verse 8 of the Psalm quoted by the Editor, implies
sacrifice or divine instructions: " I delight to do
thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my
heart, / have preached righteousness in the great
congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O
Lord, thou knowest. / have not hid thy righteous
ness within my heart; / have declared iky faithful
ness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy
hmng-Mndness and thy truth from the great congre
gation." It is now left to the public to judge whe
ther Psalm fortieth, quoted by the Editor, establishes
that " the grand design of the Son in becoming
man was that of being a sacriflce," or of preaching
the righteousness of God to the world,, and declaring
his truth and salvation to them. The preparing of
the body for the Son, as found in Heb. x. 5, implies,
of course, the necessity of his being furnished with
a body in preaching the will of God to mortal men ;
a body which, in the fulfilment of his commission,
Jesus never valued, but exposed to danger, and vir
tually offered as a sacrifice.
It is worth observing, that the Editor, though he
affirms positively that the grand object of the Son's
appearing in this world was to be a sacrifice, and not
to inculcate divine instructions, and thanks it proper

395
to rest his position upon a comparison of the above
Psalm with Hebrews, yet never attempts to reconcile
to this notion the verses pointed out in page 202
of my Second Appeal, proving that the object of his
mission was to preach and impart divine instructions.
Are we to place greater reliance on his bare affirmaT
tion, or on the authority of Jesus himself, the Lord
and King of Jews and Gentiles ?
Not finding a single assertion in the Scriptures
that can support his above notion, the Editor lays
stress upon John x. 17, "Therefore doth my Father
love me, because I lay down my life, that I might
take it again." Do these words imply any thing
more than his attributing the love of the Father
towards the Son to his implicit obedience, even to
the loss of his own life, taken by the rebellious Jews ?
Should a general inform his fellow-soldiers, that his
king is attached to him in consequence of his being
ready to give up his life in the discharge of his duty,
can we thence infer that the grand design of the king
in appointing him general is his death, and not his
reconciling rebels to their merciful king through
friendly entreaty and offers of amnesty, which we
know he has employed ?
The second conclusion of the Editor from the
above-quoted Psalms and Hebrews, is, that " they
also demonstrate that the Son delighted in offering
himself a sacrifice, which refutes that dreadful asser
tion, that Jesus declared great aversion to the death
of the cross, and merely yielded to it as knowing

396
that the will of his Father rendered such death
unavoidable." I find no niention made in Heb. x.,
much less in Psalm xl,, of the Son's " delighting in
offering himself as a sacrifice ;" on the contrary, it is
evidently found in Heb. x., that whatever the Son
performed with the body prepared him, was entirely
through his implicit obedience to the will of the
Father,— Ver, 7 : " Then said I," (the Son,) " Lo,
I come to do thy will, O God." — " Then said he,"
(the Son,) " Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,"
ver. 9 ; — an assertion which is thoroughly confirmed
by what I quoted in my Second Appeal, (pp. 206,
207,) part of which I am necessitated to repeat here,
to shew that Jesus (whether as man or God let the
Editor decide) declared great aversion to death, yet
yielded to it in common with many other prophets,
knowing that the will of his Father rendered such
death unavoidable. Matt. xxvi. 37—39, 42 : "And
he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee,
and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then
saith he unto them. My soul is exceeding sorrowful,'
even, unto death, — And prayed, saying, O my Father,
ifit be possible, let this cup" (meaning death) "pass
from me ; nevertheless ru>t as I will, but as thou
wilt. — He went away again the second time, and
prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not
pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be
done." Mark xiv. 36 : " And he said, Abba, Fa
ther, all things are possible unto thee ; take away
this cup from me : nevertheless not what I will, but

397
what thou wilt." Luke xxii. 42, 44 : " Saying,
Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:
nevertheless not my will, but thine be done. And
being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly ; and his
sweat was as it were great drops of blood, faffing
down to the ground."
Now, let the Editor find out a set of verses, or
even a single passage, wliich may evince that Jesus,
so far from feeling aversion to death, delighted in it,
as he has attempted to prove ; and let him take upon
himself to reconcile such gross contradictions between
those two sets of passages, (if there are any such,) or
reject one set of them.
The third conclusion of the Editor, from the above
Psalm and the compared passage of Hebrews, is, that
" they furnish a complete answer to the declaration,
(page 206,) that it would be a piece of gross iniquity
to afflict one innocent being, who had all the human
feelings, and who had never transgressed the will of
God, with the death ofthe cross for the crimes com
mitted by others, and (page 207) that the iniquity of
one's being sentenced to death as an atonement for
the fault committed by another, is such, that every
just man would shudder at the idea of one's being put
to death for a crime committed by another, even if
the innocent man should willingly offer his life in
behalf of that other." The Editor, then, maintains,
that the texts quoted (Psalms and Hebrews) refute
the above positions, stating, that " this iniquity, if it
be such, the Father willed, since he prepared the
2d

398
Son a body, in which to suffer this palpable in
justice." in this I perfectly coincide with the-
Editor, that the death of the innocent Jesus took
jiaoe, like that of many preceding prophets, by th6
unsearchable will of God, who hath ordained that
air the sons of men shall die, sbme by a violent and
painful death, others by ah easy and natural extinc
tion ; nor do I require the evidence of the text
quoted, )(" Thou hast prepared me a body,") to con
vince me of the fact, dedared by Jesus in his agony
in the gsardea, that his ^sufferiings, in particular, were,
like those of mankind in general, colifGamafele to the
will of God. But I cannot find any thing in these
words tlKit warrants an inference so confcrary to our
ideas of justice, as, that ibhte pain thus sUiiered by
Jesus was inflicted on him, though innocent, by
Ood, as an atonement to himself for VilMicWing
merited .-purfshinent from the truly, gmky. And
this is tiie real point in disonsaon^ The Editor will
adnat that the ways of God, in bestowing happiness
on some and leaving others, in onr eyes more worthy
of divine favour, to wretchedness and misery, are ii^-
'Sfitrtd^ ; yet, on the bare fact, that the innocent
Jesus was ordained to die on the cross, he pretends
to rest the conclusion, as the 'Only possible one, that
this death he suffered to satisfy the justice of -his
Maker. Was it for this that John the Baptist was
bdheaded? Was it for this that Zechariah was
slain-^ Was it as an atonement for the sins of the
rest of m»kkd, that Jerusalem was suffered to

399
" stone the prophets and kill those who were sent
to her" ? The Editor will not admit that it was ;
yet the proposed inference from the bare fact would
be as legitimate in these cases as that of Jesus. The
plain and obvious conclusion to be drawn from the
text is, that God prepared for Christ a. body, that he
might communicate a perfect code of divine law fo
mankind, and that he lowed him for the devotion
with which he fulfilled his divine commission, re
gardless of the comfort or safety of that foody, and
his readiness to lay it down when it suited the pur
pose of the M«d:er.
The Reverend Editor expr^eeses his indignation at
the mode of reasoning adopted hy nae, in the pas
sages abov« quoted? saying, '^'Should not a creattire,
a wprm of the -dust, who cannot fully comprehend
-the myiteties -of his own being, pause before he
arraign his Maker ^of -grpss injustice, and charge him
with having fousided all areligion on an act of palpa
ble iniquity.?'' ((Page i»29.i)
There appears h^re a most strange mistake on the
part of the Editor. It is he who seems to me to be
labouring to prov^ the absurdity that God, the al-
-BSi^hty and aW-mercifial, is capable of a palpable
iniquity— fdetermined to have punishiaoient, though
he leave quite unpunished ; inflioting 4he marks of
his -wrath on the innoGemt for the purpose of sparing
those -who justly -deserve ihe weight -ef its terrors.
If he mean to object to *he rashness ©f applying the
limited capacity of the human /uaiderstanding to
2d 2

400
judge the unsearchable things of the wisdom of
God, and therefore denies my right, as a worm of
the dust, to deduce any thing from human ideas
inimical to his view of the divine will, I can only
say, that I have for my example that of a fellow-
worm in his own argument, to shew the necessity
that the Almighty laboured under to have his jus
tice satisfied. For I find this very Editor, in his
endeavour to prove the doctrine of the atonement,
arguing (p. 506) thus: " He who has kept the law
has not broken it, and he who has broken it cannot
have kept it : that the same man, therefore, should
incur its penalty for violating it, and also deserve its
reward for keeping it, is an outrage on common
sense." " This will dearly appear, if we refer to
human laws, imperfect as they are." " Apply this
to the divine law." " For him, therefore, to be re-
war-ded as one who had kept the divine law, would
be directly : contrary to righteousness." " Human
judges inquire not [about thej repentance of the
robber or murderer, but respecting his guilt."
From these passages does it not appear as if the
Editor were of Ppinion that it is quite right and pro
per tb apply human reason as a standard, by which
to judge what inust be the will of God, when he
thinks it supports his views bf the ways of Provi
dence ; but that, on the -contrary, it is blasphemous
and rebellious against the Divine Majesty, to deduce
frPm human reason conclusions from the Scriptures
contrary to his interpretations of them? The Editor

401
has not attempted to dispute that, applied to human
affairs, the motive to which he assigns the will of
God, in ordaining the death of Jesus on the cross,
would be palpably iniquitous. Should not this in
duce him to pause, and permit nothing but the most
express and positive declaration, couched in language
not capable of being explained in a metaphorical
sense, to sway him to a belief so irreconcilable to
common sense? Yet he is willing to assume, at
once^ this conclusion, on the bare fact that Jesus
was provided with a body.
Do not orthodox divines often offer it as a reason
for the necessity of an atonement being made for the
crimes of men, that it would be inequitable, in the
perfect nature of the just God, to remit sin without
some sort of punishment being inflicted for it as a
satisfaction to his justice? Do they not, in conse
quence, represent the death of Jesus as an atone
ment for the sins oi mankind 9 If they do, and are
allowed to do so, I think myself also authorized to
urge, in reference to human notions of justice, that
" it would be a piece of gross iniquity to afflict one
innocent being, who had all the human feelings, and
who had never transgressed the will of God, with
the death of the cross, for crimes committed by
others, especially when he declares such great aver
sion to it." But if the Editor abandon this mode of
reasoning, and confess the unsearchable, inscrutable
nature both of divine justice and of divine mercy, I
am prafectly ready and willing to do the same.

402
The Editor now refers to the prophets^ (page 533,)
sayitigj that Isaiah, in ch. vii,, "predicting the birth
of Christ, identifies hid diyine arid his human na--
tare/' As Isaiah yii. 14, and ix. 6, bai^e no relation
whatever to the doctrine of atonement, I deem it
proper tP defer the notice of them to the subsequent
chapter on the Trinity.
The Editor, in his neit quotation from Isaiah^
first introduces ch. xi. [3], " And he shall make him
(JesUs) of quick understanding in the fear of the
Lord ;" but my limited capacity has failed to enable
me to ascertain what he really means to establish
by the quotation of this passage (page 536). The
Editor was in the course of an attetopt to prove the
deity and the atonement of JesUs Christ, but the
force of truth would appear to have induced him
here to cite a verse which> containing such phrases
as — ^' make him Pf quitk understanding," and " in
the fear of the Ldtd," go to prove his created na
ture. In like manner I must confess my inability to
discover any allusion whatever to the atonement^ in
his next quotation from Isaiah xix. 19, 20.
The Editor having endeavoured, in his former re
view, to prOye the doctrine of the atonement from
the application of the term " Saviour" to Jesus, I
noticed, in my Seooiid Appeal, that « we find the
^tle Saviour applied frequ^ntfy in the divine writings
to: those who have been endued with the power of
saving nations, yvhether in a spiritiial sense, by the
imparting of the Divine will, or by affording tenjpo-

403
rary protection to them ; although none of those
saving prophets or princes atoned for the sins of
their fellow-creatures by their death ;" (page 208 ;)
and, that " all those who have been instrumental in
effecting the deliverance of their fellow-creatures,
from evils of whatever nature, were dependent them
selves upon God, and only instruments in his hand."
The Editor, though unable to deny this fact, thus
turns away the subject ; saying, " It surely required
but little knowledge to discern, that a man's deliver
ing his country does not elevate him to an equality
with God, or, that to overcome an invading enemy
is an act totally different from saving sinners from
their sins." But the force of truth again makes the
Reverend Editor quote here the following passage,
(" and he shall send them a Saviour, and a great
one, and he shall deliver them,") which does not
only refute his own position, but proves what I ad
vanced in my Second Appeal j that is, as Christ and
others, who saved people at different times in their
capacities, were dependent themselves upon God,
and only instruinents in his hands ; is it npt pos
sible for God, yrhP could raise, as the Editor con
fesses, personages to save men, by their miraculous
strength, fron> the grasp of their enemies, to raise
one tp save mankind from sin through his divine in
structions? If not, hpvv should we reconcile such
disavowal of the povyer pf God to the following as
sertion of the Evangelist Matthew, that the people
" glorified God, who had given such power to ijqipn"?

404
(Ix. 8.) And if Jesus was not entitled to the appella
tion of a Saviour from the saving power of his divine
instructions, in what sense should we understand
those declarations of Jesus himself, to be found even
in a single gospel }—John v. 24, vi. 63, xv. 3.
To his question, " When, previously to Christ's
coming, did the Egyptians cry to Jehovah for de
liverance, and when, previously, was Israel the third
with Egypt and the Assyrians?" my answer must
be in the negative; that is, neither previous to
Christ's coming did the Egyptians cry to Jehovah
and join the Assyrians and Israel, a blessing in the
midst of the land, nor have they subsequently to
the coming of Jesus, up to this day, cried fo the
God of Israel, or joined Israel and the Assyrians in
asking a divine blessing.
The Editor says, (page 537,) that " in ch. xxxv.
the blessings of Christ's kingdom are declared in the
most glowing language." I do not dispute it in the
least. If verse 10 (" the ransomed of the Lord shall
return," &c.) have any allusion to Jesus, it must have
reference to his implicit obedience to the will of
Jehovah, even to the laying down of his own life for
the safety of mankind ; as explained in my Second
Appeal, pp. 201, 202. Any one who has a tolerable
knowledge of the idiom of Hebrew or Arabic, or
even of Persian, must be aware that the word " ran
som" ran 3 or sjp is often used to express extreme
attachment or obedience, without implying an actual
sacrifice as an atonement for sins.

405
He again quotes Isaiah xiii. [2] 21, " He shall not
cry," &c. " The Lord is well pleased for his righte
ousness' sake ;" but I am unable, also, to discover
what these quotations have to do with Christ's
atoning for sin as a sacrifice in lieu of goats and
bullocks. So, 2 Cor. v. 21, " For he hath made him
to be sin," &c., has no reference to the atonement,
which the Editor insists upon : it implies no more
than that " God hath made him subject to suffer
ings and death, the usual punishment and conse
quence of sin, as if he had been a sinner, though he
were guilty of no sin; that we, in and by him,
might be made righteous, by a righteousness im
puted to us by God." See Locke's Works, Vol.
VIII. page 232.
The Reverend Editor now refers to ch. liii. of
Isaiah, laying great stress upon such phrases as the
following, found in that chapter : " Surely he hath
borne our griefs and carried our sorrows ;" " He was
wounded for our transgressions ;" " The Lord hath
laid on him the iniquities of us all ;" " He shall bear
their iniquities." Do these sentences prove that
he, like a sacrificial " lamb" or " sheep," atoned
for the sins of others ? Did ever a sacrificial lamb
or goat bear the iniquities of men ? The scape-goats
are stated to have borne the iniquities of Israel — a
circumstance far from being applicable to Christ,
even typically; for he, as was predicted, made no
escape from the hands of his enemies. My readers
may peruse the whole of ch. liii., and may find that

406
it conveys but the idea that Jesus, as a prince, though
innocent himself, was to suffer afflictions, or rather
death, for the transgressions of his guilty people,
while interceding for them with a King mightier
than himself
To this question of the Editor, " Is not our re
pentance sufficient to make atonement with the All-
merciful?" my answer must be in the affirmative,
since we find the direct authority of the author of
this religion, and his forerunner, John the Baptist,
requiring us to have recourse to repentance as the
means of procuring pardon for sin. (Vide p. 367.)
Had the human race never transgressed, or had they
ri^nted ancerely of their transgressions, the Son of
God need not have been sent to teach them repent
ance for the pardon of their sins, to lay before them
the divine law, calculated to prevent their further
transgressions, the fulfilment of whiqh commission
was at the cost of his life.
As I have already noticed (in page 399, et seq.)
the Editor's reference to human ideas of justice in
support of the doctrine of atonement, and his cen
suring me for the same mode of reference to natural
equity, I will not renew the subject here.
The Editor seems contented with the quotation of
caily two passages of Jeremiah, viz. ch. xxiii. [5],
" Behold, the days come, saith Jehoyah, that I will
raise unto David a righteous branch," &c-, and ch.
xxxi. [31, S3], as being quoted in Heb. viii. [8, 10],
" Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I

407
will make a new covenant with the house of Israel
and the land of Judah. I will put my law in their
inward, parts," &c. The Editor then quotes (page
539) 1 Cor. i. 30, " Christ is made unto us wisdom,
rightePusnessj sanctification, and redemption." But
what these quotations have to do with the vicarious
sacrifice of Christ, I am again at a loss to perceive,
being able to discover in them nothing more than a
prophecy, and its fulfilment, that Christ was to be
sent to direct mankind to sincerity in worship, righ
teousness in conduct, sanctification in purity of mind,
and salvation by repentance.
The Editor then advances, that " Ezekiel also
predicts the promised redeemer in ch. xx3dv. 23.
He says, ' I will set up one shepherd over them,
and he shall feed them, even my servant David ;
and he shall be their shepherd.' " I never denied,
in any of my publications, that Jesus was sent as
the promised Messiah, nor did I ever interpret the
above passages, as some Jewish writers, that the
Messiah would be not only of the race of David,
but also of his spirit. How is it, then, that the Edi
tor thinks it necessary to attempt so often to prove
the kingdom and redemption of Jesus as the pro
mised Messiah in the course of his arguments in
&vour of the atonement? He afterwards quotes
Dan. ix. 26, " Shall Messiah be cut ofi^ but not for
himself." There is no term in the original Hebrew
jjassage answering to the words " hut" or " himse^"
found in the English version. We find in the He-

408
brew, 1^ j'«i, " no person or nothing for him ;" that
is, " Shall Messiah be cut ofl^ and no one be for
him." The translators used the term " but," instead
of " and," as in the Hebrew, and the term " him
self," in lieu of " him." In illustration, I shall here
cite the same phrase found in other instances, both
in the original Hebrew Scriptures and their transla
tion also, in the English version. Exodus xxii. 2,
D'ai ^\ p«, " No blood be shed for him." Numb.
xxvii. 4, u it ]>», " He hath no son." Psalm Ixxii.
12, it -ur p«i, " And him that hath no helper."
Dan. xi. 45, iV -uir j>«i, " And none shall help him."
But, even were we to admit this mistranslation or
perversion of the original Scriptures, the words,
" Shall the Messiah be cut off, but not for himself,"
would, to my mind, convey nothing more than that
the Messiah should be cut off, not for any guilt he
committed himself, but by the fault of his subjects,
who continued to rebel against the divine law, though
instructed by their intercessor even at the hazard of
his own life.
The Editor quotes Hosea iii. [5], " After that
[afterward shall] the children of Israel return and
seek the Lord their God, and David their king," &c. ;
and Joel ii. 28, " And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," &c. ;
and also Amos ix. [11], "In that day will I raise up
the tabernacle of David which is fallen," &c. Had
he been pleased to shew the tendency of these quo-

409
tations to the proof of the vicarious sacrifice of JesUS,
I would endeavour to examine the connexion be
tween them : as he has omitted to do so, and their
relation to the question is certainly not obvious, I
must spare myself the trouble.
The Reverend Editor says, (page 541,) " Nor
does Obadiah, in his short prophecy, wholly omit
the Redeemer's kingdom. He alludes thereto in
verse 21 : ' And saviours shall come up on Mount
Zion to judge the Mount of Esau : and the kingdom
shall be Jehovah's.' " To justify the application to
Jesus of the noun " saviours," though found in the
plural form, he thus argues : " Should he" (the
author of the Appeals) " reply, that as the plural
number ' saviours' is used, this cannot refer to
Christ ; we ask him whether he has not (page 242)
affirmed, that ' the plural form is often used in a
singular sense, as of his masters, meaning, his mas
ter has given him a wife' " ? The Editor, as a dili
gent student of the Scriptures, should have known
that the noun in question, " saviours," being ac
companied with the plural verb ityi, " they shall
come up," is by no means an analogous case to that
of the term " masters," as found in Exod. xxi. 4,
which is. connected with the verb singular jn», where
as, in Neh. ix. 27, the term " saviours" is associated
with the verb in the plural form and the past tense,
as well as with the pronoun plural.
I must, therefore, maintain the correctness of read
ing " saviours" in Obadiah as required in the former

410
alternative of the question put by the Editor, (page
541, line 34,) finding myself unable to ^' acknowledge
the triu»e God," as proposed by him in the latter
alternative : for having relinquished the notion of
the triune, quadrune, and decimune gods, which I
once professed, when immersed in the grosser poly
theism prevailing among modera Hindoos, I cannot
reconcile it to naay understanding to find pkuisibiUfcy
in one case, while the same notion is of acknowledged
absurdity in another. The Editor admits (p. 636)
the application of the term Saviour to human indi^
viduaJs, as poin^bed out by me, (Second Appeal, pp.
289, 290.) yet he is anxious to prove the doctrine of
the atonement by the applipation of that very term
to Jesus.
The Editor says, (page 542,) that ¦" Micah, in
ch, iv., describes Christ's kingdom nearly in the same
terms with Isaiah, and in ch. v., he repeats the place
of his birth : ' Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, «aiit of
thee shall he come forth unto me-^— whose goings
forth have been of old, from everlasting.' The tes-
tiuasssny to the eternal deity of Christ, given in con
nexion with his birth as man, it is -wrong to over
look." Any testimony relating to the birth of Jesus,
having nothing to do with his atonement, is not in
place here; but I will examine the verse here -dted
in the ^sahsequent part of this discussion, when we
come to the subje€*t of the Trinity.
He quotes «gain Nahum i. 15, -for the purpose of
proving Christ's kingdom, which is a subject totally

411
foreign to that of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus.
" Habakkuk" (says the Editor, page 542) " was
evidently no stranger to the doctrine founded on the
atraiement ;" and he then quotes the passage, " The
just shall live by faith," as corroborated by Paul, Rom.
i. [17], and Ga/. iii, 2 [11 ?] ; and " the earth shall
be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah," k,Ci But
what faith in, and knowledge of God, as well as faith
in the perfection of his attributes, and in the prophets
sent by him, has to do with the atonement, I am at
a loss to discover. Does the bare mention of faith
by Habakkuk, or other prophets, prove his or their
familiarity with the sacrificial death of Jesus ?
He quotes the passage of Haggai ii. £6, 7, 9],
" Thus saith Jehovah ; — The desire of all nations
shall come, and [I] will fill this house with glory.
— ^The glory of this latter house shall be greater than
that of the former, saith Jehovah of hosts," — which
the Editor thinks affords decided .proof a?especting
both the atonement aiid the deity of Christ. It is,
however, too deep for my shallow understanding to
discover from this passage an allusion to either of
these doctrines, much less that it is a decided proof
of them. Were we to (understand by the word
" temple," in both instances in the verse, a mate
rial one, which it is evidenti, fr-©iaa its context in the
prophecy, was alone in the CPnt^npIation of Haggai,
we must be ;persuaded to believe that the latter tem
ple was moue magnificently built by Zerubbabel and
Joshua, in the reign of Darius, than the former built

412
by Solomon. Should the spiritual temple be under
stood by the latter term in the above, it would be
regarded naturally superior to a material one, with
out the necessity of " Jehovah's coming into it
clothed in our nature."
He quotes Zech, iii, 8, 9, and vi. 12, 13, wherein
there is not the shghtest niention of the atonement.
As to his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus from
these passages, I will notice it in a subsequent chap
ter. The phrase found in the verse (" I will remove
the iniquity of that land in one day") does not attri
bute the removal of the iniquities of the land pf
Israel to the sacrificial death of Jesus, so as to justify
the Editor in quoting it as a proof of the doctrine of
the atonement. Besides, the verse can by no means
be applied to the death of Jesus, whether vicarious
or accidental, since, after the day of his crucifixion,
the Israelites, so far from being freed from sins, con
tinued, more vehemently than ever, to pursue sinful
conduct in their violent persecution of Christians.
So the Jews have been punished to this day, as
Christians believe, on account of their outrages upon
the body of Jesus, and their disobedience to him.
The remaining passage of Zechariah, (pages 543 —
548,) and verse 1st of ch. iii. of Malachi, (page
548,) quoted by the Editor in support of the deity
of Jesus, I will notice afterwards.
I am sorry I cannot agree with the Editor in his
assertion, (page 549,) that " had our Lord himself
made no direct declaration respecting the design of

413
his death, his referring his disciples to those predic
tions already named, would have been sufficient,
particularly in their circumstances ;" for it would be
strange to suppose that Jesus should have omitted to
inculcate so important a doctrine, and so fundamental
for salvation, (according to the Editor,) both before
and after his resurrection, while he was constantly
enjoining love to God, to neighbours, and to each
other, and also repentance, in case of failure in obe
dience. How is it possible to think, unless biassed
by early prejudices, that a teacher, a truly divine
teacher, who, by declaring himself publicly the Son
of God* and the King of the Jews,* as predicted,
brought death upon himself, should have kept con
cealed the doctrine of the atonement, if such were
the main source of salvation, from his own apostles^
even after his resurrection, and have left them -to
deduce so material a point from the obscure predic
tions of the prophets, which are susceptible of so
many different interpretations?
The Editor then affirms, that '^ it is evident that
direct intimations of his nature were not withheld :
such were, his declaring to them" (his apostles)
" that he came tp give his life a ransom for many —
his conversing with Moses and Elias, (Luke ix. 31,)
—his declaring that the Son of Man should be be
trayed into the hands of men, and be killed, and
rise again the third day— that he was about to give
* John xix. 7, 12.
2 E

414
his flesh for the life of the world, and to lay down
his life for his sheep — and his discourse with them*,
' This is my body, which is broken for you ;' ' This
is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed
for many for the remission of sins ;' ' Thus it is
written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to
rise from the dead the third day.' " As the Reverend
Editor quoted some of these verses in his former
Review, I noticed them in the Second Appeal (pp.
201 — 203). Entirely overlooking my observations,
however, he has thought proper to repeat them here,
with some additions. This is indeed a strange mode
of conducting a controversy ; but it lays me under
the necessity of again adducing my remarks ih the
Second Appeal on those passages. They are as fol
low : — " Do these passages reasonably convey any
thing more than the idea that Jesus was invested
with a divine commission to deliver instructions
leading to eternal beatitude, which whosoever should
receive should live for ever ? And that the Saviour,
foreseeing that the imparting of those instructions
would, by exciting the anger and enmity of the su
perstitious Jews, cause his life to be destroyed, yet
hesitated not to persevere in their promulgation ; as
if a king, who hazards his life to procure freedom
and peace for his subjects, were to address himself
to them, saying, ' I lay down my life for you.' This
interpretation is fully confirmed by the following
[passages]. Luke iv. 43 : ' And he said unto them,
I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities

415
also ; for therefore am I sent.' Ch. ii. 47 — 49 :
* And all that heard him were astonished at his
understanding and answers. And when they (his
parents) saw him, they were amazed: and his mo
ther said unto him. Son, why hast thou thus dealt
with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought
thee sorrowing. And he said unto them. How is it
that ye sought me ? wist ye not that I must be about
my Father's business?' Wherein Jesus declares,
that the sole object of his commission was to preach
and impart divine instructions. Again, he instructed
his disciples in the divine law and will, as appears
from the following text : 'For I have given unto
them the words which thou gavest me ; and they
have received them, and have known surely that I
came out from thee, and they ^ have believed that
thou didst send me.' (John xvii. 8.) Jesus, in
communing with God, manifests that he had com
pleted the object of his commission by imparting
divine commandments to mankind. ' I have glori
fied thee in [on] the. earth, I have finished the movk.
which thou gavest me to do.' Had his death on
the cross been the work, or part of the work, for
the performanceof which Jesus canje into this world,
he, as the founder of truth, would not have declared
himself to have finished the work prior to his death."
— I now beg that the Editpr will be pleased to re
concile all the above passages to his position that the
.de?ith of, Jesuson the cross was the sole object of
his appearance in this world, and that his precepts
2e2

416
was a mere code of morality inadequate to procure
salvation. Had not Jesus disregarded his life, and
suffered his blood to be shed, as predicted, in the
delivery of the will of the Father, the whole of the
Jews would have still remained sunk in superstition,
and the Gentiles in idolatry, and there would have
been no perfect security for the remission of sins and
the attainment of eternal comfort in those sayings.
Hence the gracious benefactor alludes to this act of
delivery from sins through divine instructions even
at the expense of his own life, and not to an actual
sacrificial death as an equal value or compensation
for the sin pardoned, since the New Testament de.-
clares that God forgives mankind freely, without
any equivalent. Romans iii. 24, " Being justified
freely (Seo^eav, gratis) by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus." So Bam. viii.
32, 15, 16, 18, confirms the idea of justifloation by
the free grace of God. For the further illustration
of this subject, I quote the paraphrase on the above-
cited verse, (Rom. iii. 24,) by Locke, one of the
greatest men that ever lived, and his notes on its
different expressions. Locke's Works, Vol. VIII.
p. 304, paraphrase on verses 24 and 25 : " Being
made righteous gratis, by the favour of God, through
the redemption which is by Jesus Christ; whom
God hath set "forth to be the prf^itiatory, or mercy-
seat, in his own blood, for the manifestation of his
(Ctod's) righteousness, by passing over their trans
gressions, formerly oommitted, which he hath bore

417
with hitherto, so as to withhold his hand from cast
ing off the nation of the Jews, as their past sins
deserved." Note on the word Redemption, verse 24 : " Re
demption signifies deliverance, but not deliverance
from every thing, but deliverance from that to which
a man is in subjection or bondage. Nor does re
demption by Jesus Christ import there was any
compensation made to God, by paying what was of
equal value, in consideration whereof they were deli
vered; for that is inconsistent with what St. Paul
expressly says here, viz. that sinners are justified by
God gratis, and of his free bounty. What this re
demption is, St. Paul tells us, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14,
' even the forgiveness of sins.' But if St. Paul had
not been so express in defining what he means by
redemption, they yet would be thought to lay too
much stress upon the criticism of a word, in the
translation, who would thereby force from the word,
in the original, a necessary sense which it is plain it
hath not. That redeeming, in the sacred scripture
language, signifies not precisely paying an equivalent,
is so clear that nothing can be more. I shall refer
my reader to three or four places amongst a great
number: Exod. vi. 6, Deut. vii. 8, and xv. 12, and
xxiv. 18. But if any one will, from the literal signi
fication of the word in English, persist in it, against
Paul's declarations, that it necessarily implies an
equivalent price paid, I desire him to consider to
whom ; and that, if we strictly adhere to the meta-

418
phor, it must be to those whom the redeemed are in
bondage to, and from whom we are redeemed, viz.
Sin and Satan. If he will not believe his own sys
tem for this, let him beheve St. Paul's words, Titvs
ii. 14: 'Who gave himself for us, that he might
redeem us from all iniquity.' Nor could the price
be paid to God, in strictness of justice, (for that is
made the argument here,) unless the same person
ought, by that strict justice, to have both the thing
redeemed, and the price paid for its redemption ; for
it is to God we are redeemed, by the death' of Christ^
Rev. V. 9 : ' Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us
to God by thy blood.'"
Note upon the word mercy-seat, verse 25 : " 'Ixar-
Tij§«ov signifies propitiatory, or mercy-seat, and not
|)ropitiation, as Mr. Mede has rightly observed upon
this place, in his discourse on God's house." '
The Editor fills about a page and a half (a part of
550 and the whole of 561) with quotations from the
writings of the apostles, to substantiate the doctrine
of the atonement, beginning with Rom. iii. 24, al
ready quoted by me ; but as those teachers merely
illustrated the sayings of their gracious Master, their
Writings must be understood with reference only to
what had been taught by him. I will, therefore,
not prolong the present Subject; of discussion by
exaniining those passages separately, especially as I
have already nPticed some bf them in the course of
the examinatiPn'of the Psalms. and, Prophets. Being
desirous to shew that my interpretation of these is

419
fully supported by scriptural authorities, I will only
refer to a few texts explanatory of the terms sacri
fice, ransom, offering, and the taking away the sins
of the world, as ascribed to Jesus. Rom. v. 10 ;
Heb. ii. 17 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Heb, v. 1, viii. 3, ix. 14, 23,
26 ; Titus ii. 12—14 ; Heb, xiii. 12 ; Rev. i. 5 ;
Eph. i. 7 ; Luke i. 77 ; Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45 ;
1 Tim. ii. 6.
Now I beg that my reader will be pleased to
determine whether it would be more consistent with
the context, and with the benevolent spirit of the
Christian dispensation, to understand such words
literally, and thus found the salvation attainable by
Christianity upon flesh and blood, human or divine ;
or whether it would not rather be thoroughly rea
sonable and scriptural, as well as consistent with the
religion of Jesus, to take them in a spiritual sense as
explained by the apostles themselves.
As the Editor's illustrative remarks upon the
atonement (pages 552 and 553) rest entirely on the
arguments previously adduced, I will leave them
unnoticed, having already examined those in the
preceding chapters, except only his queries, " What
shall we say to his impugning" (page 253) "the
doctrine of Christ's divine and human nature, even
after having acknowledged it in chapter the second;
and to his ridiculing his intercession ?" &c. to which
I must reply. It is perfectly optional with the Editor
to say for or against any one whatever his conscience
may permit ; nevertheless I shall from the dictates of

420
my own conscience reject absolutely such unaccount
able ideas as a mixed nature of God and man, as
maintained by the Editpr, as I have previously re
jected the idea of a mixed nature of God, man, and
lion, (^«^t«t3t?t) in which Hindoos profess their
faith. I have not the most distant recollection of
acknowledging Christ's divine and human nature, and
shall therefore feel obliged if the Editor will have
the goodness to point out in what passage of chapter
second of my Appeal I acknowledged this mystery.
I have never, so far as I am aware, ridiculed, even in
thought, the intercession of Jesus for mankind : I
therefore hope that Christian charity will restrain the
Editor from imputing to me in future such a charge.
I only intended to refute the argument adduced by
Trinitarians, that no being can intercede with ano
ther being for a third one, unless the mediator be
possessed of the nature of the being with whom, as
well as of those for whom he intercedes.
To this assertion of the Editor, " the blood of no
mere creature could take away sin," I add the asser
tion also maintained by the Editor, that '* the Cre
ator is not cPmposed of blood and flesh," and leave
to him to say, if the blood of Jesus was not that of a
creature whose blood it was. It is evident from the
circumstance of the blood of a creature being unable
to take away sin, and the Creator having no blood,
that the taking away of sin can have no connexion
with blood or a bloody sacrificew
The Editor declares, (page 554,) that " no one but

421
Jehovah, the unchangeable God, could atone for sin,
justify the sinner, and change his heart : the Father
himself witnesses that it is Jehovah whom he hath
appointed to this glorious work." " He humbled
himself by becoming in our nature the Mediator
between God and men," Nothing that I can con
ceive, but prejudice in favour of the Trinity, can
prevent the Editor from perceiving gross incon
sistency between his declaring Jesus to be the
unchangeable Jehovah, and also to have been ap
pointed by Jehovah, according to whose will the
former Jehovah humbled himself in becoming in our
nature a Mediator. How could the unchangeable
Jehovah be endued with a new honour which he
had not prior to his appointment by the latter Je
hovah ? How could the unchangeable God change
his condition by assuming a new nature ? If the
acceptance of a new state of honour, the assuming
of a new nature, or the alteration of properties, such
as magnitude and other conditions, be not considered
as changes in an object, all phenomena may safely,
according to the Editor's maxim, be called unchange
able; and consequently the application of the term
" unchangeable" being common to Jehovah, and
those who are not Jehovah, can imply no peculiar
ground of distinction or reverence for Jehovah.
The Editor says, (page 555,) " Nor dcjes it" (the
scripture) « give us the least hint that Cjfod ever has
imparted any one infinite perfection to a finite crea-

422
ture. This, indeed, is impossible in its own nature."
I therefore beg to ask, whether or not, on the same
ground, it is not impossible in its own nature that
the whole of the omnipresent God should be brought
into a circumference of a small space, subjected to
all human feelings, and clothed at one time with two
opposite natures, human and divine ?
The Reverend Editor, in the concluding part of
the subject of the atonement, attempts to prove the
infinite perfection of Jesus, forgetting, perhaps, the
denial made by Jesus himself of omniscience, as well
as of omnipotence, as narrated in the evangelical
writings. He entirely avoids here noticing what I
stated in proof of the finite effects of Christ's appear
ance in the world, which I now.repeat, and beg that
the Editor will favour me with a reply thereto. My
argument is, " that the effects of Christ's appearance
on earth, whether with respect to the salvation or
condemnation of mankind, were fnite, and therefore
suitable to the nature of a finite being to accompUsh,
is evident from the fact, that to the present time
millions of human beings are, daily passing through
the world, whom the doctrines he taught have never
reached, and who, of course, must be considered as
excluded from the benefit of his having died for the
remission of their sins." (Second Appeal, pp. 205,
206.) Besides, it is worth observihg, that an avowal
of the beginning of creation, and of its end, amounts
tp a proof of the finite number of creatures, however

423
numerous they may be ; therefore an atonement even
for the remission of the sins of all of them must be
of a finite nature.
- Should it be alleged that the sins committed by a
single individual, in the limited period of his life,
though they are finite in themselves, yet, are com
mitted against the infinite God, and thereby they are
infinite, and that an atonement on the part of an
infinite being is therefore necessary for their remis
sion ; I shall reply — In the first place, the assertion
that the guilt committed against an infinite being is
infinite in its consequences, is entirely unsupported
by reason or proof, and is contrary to scriptural au
thorities ; for we find that the Israelites were, from
time to time, afflicted with finite punishment for
the sins they committed against the infinite God. 1
'Chron. xxi. 11, [12] : "So Gad came to David, and
said unto him. Thus saith the Lord, Choose thee either
three years' famine, or three months to be destroyed
before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies
overtaketh thee; or else three days the swprd ofthe
Lord, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel
of the Lord destroying throughout all the coasts of
Israel," &c. Ver. 15 : " And God sent an angel
unto Jerusalem, to destroy it ; and as he was destroy
ing, the Lord beheld, and he repented him ofthe evil^
and said to the angel that destroyed. It is enough,
stay now thine hand," &c. Judges xiii.. 1 : "And
the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the

424
Lord; and the Lord delivered them into the hand of
the PhiUstines j^ori^ years."
In the second place, were we to admit the truth
of this argument, we must, upon the same ground,
as far as reason suggests, esteem a good act, done
for the honour of the commandment of the infinite
God, or a prayer offered to propitiate the Divine
Majesty, to be also worthy of infinite reward as its
effect. Under these circumstances we cannot help
observing, that among those that believe in any re
velation, either true or received as true, there is,
probably, no man that has not performed, at least,
one single righteous act during the whole period of
his life ; but as he is a mortal and imperfect being,
he cannot be supposed to have escaped every sin in
this tempting world: every man, then, must be both
guilty of infinite sin and an agent of infinite virtue.
If we suppose that this very person is to be punished
for eternity, according to the Editor, for the infinite
sin he has committed, there will be no opportunity
of his enjoying an infinite reward for his good work ;
but according to the position, he must be either re
warded for his good or punished for his evil actions
for eternity, while justice requires that he should
experience the consequences of both. Would it be
consistent witii the perfect nature of the just Godj
to afflict one with eternal punishment for his guilt,
leaving, at the same time, his good deeds unnoticed
entirely, though performed with a view to the glory

425
of God ? Is it not, therefore, scriptural as well as'
reasonable, that all men should be judged, after
death, according to their good and evil works ; and,
then, that through the intercession of one who
stands as a mediator between God and man, those
who have, through Christ, truly repented, shall be
admitted to enjoy infinite beatitude by the free
bounty of the Father of the universe, to which they
are not entitled by their own merit ?
As to such phrases as everlasting Jire, or everlast
ing punishments, found in the English version, I beg
to refer my readers to the original Greek, in which
the term atcovios, being derived from auov, denotes,
frequently, duration or ages ; that is, " durable fire,"
or " durable punishments." Besides, they may find
the term "everlasting," when appUed to an object
not divine, implies long duration. Gen. xvii. 8:
" And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the
land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession," &c.
xlix. 26: "The blessings of thy father have pre
vailed above the blessings of my progenitors, unto
the utmost bound of the everlasting hills," &c.
Hab. iii. 6 : " He stood and measured the earth :
He beheld and drove asunder the nations ; and the
everlasting mountains were scattered, and the per
petual hills did bow." Vide Note in the Second
Appeal, page 277.

426

CHAPTER III.
•* I.MQUIRY INTO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY,
Section I.
The Pentateuch and Psalms.
I NOW proceed to examine the doctrine of the
Trinity, a term which, although it is frequently in
troduced both in orthodox Writihgs and conversation,
as the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, yet is
not once found in any part of the sacred books.
The first position the Editor advances, in support
of the deity of Jesus, (page 556,) is, that the angel,
who is said, in -Ge«. xlviii. 16, to have redeemed
Jacob, was Jesus himself^ as he appears, " in the
Scripture, distinct from the Father and able. to re
deem," and that the same redeeming being was the
angel who spoke to Jacob in a dream, " I am the
God of Bethel," {Gen. xxxi. 13,) and appeared to
Moses "in a flame of fire, out of the midst of an
unconsumed bush," {Exod. iii. 2,) and who came up
from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, " I made you go
up out of Egypt," &c,, {Jvdges ii. 1,) and called
unto'Abraham, out of the heaven,. and said, "Thou
hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me,"
{Gen. xxii. 12,) whence the Editor concludes, that
Christ being the redeeming angel, and that redeem-

427
ing angel being the angel that spoke of himself as
God in other instances, Christ is God. The Editor,
although he fills more than two pages with this
argument, yet never thinks of producing a single
authority for his inference, that the angel who re
deemed Jacob, was Christ, or for his identifying that
angel with those angels whom the Editor considers
as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The only reason he assigns for his first supposition
is, that the angel appeared " distinct from the Father
and able to redeem •" hence he was Christ who is
represented as the redeemer of his people. Can the
circumstance of the performance of similar acts, by
two persons, identify one with the other? If so, we
must, on the same ground, identify God with the
human race, the Scriptures having ascribed to them
both, such attributes as mercy, wrath, reward, and
punishment ; and we also, on the same principle,
must maintain the identity of Jesus with all those
that are said in the sacred books to have redeemed
people at different times. Isaiah Ixiii. 9 : "In all
their affliction he was afl3icted, and the angel of his
presence saved them ; in his love and in his pity he
redeemed them, and he bare them, and carried them
all the days of old," Ruth iv. 14: "And the Wo
man said unto Naomi, Blessed be the Lord who
hath not left thee this day without a redeemer,* h»i,
* In the English Bible the term kinsman is here employed;
This, however, is inaccurate, which will appear" by referring to
the context. It is thereby made evident, that, before the birth

428
that his name may be famous in Israel." Nkh. v. 8:
" We, after our ability, have redeemed our brethren
the Jews, who were sold unto the heathen."
Were we to admit for a moment, that the angel
who redeemed Jacob was indeed Jesus, it would ne
cessarily follow, according to the Editor, that there
was Christ-man-Jesus, God-Jesus, and Angel-Jesus ;
that is, that Christ is possessed of a three-fold nature,
and that he is to be esteemed as an obedient servant
in his human capacity, as a faithful messenger in his
angelical nature, and as an independent master and
employer in his divine essence !
If it be alleged that the term angel is here only
figuratively applied to Jesus, I shall reply, that we
find nothing in the verse that can prevent the appli
cation of the term " angel" to the angel of God, in
ks literal sense ; no one, under such a circumstance,
can be justified in adopting a metaphorical meaning ;
nevertheless we will, in conformity to the spirit of
the sacred writings, maintain the opinion that God
is the only true redeemer, and that his Christ, his
rnigels, and his prophets, are redeemers in a second
ary sense ; that is, they are the instruments in the
hand of God in his works of redemption. If the
Scriptures do not scruple to call angels, like Jesus,
jrf this son, Ruth and Naomi had Boaz and others as their kins
men, and therefore the expression, " who hath not left thee this
day without a Jdiisinan," cannot have reference to the child then
born. Beside?, the synonymous terpi, " restorer of thy life," used
in verse 15th for the child, sufficiently dstermines the meaning.

429
" gods," and " sOns of God," in a metaphorical sense,
we should not wonder if we find the term " redeeiner"
applied to any angel of God, in an inferior sense.
Psalm xcvii. 7; " Worship him, ye gods." Judges
xiii. 21, 22: "Then Manoah khew that he was an
angel of the Lord, and Manoah said unto his wife.
We shall surely die, because we have seen God."
Job i, 6: " The sons of God caine to present them
selves before the Lord," As to his latter supposi
tion, that the angel who redeemed Jacob was the
same that appeared to him in a dream, and to" Abi-a-
ham and to others, on different occasions, the Editor
neither attempts to assign reasons, nor does he en
deavour to shew any authority for his : assertion.
He might, perhaps, lay stress on the definite article
prefixed to the word " angel," in several of these in
stances, in the English version, (which he cannot do
without total ' disregard to the idipm and Use of the
Hebrew language,) and thereby might attempt to
substantiate the identity of one an^el with the other.
He would, however, in this case,tSOon perceiye his
own errorj ifhe should refer foJwrf^e* xiii. 16, where
the angel (with^the definite' article in the common
version) says to Manoah, "Though thoii detain me,
I will iiot eat of thy 'bread : and if thou wilt offer a
burn t-ofter ing, thOu must offer ' it uhto the Lord,"
declaring himself unw-Orthy of the worship due to
God alone; or if he should turn to 2 Samuel xxiv.
16, where the angel is represented as an. obedient
messenger of God,' a destroying inslruriient in the
2f

430
hands of Jehovah. Many other instances might be
cited of a similar nature. How, then, can Jesus,
if he be the being termed the angel, speak of him
self, (as the Editor supposes,) as God in one in
stance, while in others he renounces his own deity,
and even declares^ that he destroys the lives of thou
sands by the command of a superior being ?
Let us now examine whether or not the prophets,
as well as the angels of God, in the delivery of his
message and his will, did not often speak in behalf
of Gdd, as if God himself had spoken. I confine
my notice to the prophets ; for were I to point out
any angel speaking in behalf of Jehovah, without
distinction of persons, the Editor might attempt to
deduce from this very circumstance, that that angel
was God the Son.
Instances similar to the following abound in the
Old Testament. Isaiah x. 4 — 7 : " Without me
they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they
shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is
not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
O Assyrian, the rod pf mine anger, and the staff in
their hand is my indignation. I will send him
against an hypocritical nation, and against the peo
ple of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the
spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down
like the mire of the streets. Hpwbeit he meaneth
not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in
his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few."
Ch. xxix. 1, [1-^3] : « Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city

431
where David dwelt ! add ye year to year ; let them
kill sacrifices ; yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall
be heaviness and sorrow : and it shall be unto me as
Ariel. I will camp against thee round about, and
will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will
raise forts against thee." Micah iv. 13: "Arise and
thresh, O daughter of Zion, for I will make," &c.
Ch. V. 1 : " Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter
of troops ; he hath laid siege against us : they shall
smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.
But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be
little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee
shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in
Israel," &c. Now, I presume, the Editor will not
propose to identify those prophets with the Deity;
yet he must admit that his argument, if it have any
weight at all, must force us to submit to that mon-
sti'ous conclusion.
In the course of this argument the Reverend Editor
asserts, that " Christ also, in John viii., declares him
self to be precisely what Jehovah declares himself in
Exodus iii. 14 : ' Thus shalt thou say unto the chil
dren of Israel, / am hath sent me unto you.' John
viii. 24 : ' If ye believe not that I am (he being sup
plied) ye shall die in your sins;' and ver. 58, ' Verily,
verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.' "
How is it possible that the Editor, a diligent student
of the Bible for thirty or forty years, can have made
such a palpable mistake as to assert, that the decla
ration of Jehovah, in Exod. iij., and that of Jesus, in
2 f2

432
John viii., are precise^ the same ? It is but his zeal
to support the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that can
have prevented him from examining the phrases
found in these two chapters. ¦ In Exod. God- says,
" Thus shalt thou say to the childten of Israel,
n>n« iiys n>n«* 'the being who is being' hath sent
me unto you ;" a phrase in Hebrew, which implies
Him who alone can be described as only mere being
or existence, and which is translated in, the Greek
Septuagint, though not-j* very cPrrectly, syeo et[xi
0 wv, " I am the being." But in the Gospel of
John (viii. 24) the wofds are, " I am," {he or Christ,)
and in the original Greek, eyw ei[JLi, " I am," with
out the addition of o mv, " the being," as is found
in the Septuagint. In the Hebrew translation df
John viii. 24, «in »J«, or " I he," is found. So, in
ver. 58, we find only eyw si/tj, " I am." In, John
viii. 24, the word Xg<ro? is of course supplied in
Comparing with Matt. xxiv. 5, " I am Christ," and
with John iv. 25, 26. I would then ask, is nw« n'HK
a'n«, or " the being who is being," a phrase precisely
the same with eyoj. £Jju.j, or " I am" ? If so, it must
* T\'ni\ is the future tense of n'n to be, which literally implies
"I shall be," and is used for " I am," that is, " I am and Shall
te ;" equivalent to the " eternal being." The Jews c6nset[u6^tly
count this term among the names of God, as is evident from its
being used in agreement with a verb in the third person, as in
the above-cited verse.
t I say not Very correctly, Ijecause wefind in the "Septuagint,
the term n'n«, iJendered o uv, or the being, in one instance, aud
«7« «,«( in lieu of tho same term n»n« id the other. - ¦ 'f

433
require a mode of argument to prove it, equally be
yond my comprehension with the mysterious, doc
trine of the Trinity, which it is brought to support.
From the circumstance of Jesus having announced,
" Before Abraham was, I am," (ver. 58,) the Editor
concludes, that " the Jews at once understood him
to declare himself God, and took up stones to stone
him ; nor did Jesus hint that they had mistaken
him ;" — a silence which the Editor thinks amounts
to the tacit acknowledgment by Jesus of his deity.
But from the context of ver. 58, it appears clearly that
the indignation of the Jews arose from the idea that
Jesus declared himself not merely the contemporary
of Abi-aham, but even gave out that before Abra
ham, he was ; and that it was for this they attempted
to stone him. It is not the only instance in which
Jesus left the Jews to labour under a misconception
of his meaning, for we find the same to have been
the case in several other instances. Thus, John ii.
19 — 21 : " Jesus answered and said unto them.
Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise
it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was
this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in
three days? But he spake of the temple of his
body." John vi. 53, 66, viii. 26, 27 : " I have many
things to say and to judge of you ; but he that sent
me is true : and I speak to the world those things
which I have heard of him. They understood not
that he spake to them of the Father."
The Editor mentions, (page 559,) that "Job

434
also testifies that the redeemer is God," and quotes
Job. xix. 25, 26 : " For I know that my redeemer
liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon
the earth. And though after my skin worms de
stroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." I
fiilly coincide with the Editor in this declaration.
Not Job alone, but all the other writers of the sacred
books, testify that the true redeemer is God; and
they all expected him to cast his mercy upon them,
both at the last moment of their life, and at the last
period of the world. I am at a loss to. know what
expression in the passage in question has induced
the Editor to refer to the other texts cited, " would
we know whether by God, Job means some inferior
deity, neither creature nor creator;" for there can
be no doubt that the term redeemer is frequently in
the sacred writings applied in its strict sense to the
Most High God; and that the phrases, " He shall
stand at last," and "I shall see God," which are also
found in the above passage, are often spoken of the
Supreme Being, without implying any necessity of
understanding them as applicable tP an inferior deity,
either creature or creator. Exod. xxxiv. 5 : " And the
Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him
there," &c. Zech. xiv. 3, 4: " Then shall the Lord
go forth and fight against those nations, as when he
fought in the day of battle. And his feet will stand
in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is be
fore Jerusalem." Numb. xiv. 14: " That thou art
seen face to face." Matt. v. 8: "Blessed are the

435
pure in heart, for they shall see God." The phrase,
" at the latter day," found in verse 25, is incorrectly
rendered in the English version as the translation of
the Hebrew tnn«, as has been already noticed in
page 389. [Note.]
The Editor refers his readers to Psalm ii. last
verse, " Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye
perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but
a little. Blessed are they who trust in him," — leav
ing the context carefolly out of sight. I therefore
deem it proper to cite the preceding verses here,
that the pubUc may judge whether the verse referred
to by the Editor be directly applicable to Jesus or
to David. David thus relates the circumstance of
the hostile disposition of the heathen kings against
God and against his anointed David himself, in verses
1 — 3, and the despite of God at their vain boast,, in
verses 4 — 6. He then mentions, in verses 7 — 9,
how God afforded him consolation : " I will declare
the decree : the Lord hath said unto me. Thou art
my son ; this day have I begotten thee. Ask
of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for
thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod
of iron ; thou shalt da^h them in pieces like a potter's
vessel." David lastly mentions what God recom
mended those heathen kings to do for their safety,
verses 10 — 12: "Beware now, therefore, O ye kings;
be instructed, ye judges bf the earth ! Serve the
Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss

436
the ^on, lest he be angry," &c. Here Jehovah, in
verse 7, calls David, " my son, this day have T be
gotten thee," corresponding with Psalm Ixxxix. 27,
"Also, I will make him (David) my first-born,
higher than the kings of the earth." I must again
say, that nothing except the violent force of early-
acquired prejudice can lead any one to the direct
application of the term " son" (found again in verse
12 ofthe same Psalm, relating to the same subject)
to- another than David. God again assures David,
in verses 8, 9, that he would have the heathen for
his possession, and that he would break the- hea
thens and dash them to pieces. So we find in [1]
Chron. xiv. 8 : " When the Philistines heard that
David was* anointed king over all Israel, all' the
Philistines went up to seek David : and David heard
of it, and went out against them." Ver. 16, [17] :
'.'David therefore did as God commanded him : and
they smote the' host of the Philistines from Gibeon
even to Gazer. And the' fame of David went out
into «// lands; and the Lord brought the fear of
him upon allnaiixms"- 'And chVxviii. 1 — 8: "Now
after this it came to paiss, that David smote the. Phi
listines,- and subdued them, and took Gathand her
towns out of the hand of the Phihstmes. And .he
smote Moab; and the Moabites became David's
servants, and brought gifts. And David smote Ha-
darezer, king of Zobah, unto Hamath, as -he went
* Vide Psalm ii. 2, " against his anointed,"

437
to establish his dominion by the river Euphrates.
And David took from him a thousand chariots, and
seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot
men : David also houghed all the chariot horses, but
reserved of them an huridred chariots. And when
the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadarezer,
king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two-and-
twenty thousand men. Then David put garrisons
in Syria-damascus, and the Syrians became David's
Servants, and brought gifts. Thus the Lord pre
served David whithersoever he went. And David
took the shields of gold that were on the servants of
Hadarezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. Like
wise from Tibhath, and from Chun, cities of Ha
darezer, brought David very much brass, wherewith
Solomon made the brazen sea, and the pillars, and
the vessels of brass." And also ch. xx. 2, 3 : " And
David took the crown of their king from off his
head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold ; and
there were precious stones in it ; and it was set upon
David's head: and he brought also exceeding much
spoil out ofthe city. And he brought out the people
that were in it, and cut them with saws, and [with]
harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt
David with all the cities of the children of Ammon.
And David and all the people returned to Jerusa
lem," Do not such denunciations as " Thou shalt
break them with a rod of iron" " Thou shalt dash
them in pieces," found in ver. 9 of the above Psalm,

438
correspond with 1 Chron. xviii. [xx.], " David smote
the Philistines ;" " he smote Moab ;" "David smote
Hadarezer ;" " David slew of the Syrians two-and-
twenty thousand men ;" " David took the crown of
their king from off his head ;" " and cut them" (the
citizens) " with saws, and with harrows of iron" ?
Are not these directly suitable to the history of
David, the conqueror, called by God, his son, rather
than to the office and nature of the meek and lowly
Jesus, who, though most exalted among the sons of
God, was himself the victim of the rage of unbe
lievers ? Even upon the Trinitarian system, do not
such sentences as " Ask — I shall give thee the
heathen for an inheritance," corresponding with the
passages in Chronicles, " The Lord brought the fear
of him" (David) " upon all nations" " Thus the
Lord preserved David whithersoever he went," — ad
mit of better application to David, wliose glory
depended from time to time upon his supplications
to God, than to Jesus, who, as God himself, accor
ding to the Editor, was possessed, of infinite power
and glory from eternity, and needed not to ask of
another? Does not such address to the heathen
kings as " Kiss the son, lest he be angry," &c,,
agree with the circumstances mentioned in 1 Chron.
xviii. [xx.] : " The Moabites became David's ser
vants, and brought gifts;" "the Syrians became
David's servants, and brought gifts;" " and he
brought out the people — and cut thera with saws.

439
and [with] harrowS of iron, and with axes. Even
so dealt David with all the cities of the children of
Ammon" ?
The opponents whom David broke " with a rod
of iron," were his political enemies ; consequently
the assertion of the Editor, that " the destruction to
spiritual enemies is no where in scriptui'c described
as arising from the wrath of a mere creature," has
no applicability to the subject in question. As to
his assertion, " Prophets denounced on men the
wrath of God, and pronounced on them a curse in
his name," I only refer the Reverend Editor to 2
Kings V. 26, 27, in which Elisha is said, when dis
pleased at the conduct of his servant, to have mira
culously punished him with leprosy, without pro
nouncing on him verbally any curse in the name of
God ; and also to Exod. xxiii. 21, wherein he will
find that the angels of God, if provoked, have the
power of keeping away pardon from men.
It - may, however, be fairly concluded from the
authority and acts of Jesus himself, that both the
angels and the prophets of God, in performing mira
cles, either of punishment or reward, according as
they were disposed, applied always to God for power,
though they sometimes omitted to express such ap
plications verbally. John xi. 41, 42 : " And Jesus"
(in raising Lazarus from the dead) " lifted up his
eyes and said. Father, I thank thee that thou hast
heard me ; and I knew that thou hearest me always."
From the words, " who trust in him," found in

440
the second Psalm, the Editor attempts to prove the
deity of the Son on the supposition that the phrase
" to trust in" is exclusively applicable to God, and
COrrobPrates his opinion by Jer. xvii. 5, forgetting
that this term, though it is dften used with reference
to God, yet is applied sotnetiriies to created beings.
Prow. xxxi. 11 : " The, heart of her husband doth
safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of
spoil." Isaiah xiv. 32 :^ " The Lord hath founded
Zipn, and the poor of < his people, shall trust in it."
As to Jer. xvii. 5, quoted by the Editor, " Thus
saith Jehovah, Cursed be he that trusteth in man,
and maketh flesh his atm, and whose heart departeth
from Jehovah," it, of course, implies that he who
trusts in man, independently of' God, should be
cursed, as appears from the last sentence of the same
verse, " whose heart departeth from Jehovah."
The Editor quotes Psalm xxiv. [1, 2] : " The earth
is Jehovah's and the fulness thereof, the world and
they that dwell therein ; for he hath founded it
upon the sea, and established it upon the floods," and
compares it with John i. 3, " All things were made
by him, (the Word,) and without him was not any
thing made which was made." The inference which
be draws from this comparison is, that " In creating
power, Christ is equal to Jehovah." Were we (o
overlook the mistranslation of this verse* in the
* All things were done by hini.] " All things were made by
him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Newcome : who explains it of the creation of the visible material

441
English version, (which it is almost impossible not
to notice,) and to understand the passage as it stands
in the orthodox translation, we should esteem Jesus
as the cause of all created things. But we should
be in this case naturally inclined to ascertain whether
Jesus was an efficient or an instrumental cause of
those things ; since the preposition " by," found in
the verse, signifies either a principal agent of an
action, or an instrument therein. We find Heb. i. 2,
(as it stands in the English version,) deciding, the
question beyond a doubt: " (God) hath in these
last days spdken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made
the worlds." Eph. iii, 9 : " Who (God) created all
things by Jesus Christ," Here all the worlds are
represented as made by Jesus as an iristrument in
the hands of God, It is hoped that after reflecting
upon this decision, by the author of these Epistles,
world by Christ, as the agent and instrument of God. See his
notes on verses 3 and 10. But this is a sense which the
word cysyero will not admit. Tivoi/,ai occurs upwards of seven
hundred times in the I^ew Testament, but never in the sense
of create. It signifies in this Gospel, where it occurs fifty-
three times, to be, to come, to become, to come to pass ; also, to
be done or transacted. Chapter xv. 7, xix. 36. It has the latter
sense Matt. v. 18, vi. 8, xxi. 42, xxvi.- '6. All things in the
Christian dispensation were done by Christ ; i. e.'^by his .autho
rity, and according to his direction; ; and in the ministry committed
to his apostles, nothing-has been done vnthout-his warrant. See
John XV. 4, 5 : "Without me ye can do nothing." Compare
vers. 7, 10, 16; John xvii, 8 j Col.' i. 16," 17; Cappe, ibid.
(Improved Version.) '

442
the Editor may, perhaps, retract his assertion, that
" in creating power, Christ is equal to Jehovah," and
be of opinion that the world was made by the will
of one being. Could not Jehovah, to whom the
Editor ascribes omnipotence, create this world inde
pendently of another omnipotent being, equal to
him " in creating power" ? If not, the world must
be, in this case, the joint production of Jehovah and
Christ, as well as of the Holy Ghost, (whom the
Editor here omits to notice,) and each of them must
depend upon the others in creation, like joint ma
nagers of a concern. Can the Editor point out any
set of men, or any nation professing a grosser poly
theism than this ? The only difference that he can
shew between his notion and that of avowed poly-
theists, must consist only in respect of the increase
or decrease of the supposed number of creators — a
distinction which will amount to nothing intrinsic,
I must now leave the subject to the sound judgment
of my reader.
, The Editor fiirther proceeds, saying, " With re
ference to Christ, Paul adds, (1 Cor. x. 25, 26,)
' Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat : for
the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.'"
He then concludes, " If this Psalm, (xxiv. 1,) then,
speak of Jehovah the Father, the same absolute
dominion over the earth is here ascribed to the Son
as to the Father ; if the Son, he is there termed
Jehovah." St. Paul here justifies the eating of what
ever is sold in the shambles, referring to Psalm

443
xxiv^ 1, as his reason for such justification, without
the most distant allusion to Jesus : I am, therefore,
at a loss to discover the ground upon which the
Editor founds his foregoing conclusion. For further
i'lustration I quote the paraphrase by a most eminent
personage on the above verses of Corinthians : " Eat
whatever is sold in the shambles, without any inquiry
or scruple, whether it had been offered to any idol
or no. For the earth and all therein are the good
creatures of the true God, given by him to men for
their use." (Locke, Vol. VIII.) If the Editor still
insists, in defiance of St. Paul's reference, of com
mon sense, and of the above paraphrase, that in
1 Cor. X. 26, St. Paul alludes to Jesus, I should
take upon myself to refer him to Heb, i. 2, (the
Son,) " whom he (God) hath appointed heir of all
things ,-" and to John iii. 35, " The Father loveth
the Son, and hath given all things into his hand."
These I hope will convince him that all the power
and possession of the Son, in heaven and on earth,
are derived from the gift of the Father of the uni
verse. The Editor quotes 1 Cor. x. 22 : " Do we provoke
the Lord to jealousy ? Are we stronger than he ?"
whence he infers that " the Lord then is capable of
being provoked by the worship of idols equally with
God." Granting that St. Paul means Jesus by the
term " Lord," and by the pronoun " he," in verse
the 22nd, (a position which is unsupported by proof,)
we still find nothing in the passage elevating Jesus

444
to equality with his Father. The apostie raay,
according to the Editor's interpretation, be supposed
to have prohibited Christians: from provoking Christ
to jealousy, by partaking of the cup and table of
devils, instead of those of Christ, of which : their
Master required them to partake, as appears from
the immediately preceding verse — " Ye cannot drink
the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils. ; Ye
cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the
table of devils." Is it not natural that Jesus, who
enjoined the apostles to observe the Lord's Supper,
would be provoked to jealousy by his followers' par
taking both of his table, and of the sacrifice offered
to idols, without his thereby equalizing hiraself with
God ? I find that the prophets of God are declared
in more pointed terms to have been jealous of the
dishonour manifested to God ; but no one has ever
felt diqjosed to ascribe to them equality with his
Divine Majesty.^ 1 Kings xix. 10: "And he said,
I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts ;
for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant,
and thrown dpwn thy altars," &c.
I will repeat verbatim the Editor's quotation of
Psalm xxiv. 8, and' Eph: iv, 8, and his inference of
the deity of Jesus, from the comparison of the one
with the other, that iny reader niay perceive how
violently prejudice can operate upon the human
mind. He says, (p. 561,) ithat! " in verse, 8th,' one is
about to enter heaven as ' the .king of .glory ; who: is
called 'Jehovah,' mighty in battle."; InyEph.ziv.

445
" Jesus, elsewhere styled the Lord of glory, ascends,
having led captivity captive, which implies battle
and victory.* Here, also, the Son is either de
scribed as equal in might to Jehovah, or as Jehovah
himself." There are not in verse eighth, nor in
the whole Psalm xxiv., such phrases as " captivity
captive," or " ascend on high," as found in Eph. iv. 8 ;
nor are there, in the whole chap. iv. of Ephesians,
the terms " king of glory," or even " Lord of glory,"
or " mighty in battle," as we find stated in the above
Psahn. The Psalm commences by a declaration of
God's sovereignty over the earth — ^proceeds to state
the virtues that must belong to those who seek his
presence and desire his blessing— and concludes with
an exhortation to Jerusalem to receive him as the
king of glory— the Lord of hosts. But the subject
of the above verse of the Epistle to the Ephesians, is
Jesus, who ascended on high to give divine gifts to
men, after he had descended first into the middle qf
the grave, as is evident from the immediately follow
ing verse : " Now that he ascended, what is it, but
that he also descended first into the lower parts qf
the earth" and so on ; a descent which cannot be
ascribed to God. Eph. iv. 8, is an obvious reference
to Psalm Ixviii. 18, a fact which is acknowledged
* This term, "to lead captivity captive,'/ is not synonymous to
" mighty in battle,'' nor equivalent in application. For one may
be mighty in battle without leading captives ; so one may lead
captive, by miraculous or artful means, without being mighty in
battle.
2g

446
even by Mr. BroWn and Mr. Jones, and mariy-
other Trinitarian writers : " Thou hast asicended on
high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast re
ceived gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also,
that the Lord God might dwell among them." But
the Editor omits here to compare the passage in
Ephesians with the last-mentioned Psalm, though
both contain almost the same words that he dwells
upon ; perhaps in consideration of the latter phtases
of the Psalm being inconsistent with his object;-
" Thou hast received gifts for men, that the Lord
God might dwell -rnnong them" which clearly shews
the subordination of the Son to his heavenly Father.
In further explanation, I repeat the note of Mr.
Ldcke, on verses 9 and 10 of Ephesians, in his pa^
raphrase of this Episde, page 477w Note on verses
9, W : " St. Paul's argumenitation, in these two
verses, is skiffuUy adapted to the main design of his
Epistie. The converted Gentiles were attacked by
the unconverted Jews, who were decWed enemies
to the thoughts of a Messiah that died. St. Paul)
to enervate that objection of theirs, proves, by the
pasSige out of the Psalms, (vet. 8,) that he must dife
and be buried. Besides the unbelieving Jew^j seve
ral of them that were convea-ted to the gospel, or at
least, professed to be so, attacked the Gentile con
verts on another ground, persuading them that they
could not be admitted to be the people df God,
under the kingdom of the Messiah, nor receive any
advantage by him, unless they were circumcised,

447
and put themselves wholly under the Jewish court
stitution. He had said a great deal, in the three
first chapters, to free them from this perplexity, but
yet takes occasion here to offer them a new argu
ment, by telling them, that Christ, the same Jesus
that died, and was laid in his grave, was exalted to
the right hand of God, above all the heavens, in the
highest state of dignity and power, that, he hiraself
being filled with the fulness of God, believers, who
were all his members, might receive immediately
from him, their head, a fulness of gifts and graces,
upon no other terms, but barely as they were his
members." After having compared Psalm xxxvi. 6, " O Je-^
hovah, thou preservest man and beast," with Col. i.
17, " By him (by Jesus) all things consist," and
with Heb. i. 3, " He upholds all things by the word
of his power," the Editor thus concludes, " The Son,
then, is either equal to Jehpvah in preserving power,
or Jehovah himself." In the first place, in some
ancient manuscripts, instead of " by him all things
consist," there is the phrase " all things are united in
him," which of course bears no comparison with the
above Psalm, " O Jehovah, thou preservest man and
beast." In the second place, he may perceive from
the context, that by the term " all things," the apos
tle could have meant only the things concerning the
Christian dispensation ; for we find, in the verse im
mediately following, Jesus is declared to be " the
head of the body, the church," and in the preceding
2g2

448
verse,* "the things" are enumerated as orders and
ranks in the religious and the moral world, and not"
natural substances. In the third place, admitting
even the interpretation of the Editor, that all na
tural substances consist by Jesus, we cannot help
yielding conviction to the repeated avowal of Jesus,
* " That the apostle does not here intend the creation of na
tural substances, is evident j for 1st, He does not say, that by
him were created heaven and earth, but things in heaven and
things on earth ; 2dly, He does not, in descending into detail,
specify things themselves, viz. celestial and terrestrial sub
stances, but merely states of things, viz. thrones, dominions, &c.,
ivhich are only ranks and orders of beings in the rational and
moral world ; 3dly, It is plain, from comparing ver. 15 and ver.
18, that Christ is called the first-bom of the whole creation, be
cause he is the first who was raised from the dead to an immortal
life ; 4thly, The creation of natural objects, the heaven, the earth,
and sea, and all things therein, when they are plainly and une
quivocally mentioned, is uniformly and invariably ascribed to the
Father, both in the Old Testament and the New. Hence, it fol
lows, that the creation, which the apostle here ascribes to Christ,
expresses that great change which was introduced into the moral
world, and particularly into the relative situation of Jews and
Gentiles, by the dispensation of the gospel. This is often called
creation, or the new creation, and is usually ascribed to Jesus
Christ, who was the great prophet and messenger of the new
covenant. See Eph. i. 10, ii. 10—15, iii. 9, iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 10 j
2 Cor. V. 17. This great change the apostle here describes under
the symbol of a revolution, introduced by Christ amongst certain
ranks and orders of beings, by whom, according to the Jewish
demonology, borrowed from the oriental philosophy, the affairs
of states and individuals were superintended and governed. See
Mr. Lindsey's Sequel, page 477, and Wetstein in loc." Improved
Version.

449
manifesting that the support of all things, or the
things of the new dispensation by Jesus, is en
tirely owing to the power vested in him by the
Father of all things, without which, he is totally
unable to support them. John xvii. 2 : " Thou
hast given him (the son) power over all flesh." Ch.
V. 30 : "I can of mine ownself do nothing" &c.
As to the term " all things," to. iravTO., found in
Heb. i. 3, just quoted by the Editor, it signifies also,
all the things belonging to the Christian dispensation,
as I observed before. But if the Editor again insists
upon his mode of interpretation, as meaning all na
tural objects by that term, he, by referring to John
xiv, 24, "The word which ye hear is not mine but
the Father's," and Matt, xxviii. 18, " All power is
given unto me in heaven and on earth," must be
convinced that the word of power, by which Jesus
upholds or rules all things, is, in fact, belonging to
the Father.
In his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus, the
Editor repeats (page 561) Psalm xiv. 6, as quoted
in Heb, i. 8, " Thy throne, O Jehovah, is for ever
and ever." My reader may observe, that to apply
to Jesus the term " Jehovah," the peculiar name of
God, the Editor perverts the verse in question by
placing the word "Jehovah" instead of " God," a
term which is in the Scriptures commonly used, not
only for the Creator, but for other superior exist
ences. He, at the same time, neglects entirely the

450
original Psalm, in Hebrew btt^r, " Thy throne, O
God," and also the original Epistle to Hebrews, in
Greek @eog, " The throne of thee, O God." I now
b^ to ask the Editor to let me know his authority
for this unaccountable change. I should, for my
own part, be indeed very sorry and ashamed of my
ojHnions, if I found myself compelled to make per
versions of scriptural passages, and to set aside the
suggestions of common Sense, to support the doc^
trines that I may have been persuaded to profess.
It is again worth observing, that the Editor quotes
the above passage of Psalm xiv., omitting entirely to
notice my remarks on it in the Second Appeal. I
am, therefore, induced to repeat themj in the hope
that he may reply to th^j and adopt a regular
mode of argumentation. After stating that Moses was
also called God in [the] Scriptures, I thus proceed :
" Cta what principle, then, can any stress be laid in
defence of the deity of the Son, in the pr^hetic
expresstoB, quoted in Hebrews from Psahn xiv. 6,
' Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever' j especi
ally when we find^ in the very next verse, words
that declare his subordinate nature, ' Thwi lovest
righteousness and hatest wickedness, therefore God,
tittf God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above ihy fellows'}" (Page l70.) « But it deserves
particularly to be noticed, in this instance^ that the
Messiah, in whatever sense he is declared God, is,
in the vwy same sense, described in verse 7, (' God

451
thy God,') as having a God superior to him, and by
whom he was appointed to the office of Messiah."
(Page 285.)
In the third place, no scripturalist ever hesitated to
apply Psalm xiv. directiy to Solomon, after his mar^
riage with the daughter of Pharoah, as is evident
from the context : " My heart is inditing a good
matter : I speak of the things which I have made
touching the king : my tongue is the pen of a ready
writer. Thou art fairer than the children of men :
grace is poured into thy lips : therefore God hath
blessed thee for ever. Thy throne, O God, is
for ever and ever : the sCeptre of thy kingdom is
a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and
hatest wickedness : therefpre God, thy 'God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows. Kings' daughters were among thy honour
able women : upon thy right hand did stand the
queen in gold of Ophir. Hearken, O daughter, and
consider, and incline thine ear ; forget also thine own
people, and thy father's house : so shall the king
greatly desire thy beauty ; for he is thy Lord, and
worship thou him. Instead of thy fathers shall be
thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all
the earth." If the appUcation of the word ^' God"
in an accommodated sense, entitle Jesus to deity, how
much more properly should the direct application of
the same word, " God," to Solomon, according to
the Editor, exalt him to a participation in the divine
nature ?

452
The Editor afterwards quotes, in defence of the
deity of Jesus, Psalm cii. 25 — 27, referred to by the
author ofthe Epistle to the Hebrews, (i, 10 — 12,)
" Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the founda
tion of the earth, and the heavens are the works of
thy hand. They shall perish; but thou remainest:
and they all shall wax old as doth a garment : and as
a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be
changed : but thou art the same, and thy years shall
not fail." The construction here admits of two in
terpretations : one is, that verses 10 — 12, are in con
tinuation of verses 8, 9, addressed to the Son by God,
as supposed by the Editor: the other is, that the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews invokes his
Divine Majesty by quoting Psalm cii. 25 — 27, after
he has, in the preceding verse, introduced the name
of God, as anointing the Son above his fellows, to
shew the continual duration of the honour bestowed
on the Son, as flowing from the unchangeable and
preserving power of the bestower of that honour.
To ascertain which of these two interpretations the
apostle had in view, let us now refer to the context.
One's exaltation above his fellows by another, on
account of his merit, as stated in the preceding
verse, (9,) is quite inconsistent with the immutable
character mentioned in verses 10 — 12, and, there
fore, these two opposite qualities can by no means be
ascribed to the same being. Again, in the following
verse, (13,) the apPstle, to prove the superiority of
the Son over angels, asks, " To which of the angels

453
said he, at any time. Sit on my right hand until I
make thine enemies thy footstool" ? Here common
sense dictates, that if such expressions as " Thou,
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of
the earth," &c. ; " As a vesture shalt thou fold them
up ;" and " Thou art the same, and thy years shall
not fail," had been meant by the apostle as applicable
to Jesus, he would not, in setting forth the dignity of
the Son, have added the words, " Sit on my right
hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool ;"
which imply a much inferior nature to that attributed
in the preceding passage, and which, indeed, may be
paralleled by other expressions found in scripture,
applied to mere human beings. Deut. xxxii. 10 :
" He (Jehovah) kept him as the apple of his eye"
Isaiah xlix. 16 : " Behold, I have graven thee upon
the palms of my hands T Psalm xlvii. 3 : " He
(Jehovah) shall subdue the people under us, and the
nations under our feet." In describing the superior
courage and strength of a man who is reported to
have overpowered a lion, and also a dog, no one
endued with common sense would, after stating the
former fact, adduce the latter as an additional proof
of courage and strength, as it is evident that to kill
a dog is a feat by no means of so wonderful a nature
as that of overcoming a lion. My reader may recol
lect Matt. xxii. 45 : " If David then call him (the
Messiah) Lord, how is he his son?" which tells us
that Jesus disproves the assertion of the Messiah

454
being the son of David, on the ground that no father
could consistently call his son " Lord," much less
could he apply to his son the term " my Lord."
Wei-e we to admit the first interpretation, upheld by
the Editor, and to consider the passage, " Thou,
Lord, in the beginning," &c., as a part of the address
of Jehovah to Jesus, we must, in conformity to the
argument used by Jesus himself, in Matt. xxii. 45,
relinquish the commonly-received doctrine, that Jesus
is the Son of God, and actually admit his superiority
to the Father of the universe, who, according to the
Editor, addresses him as " Lord" in Heb. i. 10.
pither, therefore, the Editor must abandon the opi
nion that God the Father addresses Jesus as Lord,
iri the passage referred to, or he must cease to con
sider him as the " Son of God."
: The Editor again uses the word Jehovah in verse
10, and reads, " Thou, Jehovah, in the beginning,"
&Ci, instead of " Thou, Lord, in the beginning,"
&c., without assigning any reason for his deviating
from the English version, as well as the Hebrew and
Greek originals. For in the original Hebrew there
is no "Jehovah" mentioned in Psa/w cii. 25, and,
bonseqiiiraitly, in the Greek passage, Heb. i. 10,
which is a quotation of the same verse of the above
Psalm, the term jeugjs cannot be supposed to be
intended as a tramslation of the word Jehovah. So
in the English version the verse stands thus, " Thou,
iLordf, in the begimiaiing," he. I shall, however, feel

455
obliged to the Reverend Editor, if he can point out
to me any authority for his substitution of the word
^' Jehovah" for Lord, in the verse in question.
With a view to weaken the strength of the evi
dence found in 1 Cor. xv. 24, as to the changeable
nature of Christ, the Editor says, (page 562,) " His
xiriginal throne as Jehovah God, is for ever and ever ;
his mediatorial throne remains for a season, and then
ceases." I have already noticed, in pages 170 and
277 of the Second Appeal, and in the foregoing
chapter of this work, that the term for ever, or
similar terms, when used for a M-eature, or a begotten
son, signify, in scriptural idiom, long duration of
time. My reader, therefore, by referring to those
instances, will be convinced that neither Solomon,
to whom Psalm cii. 25, is directly applied, nor Jesus,
to whom the apostle applies the said verse in the
above Psalm, in an accommodated sense, can be
¦supposed to be endued with a throne or kingdom
that never will cease; — a question which St. Paul
decides in the most plain and positive terms, in 1
Cor. XV. 24, 25 : " Then cometh the end, when he
shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even
the Father? when he shall have laid down all rule
and all authority and power* For he must reign
.till he hath put all enemies under his feel." (Verse
28) : " And when all things shall be subdued 4into
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 the apo«tle declares, that Jesus

456
will in the end deliver up his kingdom to God the
Father, and not to God composed (as the Editor
maintains) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost; and that the Son himself, unhmited to any
particular capacity, whether mediatorial, human, or
divine, shall be subject to the Father, that God alone
may be all in all. Is there in this passage, or in any
other part of the Scriptures, any authority for saying
that the Son's mediatorial throne alone shall be deli
vered up to the Father ? On the contrary, neither
he nor any one, can in a mediatorial capacity exer
cise a kingdom ; but Jesus, as the king of our faith,
the anointed with the oil of gladness above his fel
lows, has a kingdom and throne, and that kingdom
only can he deliver up in the end of the world, that
God may be all in all. Besides, the above verse (28)
asserts, that he, as the Son, the highest title that
Jesus is honoured with, will be subject to him who
has exalted him above all creatures. No one, be
sides, unbiassed by early prejudice, can ever venture
to pronounce such an opinion as, that a being can
lose his kingdom in any capacity whatsoever, and
yet be unchangeable.
As some orthodox divines had attempted to prove
the deity of Jesus from the circumstance ofthe term
" shepherd" being applied to God, in Psalm xxiii.
[1], and to Jesus, in John x. 16, I pointed out
(pp. 290, 291 of the Second Appeal), that the same
term " shepherd" is used for Moses, (in Isaiah Ixiii.
11, " With the shepherd of his flock,") and for the

457
leaders of Israel, {Jer. xxiii. 4, " I will set up shep
herds over them,") yet that none of those persons is
supposed to have been united with God.
The Reverend Editor, although he acknowledges
the accuracy of my above assertion, yet tries to draw
from it an argument against me by means of one or
two strange questions. One is, (page 562,) " But
did he" (the author) " never read of a chief shep
herd, who, when he shall appear, will give the under
shepherds a crown of glory ?" The other is, " But
was our author ignorant that David was also one of
Christ's fold, and Moses, and Abraham ?" In answer
to which, I must confess that I am ignorant of David,
Moses, and Abraham, having been of Christ's fold :
and although Jesus is styled " a chief shepherd,"
yet such avowal of his superiority above other mes
sengers of the Deity neither places him on a level
with Jehovah, nor does it prove his unity with the
Most High God. Can a chief among the generals
pf a king, be ever supposed equal to, or identified
with, the king, his employer ? With respect to the
argument founded on referring to Jesus Christ Ezek.
xxxiv. 23, " I will set one shepherd, even my ser
vant David," I observed in my Second Appeal, (p.
291,) that, even in this case, " they must still attri
bute his shepherdship over his flock to divine com
mission, and must relinquish the idea of unity between
God the employer, and the Messiah his servant."
To which the Editor makes reply, " We must re
linquish a unity of nature between the Divine Father

458
and the Messiah whom he sent, just as much as we'
do between Cyaxares and Cyrus, employed to lead
his armies, between Vespasian and Titus, between
George the Third and his son, now George the
Fourth." In this passage, it must be confessed that
we have something like a clear definition or exposi
tion of the nature of the Trinity, in which the Editor
professes his belief; — that is, he conceives the God
head to constitute a genus like angel, man, fowl,
fish, &c., God the Son being of the same nature
with God the Father, just as the man George the
Third is of the same nature with the man George
the Fourth, though of a separate will, inclination,
and passion, and distinct existence — a conception
which is certainly , ompatible with an idea of unity
of nature between the Father and the Son, but which
is entirely inconsistent with that of cpevality between
them ; and implies, that, as the difference of exist
ence, &c., between man and man is. the origin ofthe
plurality of mankind, so the difference of exist^ace,
&c., between God and God, must cause plurality in
the Godhead. Can there be any polytheistical creed
more clear and more gross than this ? Yet the Edi
tor will take it amiss if charged with Polytheism. It
is worth dbserving, that the orthodox, so far from
establishing the unity of the Messiah with God by
means of the above passage, " I will set one shep
herd over them, even my servcmt David" can at
most but prove unity between the Messiah and God's
servant David.

459
In the course of this argument, the Editor says,'
that " he had adduced many other passages in which
the Son is called Jehovah." I wonder at this asser
tion. I find hitherto only two places in which he
applies the word Jehovah to Jesus, " Thy throne,
O God 1" &c., " And thou. Lord, in the beginning,''
&c. The Editor takes upon himself to use the term
Jehovah instead of "God" in the former, and in
stead of " Lord" in the latter instance, as before
noticed, and now he gives out his own perversion of
those texts as authority I
Mr. Jones having attempted to deduce the deity
of Jesus by a comparison of Ephes. iv. 18, with
Psalm Ixviii. 18, " Thou hast ascended on high,
thou hast led captivity captive : thou hast received
gifts for men ; yea, for the rebellious also, that thP
Lord God might dwell among them," — I observed,
(page 297, Second Appeal,) that, " from a view of
the whole verse, the sense must, according to this
mode of reasoning, be as follows— The person who
ascended on high, and who received gifts for men,
that the Lord God might dwell among them, is the
Lord God, — an interpretation which, as implying
that the Lord God ascended, and received gifts from
a being of course superior to himself, in order that
he might dwell araong men, is equally absurd and
unscriptural." The Editor entirely omits to notice
the foregoing observation, and only refers to the
context, inferring thence that different persons of the
Godhead are addressed in the course of the Psalm^

460
(Page 564.) " The Psalm," he observes, (Ixviii.,)
" commences with an address to God in the third
person. At verse 7th he is addressed in the second
person t the second person is retained till verse 11th,
and is resumed again in this, the 18th, verse. If
one person be not addressed from the beginning,
therefore, it is certain that he who ascended on high,
identified by Paul as Christ, is God, who went forth
before the people through the wilderness." How is
it possible that the Editor, a diligent student of the
Bible for thirty or forty years, should not know that,
in addressing God, the third person and also the
second are constantly used in immediate sequence,
and that this variation is considered a rhetorical trope
in Hebrew and Arabic, as well as in almost all the
Asiatic languages, from being supposed to convey
notions of the omnipresence and pervading influence
of the Deity ? To prove this assertion, I could quote
a great many instances even from the single book of
Psalms, such as Psalm iii. 3 — 5, &c., and in a single
ch., 2 Sam. xxii. 3, 49, in which God is addressed
both in the second and third persons ; but as the
Editor might, perhaps, allege in those cases, though
in defiance both of the idiom of the Hebrew and of
common sense, that in all these instances, David in
spirit meant the first and the second persons of the
Godhead by the variety of persons, I shall quote the
translation of some lines of the Qoran, by Sale, and
of a Jewish prayer, in which the same variety of
persons is used, and where it cannot be imagined

4fil
that different persons of the Godhead are meant to
be therein addressed, Alqoran, ch. i, : " Praise be
to God the Lord of all creatures, the most merciful,
the King of the day of judgment. Thee do we wor
ship, and of thee do we beg assistance. Direct us
in the right way, in the way of those to whom thou
hast been gracious ; not of those against whom thou
art incensed, not of those who go astray." Can
Mohummud here be supposed to have alluded in
spirit to the first and second persons of God, or has
he not rather used those phrases according to the
common practice of the language ? The following
lines are from a Jewish book of prayers, written in
Hebrew, and translated into English.* " Sabbath
morning service. ' Therefore, all whom God hath
formed, shall glorify and bless him ; theyshall ascribe
praise, honour, and glory, unto the King who hath
formed all things, and who, through his holiness,
causeth his people Israel ; to inherit rest on the holy
iiabbath. Thy name, O Lord our God! shall be
sanctified.' " " Morning service. ' His words also
are living, permanent, faithfol, and desirable for ever,
even unto all ages; as well those which he hath
spoken concerning our ancestors, as those concern
ing \is, our children, our generations, and the gene
rations of the seed of Israel, thy servants, both the
* Compiled by the Rev. Solomon Hirschell, translated by
Messrs. Justins, Barnet, atid Joseph, and printed in London by
JE. Justins, 1803,
2h

462
first and the last,'" A thousand similar instances
might be adduced.
In the Qoran, it is further remarkable that the
same change of person is adopted When God is re
presented as speakiYig of himself. Alqoran, ii. 5:
"Set not up, therefore, any equals unto God against
your own knowledge. If ye be in doubt concerning
that revelation which we have sent down unto our
servant, produce a chapter like unto it, and call upon
your witnesses besides God, if ye say truth." More
over, we find in the Jewish Scriptures, that in speak
ing of a third party, both the second and the third
personal pronouns are sometimes used. Hosea ii. 15-
— 17 : " And I will give her her vineyards from
thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope ;
and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth,
and as in the day when she came up out of the land
of Egypt. And it shall be at that day, saith the
Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi.; and shalt call
me no more Baali. For I 'will take away the names
of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more
be remembered by their name." Ver. 19: "And
I will betroth thee unto me for ever ; yea, I will
betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judg
ment, and in loving-kindneSs, and in mercies." The
public may now judge what weight the argumerit of
the Editor ought to carry with it, and whether I
adduced only a " Jewish dream" in applying verse
18 originally to Moses, or whether the Editor rather

463
has not founded his posij;ion on the ground of mere
imagination. To nie, as an Asiatic, nothing can
appear more strange than an attempt to deduce
the deity of Jesus from an address by David to
the omnipresent God, couched in both the second
and third persons. I will, moreover, confidently
appeal to the context, to satisfy any unprejudiced
person that the Psalmist, in verse 18th, had Moses
alone in view. The Psalm, it will be recollected,
was written on the specific occasion of the renioval
of the £irk, which was done according to the instruc
tions deliyered to Moses by God on Mount Sinai.
David accordingly recapitulates, in the preceding
verses of the Psalm, the wonderful mercies of God
in delivering Israel froni the Egyptians, and Jeading
them towards the promised land. In verses 15 — 17,
Sinai^is thus mentioned: " The hill of God is as the
hill of Bashan ; an high hill, as the hill of Bashan.
Why leap ye, ye high hills ? "This, is the hill which
God desireth to (dwell in ; yea, the Lord will dwell
in it for ever. The chariots of God are twenty
thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is
among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place." In
verse 18, immediately after mention of the word
Sinai, the holy place, he goes on, " Thou hast
ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive :
thou hast received gifts for men ; yea, for the rebel
lions also, thcit the Lord God might dwell among
them ;"¦ — -the very reason to which, in the book of
Exodus, the construction of the ark, whose removal
2h2

464
was taking place, is assigned. From this it appears
evident, that the gifts alluded to were those granted
on Mount Sinai ; and the only question that remains
is, Who was it that received those gifts for men?
I leave this to be answered by the candid reader.
There are, besides, many other passages in the wri
tings of the Psalmist where David, after addressing
the Supreme Father of the universe, abruptly ad
dresses himself to creatures, such as in Psalm Ixviii.
28; iv. 1, 2; ix. 5, 6, 10, 11 ; Ixvi. 15, 16; xci.
13, 14. There is" nothing, therefore, unusual or
Strange in applying the verse in question, though
originally relating to Moses, in an accommodated
sense to Jesus.
To prove the figurative application of the term
God to Jesus, and to other superior creatures,' from
the authority of the Saviour himself, I quoted (Se
cond Appeal, p. 169) John x. 34, "Is it not written
in your law, I said. Ye are Gods ?" With a view to
invalidate this argument, the Editor puts three ques
tions (page 564). The first is, " What creatures of
a superior nature are here termed Gods ? Those that
die like men." To this I answer. Yes ; the term
" God" is here applied to those chiefs of Israel who
were men, and who consequently died like men;
and from the very circumstance of their having had
the appearance of man, and having been endowed
with human feelings, as well as their having been,
like men, liable to death, we are urider the necessity
of inferring that the application of the term " God"

465
to them is figurative, and that it is by no means real,
though we find them exalted by the terms, " the
sons of the Most High" {Psalm Ixxxii. 6*) ; "the
first-born of God" {Exodus iv. 22) ; the " peculiar
people of God, above all nations" (xix. 5) ; the
" kingdoin of priests, and an holy nation" (ver. 6) ;
and even by the most glorifying title of " Gods"
(Psalm Ixxxii. 6). Upon the same ground and the
same principle, we must consider (if not biassed by
prejudice) the use of the word " God," and " the
Son of God," for Jesus, to, be figurative, as he him
self explained (John x. 34) ; for although Jesus was
honoured with abundantly high titles, yet he was in
the appearance of man, and possessed of human feeL
ings, and liable -to death, like those chiefs of Israel,
as is evident from the followfing,. as well as many
other facts recorded in the Scriptures : " She brought
forth her first-born son" (Jesus), {Luke ii. 7.)
" And when eight days were accomplished for cir
cumcising oi the child, his name was called Jesus."
(Ver. 21 .) " And the child grew, and waxed strong
in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God
was upon him." (Ver. 40.) " When he was twelve
years' old." (Ver. 42.) " And was subject unto
them" (his parents). (Ver. 51.) " Jesus increased
in wisdom and stature." (Ver, 52.) " The Son of
Man came eating and drinking," &c. {Matt. xi. 19.)
* In the original Hebrew, the word 'Jl, signifying sons, is
found, instead of nh% or children, as found in the English version,

466
" And when he had looked round about on them
with anger,heir\g grieved." (Mark iii. 5.) " Jesus,
therefore, being weary with his journey." (John iv.
6.) " Now is my soul troubled." (xii. 27.) " And
began to wash his disciples' feet." (xiii. 5.) " He
was troubled in spirit." (Ver. 21.) " And being in
an agony, he prdyed more earnestly." (Luke xxii.
44.) " And (Jesus) saith unto them. My soul is
exceedingly Sorrowful, unto death," (Mark xiv. 34.)
" Jesus, when he had cried again with a iPUd voice,
yielded up the ghost." (Matt, xxvii. 50.) "And
became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross." (Philip, ii. 8,) Ought not the consideration
of the foregoing circumstances relating to Jesus
Christ, to have prevented the Editot from inquiring,
" What creatures of a superior natui-e are hete termed
Gods ? Those (Israelites) that die like men ?" For
if the circUriistarice of being men, and dying like
men, mUst preclude the chiefs of Israel from being
supppised to be creatures of a superior nature, not
withstanding they are called gods, the highest of all
the honorary terms With which any being can be
exalted ; how Can the same atg'urhent fail of proving
the common humanity of Jesus, who Was, like them,
in the shape of a nrfan, and died as a man ? If the
Editor say, that Jesus, though he died like man, yet
was raised again from the dead, I shall remind him,
that Endch, one of the sons of men, and Elijah, a
Jewish ptophet, never tasted death at all, like other

467
men ; * that the dead, who happened to touch the
body of Elisha, revived and stood up ; ¦jf and, that a
dead boy also was raised by him;;;}: and then ask
the Editor, are not these circumstances more won
derful than Christ's being raised after death ? Is not
the fact of Elijah's not having died at all, more con
clusive evidence of a superior nature, according to
the inode of reasoning employed by the Editor, than
the resurrection of Christ after his death on the
cross ?
In case the Editor should have recourse to the
generally-adopted argument, that Jesus was possessed
of a two-fold nature, the nature of God and the
nature pf man ; the former, because he is termed
God in scripture, and the latter, because he was in
the shape of man ; I would ask, is there any autho
rity in the sacred writings for ajlpging that Jesus
y^'as possessed of such t>vo-fol(i nature? A question
which, indeed, I tppk upon myself tp put to the
Editpr in thp Second Appeal, (page 252,) hut which
he has avoided to answer. Are not Moses anfi the
chiefs pf Israel termed, in like manner, gpds^ as
well as nien? II Did not they perform wpnjlerful
miracles, as rajsing the dead and commanding wind
and water,^ as well as the sun and nipon?** Did
* 2 Kings ii. 11. f 2 Kings xiii. 21.
t 2 Kings iv. 34, 35. § Exod. vii. 1.
II Deut. xxxiii. 1 j Ezek, xxxiv, 31.
% 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii, 44, 46, and 2 Kings ii. 22,
** Joshua x. 12, 13.

468
not some of them talk, of themselves in a manner
suitable to the nature of God alone ? * Are we,
from these circumstances, to represent them as pos
sessing a two-fold nature, divine and human ? If
not, let us give up such an unscriptural and irratio
nal idea, as attributing to Jesus, or to any human
being, a double nature of God and man, and restrain
ourselves from bringing Christianity to a level with
the doctrines of heathenish polytheism. Is it not a
general rule, adopted to preserve concordance be
tween all the passages of scripture, and to render
them consistent with reason, that when terms,
phrases, or circumstances, which are applicable to
God alone, are found ascribed to a created being,
either man or angel, these are to be interpreted in
an inferior sense? Were we to deviate from this
general rule and take these terms to be real, Judaism
and Christianity would be but systems of Polytheism,
and unworthy of adoption by rational beings. Such
an attempt as to shew that Moses and the chiefs of
Israel having been types and shadows of Jesus, are
called gods, is totally inadmissible ; for we find no
authority in the Scriptures for such an assertion :
moreover, had there been any authority declaring
Moses and others to have been types of Jesus, it
could not depreciate the honour which scripture
confers upon them, by the application of the terms
" gods" and " sons of God" to them, any more than
* Deut. xxvii. 1, xxxii. 1.

469
the fact, that Christ was the. Saviour of mankind, in
consequence of his having been of the seed of Abra
ham* and house of David, as well as the rod of the
stem of Jesse,-^ could lower the dignity of the Mes
siah, or could exalt the rank of Abraham, or of
David, above Christ.
Such an apology as ascribes birth, growth, and
death, to the material body of Christ, and immor
tality and divinity to his spirit, is equally applicable
to those Israelites that are termed gods.
The second question of the Editor is, " To whose
nature is their's (Israel's) superior ? only to that of
the brutes !" In answer to which I refer the Editor
to the passages already cited, to wit. Psalm Ixxxii. 6,
Exod. iv. 22, xix. 5, 6, as well as to Exod. xxv. 8,
" God was dwelling among them ;" Deut. vii. 6,
" That he has chosen them from all the nations ;"
X. 15, " He loved them, he chose them only;" xiv.
1, " They are the sons of God ;" and to numerous
passages of a similar description, whence the Editor
may judge whether Israel was superior to the brutes
only, or to the rest of mankind. The third ques
tion is, " If other gods die like men, must Jehovah,
who made heaven and earth, whose throne is for
ever?" My answer must be in the negative, bPcause
Jehovah is not a man-god that shall die ; but he, as
the God of all gods, and the Lord of lords, must re
gulate the death and birth of those who are figura-
* Genesis xxii. 18. t Isaiah xi. 1.

470
tively called gods, while he himself is immutable.
Deut. X. 17: " Jehovah your God, is God of gods,
and Lord of lords." John xx. 17: " To my God
and your God." Psalm xiv. 7: "God, thy God,
hath anointed thee." — Let us now. again refer to the
context of John x. 34. In ver. 33, the Jews assign
it as the reason for their attempting to stone Jesus,
that he made himself equal to God, by* calling
himself the Son of God, as they supppsed, in a real
sense, which was, according to their law, blasphemy;
Jesus, therefore, pointed out to them, in ver. 34,
that even the term " god" is found figuratively ap
plied to the chiefs of Israel, in scripture, withont
meaning to imply thereby, their equality with God ;
in ver. 35, he reminds them of their applying, ac
cording to the Scriptures, the same divine term to
those chiefs ; and lastly, he shews their inqonsis-
tency in calling their chiefs gods, and, at the same
time, rejecting Christ's declaration of his being the
Son of God, in the same metaphorical sense, as
being " sanctified" and " sent" by God. Is not this
argument, used by Jesus, an evident disavowal of
his own deity, and manifestation of his having called
himself " the Son of God," only in a metaphorical
sense ? I am sorry to observe, that the Editor seems
to have bestowed little or no reflection upon these
texts. * As is evident from the reply of Jesus, (ver. 36,) " Thou
blasphemest ; because I said I am the Son of God."

471
In answer to my observation on the attempt of
orthodox Christians to prove the deity of Jesus from
1 Cor. X. 9, " Neither let us tempt Christ as some
of them also tempted," the Editor quotes first, an
observation of my own, to wit, " How far cannot
prejudice carry away men of sense ! Are we not all,
in common with Jesus, liable to be tempted both by
men and Satan? Can the liability to temptation,
common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, and all
mankind, be of any avail to prove the divinity and
unity of those respective subjects of temptation?"
He then declares, that I was not correct in the state
ment of my opponent's doctrine on this subject, and
denies any one's " having attempted to prove the
deity of Christ merely from his being tempted." To
shew the accuracy of my statement, however, I beg
to refer the Editor to Mr. Jones's work on the na
ture of Christ. The Editor lastly asserts, that " it is
the apostie's declaring that Christ was he who was
tempted in the wilderness, and hence, the Most High
God, described by the Psalmist as tempted, which is
here adduced." But I do not find in the verse in
question, nor in any preceding or following verse,
" the apostle's declaring that Christ was he who was
tempted by Israel in the wilderness." If the Editor
has met with such a declaration elsewhere, he should
first point it out, and then build his argument upon
it. But unless he first shew, that being tempted by
the devil, and being tempted by Israel, mean the

472
same thing, I cannot admit any relation between the
declaration of the apostle's and that of the Psalmist.
Relative to Psalm ex., [1,] "The Lord said unto
my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine
enemies thy footstool," I observed, in my Second
Appeal, (p. 266,) " that this passage is simply ap
plied to the Messiah, manifesting, that the victory
gained by him over his enemies, was entirely owing
to the influence of God !" To this the Editor re
plies, " After the Son had humbled himself, so as to
assume our nature and be appointed to the combat,
it was not to be expected that the Father would ^or-
sake him. But that Jesus had no might of his own,
which our author would fain prove, is not a fact."
Is it not most strange, that the Son, whom the Edi
tor considers the immutable, almighty God, should
be supposed by him again to have humbled himself,
and to have been appointed by ariother to a combat,
in which that other assisted him to obtain success ?
Are not these two ideas quite incompatible with
each other? If such positive disavowal of his oum
power, by Jesus himself, as " I can of mine ownself
do nothing," "All that the Father giveth shall come
to me," has failed to convince the Editor that Jesus
had no power of his own, . no argument of mine, or
of any other human being, can be expected to make
an impression upon him. .
The Editor afterwards endeavours to prove the
omnipotence of Jesus by quoting Isaiah Ixiii. 5 :

473
" Mine own arm brought salvation unto me," and
Rev. i. 8 : " I am Alpha and Omega ; the beginning
and the end, saith the Lord, which is, and which
was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Sup
posing these two last-mentioned passages to be ac
tually ascribed to Jesus, conveying a raanifestation of
his own omnipotence, would they not be esteemed
as directly contradictory to his positive disavowal of
omnipotence, found in the foregoing, and in hun
dreds of other passages ? How, then, are we to
reconcile to our understanding the idea that the
Author of true religion disavows his almighty po'ver
on one occasion, and asserts it on another ? Dof, in
fact, we are not reduced by the texts in question to
any such dilemma ; for the passage quoted from
Isaiah (Ixiii. {^5]) has no more allusion to Jesus than
to Moses or Joshua. Whence, and under what plea,
the Editor and others apply this passage to Christ, I
am quite at a loss to know. The prophet here
speaks of the destruction of Edom and Bozrah,
under the wrath of God, for their infidelity towards
Israel. These places were inhabited by the sons of
Esau, (the brother of Jacob,) who was also called
Edom. Gen. xxv. 30 : " And Esau said to Jacob,
Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage,
for I am faint : therefore was his name called Edom."
So Jeremiah prophesies the destruction of Edom and
Bozrah (xlix. 7 [8]) : "Concerning Edom,' thus saith
the Lord of hosts, Is wisdom no more in Teman ?
Is counsel perished from the prudent? Is their

474
wisdom vanished ? Flee ye, turn back, dwell deep,
O inhabitants of Dedan ; for I will bring the calamity
of Esau upon him, the time that I will visit him."
Ver. 13 : " For I have sworn by myself, saith the
Lord, that Bozrah shall becorae a desolation, a re
proach, a waste, and a curse, and all the cities thereof
shall be perpetual wastes." And also the whole of
ObadiaKs Prophecy foretels the slaughter of Edom
by the wrath of God. I quote here only one or two
verses (8, 9) ; " Shall I not in that day, saith the
Lord, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and
understanding out ofthe mount of Esau ? And thy
mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the
end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut
off" by slaughter." Ver. 11 : " In the day that thou
stoodest on the other side ; in the day that the
strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreign
ers entered into his gate, and cast lots upon Jeru
salem, even thou wast as one of them." What
expression does Isaiah make use of in chap. Ixiii.,
that the passage can be interpreted as speaking the
language of Jesus ? Nothing of the kind that I can
perceive. It contains rather such denunciations as
are considered totally inconsistent with the office
and character of the meek and lowly Jesus, the
messenger of peace on earth, and good-will in heaven
towards men. Can the following expressions, " I
will tread them in my anger," " Their blood shall be
upon my garment," (ver. 3,) be ascribed to Jesus,
who so far from treading down the inhabitants of

475
Edom and Bozrah, or of any other land, and sprinkling
their blood upon his garment, came to recdncile them
to God, and. laboured in behalf of them, and of all
men ; even suffering his own blood to be shed, rather
than refrain from teaching them the way of salvation ?
What particular connexion had Jesus with the de
struction of the sons of the children of Edom, to
justify the Editor in referring chap. IxiiL to the
Messiah ? I should expect to find such language as
is used by Isaiah in that chapter referring to God ;
for in the poetical language of the prophets, similar
expressions are abundantly ascribed to the Most
High in an allegorical sense. Isaiah lix. 15 — 17:
" And the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that
there was no judgment. And be saw that there was
no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor :
therefore his arm brought salvation unto him, and
his righteousness, it sustained him. For he put on
righteousness as a breast-plate, and an helmet of
salvation upon his head ; and he put on garments of
vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a
cloak." Dan. vii. 9 : "I beheld till the thrones
were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit,
whose garment was white as snow."
As to Rev. i. 8, let us refer to the contexts, com
mencing with ver. 4. In this, John addressing the
seven churches of Asia, says, "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 ; and frora Jesus Christ," He

476
proceeds to describe Christ as a " faithful witness,
the first-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the
kings of the earth," adding, " 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 hira be glory and dominion for ever and
ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with clouds,
and every eye shall see him, and they also which
pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall
wail because of him. Even so. Amen." Having
thus stated what Christ had done, and is to do,
John reverts to the declaration of the eternity of
God, with which he coraraenced : " 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." All this appears so very
plain ; the eternal attributes of the Almighty, in
verse 4, are so distinct from the description of the
character and office of Christ in verses 5 — 7; the
identity of the definition of God in ver. 4, with that
in ver. 8, is so obvious ; that I should have thought
it impossible for any [one] not to perceive how totally
unconnected verse 8 is with that which precedes it,
and how far it was from John's intention to declare
the Almighty, and his faithful witness, to be one.
Moreover, we find the term *' Almighty" in the book
, of Revelation mentioned seven times, besides in verse
8, and referring always to God ; at the same time,
notwithstanding the frequent mention of the Lamb
or Jesus, throughout the whole book, neither the

477
term "Almighty," nor the designation "who is,
and who was, and is to come," equivalent to the
term "Jehovah," is once ascribed to the Lamb.
Let the candid reader judge for himself.
> The Editor again introduces the subject of the
angel of Bokim, (page 565,) quoting Psalm Ixxviii.,
[13,] " He divided the sea, and caused them to pass
through, and made the waters to stand in a heap,"
&c. Whence he concludes that the Son was with
Israel in the Wilderness as their God. But what
allusion this Psalm has to Christ, situated either in
the Wilderness, or in an uninhabited land, my limited
understanding is unable to discover. As I have
already noticed the argument adduced by the Editor
respecting angels, in the beginning of this chapter, I
will not renew the subject, but beg my reader's at
tention to that part of my treatise.
The Editor quotes Psalm xcv., [6, 7,] " For Jeho
vah is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel
before Jehovah our Maker ; for he is our God, and
we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of
his hand ;" and justifies the application of this pas
sage to Jesus upon the ground that, in John i. 3,
Jesus is declared equally with the Father to be the
Maker of all things. I wonder at the Editor's
dhoosing this passage, as being' applicable to Jesus,
on such a basis ; for should this reason be admitted
as well founded, all the passages of the Old Testa
ment in which Jehovah is mentioned, would be inter-
2i

478
preted as referring to Jesus without selection. As I
noticed this verse of John i. 3, and one or two
similar verses in pages 440, 441, 1 will not recur to
them here.
Having also noticed Psalm ii., [12,] (page 435,)
" Blessed are all they who trust in him," I will ab
stain from, reiterating the same subject, though I
flnd the Editor repeating his arguments here in his
usual manner.
To my great surprise I observe that the Editor
again quotes John x. 30, " I and my Pother are
one," to shew that God and Jesus, though they are
two beings, yet are ope, without any attention tp all,
the illustrations I adduced to explain this passage in
the Second Appeal (page 162). I will^ however,
elucidate this passage still more fully in its propec
place. I thank the Reverend Editor for quoting
such passages as P*a/ms Ixxxi. 9, 10, and Ixxxiii, 18,
which, in common with, all other authorities of the
sacred books, decidedly prove the unity of the Su
preme Being, and tha,t no other being except hinci, is
worthy to be called Jehovah.
In the course pf the quotation from the Psalms,,
the Editor cites Heb. iii. 3, 4 : " For this man was
QOnntpd vs^orthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch
as, he who. hath builded the honsp is worthy of more
honour than thp house. For every housse is built by
some man ; but he who built all. things is God."
Upon whieh he comnjents, that it was Christ that
built the house understood, (as he sUipposfis,}. froiE^

479
the phrase " all things" in the verse in question. I
will not ptolong the discussion by pointing out the
errors appearing in the English version, I only
repeat verse 6, explaining what the apdstle meant by
the house of Christ, which the Editor omitted to
mention ; to wit, " But Christ aS a son dver his own
house, whose house are wer Hence it is evident,
that the house which Christ bUilt by the will df the
Father is the Christian church; aiid that God, the
Father of Jesus and ofthe rest ofthe universe, is the
aUthcar of all things' whatsoever.

SECTION II.
The Prophets.

In introducing the Prophets^ the Reverend Editor
comrriences^ with Proverbs; saying, " If in this- book
Christ be represented under the character of wisdom^,
as divines have thought, and as seems implied iri
Christ's saying, Matt, xi. 19, ' But Wisdom is justi
fied ef her children ;' and Luke xi. 49, ' Therefoi-P
said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets,'
fresh proof is here furnished to the eternal deity of
the Son." He then quotes Pt'ob'. viii. 1, ^; 27, 30:
" Doth not wisdom cry ? The Lord possessed me
in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
When he prepared the heavewss, I was there. I was
2i2

480
by him, as one brought up* with him : I was daily'
his delight, rejoicing always before him." It is,
indeed, astonishing to me how the strong prejudice
of other learned diyines, as well as of the Editor, in
favour of the doctrine of the Trinity, has prevented
them from perceiving that the identification attempted
to be thus deduced by them from those passages of
the book of Proverbs, instead of proving the " eternal
deity" of Jesus, or his self^existence, would go to
destroy his distinct existence altogether ; for Chris
tians of all denominations agree that wisdom, under-.
standing, and all other attributes of God, have beeri
from eternity to eternity in the possession of the
almighty power, without either or any of them
having been endowed with a separate existence ; and
were we to attribute fo each of the properties of God
self-existence, we must necessarily admit that there
are besides God numerous beings, (his attributes,)
which poesess, like God himself, eternal existence-^a
doctrine which would amount to gross Polytheism.
But the expression, " The Liord possessed me in the
beginning of his way," (ver. 22, quoted by the Edi
tor,) proves that the wisdom there alluded to was
considered as iri possession of Jehovah, just as his
other attributes are. If Jesus, then, be nieant here
"by wisdom, he must, so far from being esteemed as
Jehovah himself, be supposed to have been possessed
* tin« i" t^6 original Hebrew does not signify " brought
«p." It means " steadied," stabled, or established, as qualities
;with substances. Sefe Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon.

481
by Jehovah as an attribute. If this doctrine be
admitted as orthodox, how then are the primitive
Christians to be justified in condemning Sabellius on
account of his maintaining the same doctririe ? We
find that, consistently with the same prophetical
language, the inspired writer of Proverbs directs us
to call wisdom a sister, and uriderstanding kins-wo-i
man, (vii. 4,) instead of bestowing on her such epi
thets as, Jehovah, the everlasting God, that are
insisted upon by the Editor as properly applied tp
Jesus, In fact, the book oi Proverbs meant only to
urge, in the usual poetical style of expressiori, the
necessity of adhering to wisdom, both in religious
and social life, strerigthening the exhortation by
pointing out that all the works of God are founded
upon wisdom. If such poetical personifications, as
are found in the Prophets, as well as in prdfane
Asiatic works in common circulation, were to be
noticed, a separate voluminous work would, I aiji
afraid, fail to contain them. And if the abstract
attributes of God, such as wisdom, mercyj truthj
benevolence, &c., are to be, esteemed as separate
deities, on account of their being soraetimes personi:*
fied, and declared eternal, and associating with God,
this mode of literal interpretation would, I admit, be so
far advantageous to the cause of the Editor as respects
the refutation of the doctrine of the unity of Godj but
would not be precisely favourable to the doctrine of
the Trinity, as it would certainly extend the nmnber
of personified deities much beyond three. Take, for

482
example, the following passages, which personify
the attributes of God, and ascribe to them eternity,
and association with God. Psalm cxxx. 7 : " With
the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous
redemption." Ixxxv. 10 : " Mercy and truth are
met together ; righteousness and peace have kissed
each other." Numbers xvi. 46 : " There is wrath
gone out from the Lord." Here we have mercy,
redemption, truth, and wrath, all spoken of as sepa
rate existences. Are we, therefore, to consider them
as persons of the Godhead? As abstract qualities
are often represented in the Scriptures, and in Asiatic
writings generally, as persons and agents, to render
ideas familiar to the understanding, so real existences
arc intended sometimes under the appellation of
abstract qualities, for the sake of energy of expression.
In 1 John iv. 8, God is declared to be mere hme.
John i. 1, Jesus is called word, or revdation. 1 Cor.
i. 24, 30, Christ is represented as power and wisdbm,
&c. 2 Cor. v. 21, true Christians are declared to
be wisdom in Christ ; and Israel is said to be an
astonishment in Deut. xxviii. 37, and curse in Zech.
viii. 13 ; Abraham to be blessing in Gen. xii. 2 ; and
Jehovah is declared to be glory in Zech. ii, 5. Bjut
every unprejudiced mind is convinced that these
allegorical terms neither can alter the fact, nor can
they change the nature of the unity of God, and of
the dependence of his attributes.
After this no forther remark seems necessary on
the passages quoted by the Editor, from Matthew

483
and Luke, where., as in many other passages in
which the word Wisdotn is to be found, the sense
neither requites, nor even admits, of our understand
ing Jesus to be meant under that appellation.
The Editor quotes Isaiah vi. 1, 10, relating to
the Prophet's vision of God^, he then comments,
" As this glorious vision, wherein the Prophet re
ceived his comraission, represented either the Father
or the Son, we might have expected that it should
be the Son, who had undertaken to redeem men."
The Editor afterwards quotes John xii. 41, " These
things, said Isaiah, when he saw his glory and
spoke of him," and considers these Words as decisive
testiraony Of the opinion, that it was the Son who
was seen by the Prophet in the vision.
Let us first impartially refer to the context of
verse 41 of Jdhn. We find in the verse a personal
pronoun used three times. The first, " he," in the
phrase " when he saw," though understood in th6
Greek verb eiSs ; the second, " his," connected With
the word " glory;" and the third, " of him," after
the verb " spoke ;" thus — " when he saw his gloif
and spoke of hirfi." The first pronOUn, " he," of
course refers to Isaiah, mentioned just before it.
The second and the third, " his" and " of him," can
have no reference to Isaiah, for the words " when
Isaiah saw Isaiah's glory, and Spoke of Isaiah," could
bear no sense whatever. These two last pronouns
must, therefore, have reference to some pronoun or
noun to be found in the immediately precedirig part

484
of the passage. We accordingly find, from the pre-*
ceding verse, (40,) that these pronouns refer to Je
hovah, the God of hosts, mentioned twice in verse
38, whose glory Isaiah saw, and in whose behalf he
spoke, without mention of the Son being once made
between verses 38 and 41. The passage thus stands,
(ver. 38,) He (Isaiah) spoke, " Lord, who hath be
lieved our report? and to whom hath the arm ofthe
Lord been revealed ?" (39,) " Therefore they could
not believe [because] that Isaiah said again," (40,)
" He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their
heart ;" (41,) " These things, said Isaiah, when he
saw his glory, and spake of himr Isaiah must have
then seen the glory of him in whose behalf he spoke;
a fact which neither party can dispute ; and, as it
is evident from the preceding verse, (40,) and from
Isaiah vi., [10,] that he spoke pf God, who blinded
the eyes of the Jews and hardened their hearts^, it
necessarily follows, that he saw the glory of that
very being spoken of by Isaiah. For forther illus
tration of God's being often declared to have blinded
their eyes and hardened their hearts, I quote Rom.
xi. 7, 8 : " What then ? Israel hath not obtained
that which he seeketh for; but the election hath
obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According
as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of
slumber; eyes that they should not see, and ears
that they should not hear,) unto this day." Isaiah
Ixiii. 17: " O Lord, why hast thou made us to err
from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy

485
fear? Return, for thy servants' sake, the tribe of thy
inheritance." From vers. 38 — 41, as already ob
served, is not a single noun or a pronoun that can
have allusion to Jesus. But we find, in verse 42,
the pronoun " him," implying the Son as absolutely
required by the sense, in reference to verse 37, and
in consistence with verse 44, in which the name of
Jesus is found mentioned. As all the Pharisees be
lieved in God, as well as in Isaiah, one of their pro
phets, the text could convey no meaning, if the
phrase " Nevertheless among the chief rulers also
many believed in him" were, admitted to bear refe
rence either to God or Isaiah.
If it be insisted upon, in defiance of all the fore
going explanation, that the two last-mentioned pro
nouns, in verse 41, "When he saw his glory and
spake pf him," are applied to Jesus, the passage in
the evangelist would be, in that case, more cori-ectly
explained by referring it to John viii. 6&, "Your
father Abraham rejoiced to see my day," which
cannot be understood of ocular vision, but prophetic
anticipation ; whereas the glory seen in the vision of
Isaiah, was that of God himself in the delivery of
the comraand given to the prophet on that occasion,
as I observed in the Second Appear (page 286).
With a view to invalidate this interpretatiori, the
Editor inquires, (page 569,) " What has Abraham's
day to do with Isaiah's vision ?" In answer to which
I must allow, that Abraham's day had nothing to do
with Isaiah's vision, except that as Abraham. saw

486
the day of Christ, (properly speaking, the reign of
Christ,) by prophetic anticipation, and not through
ocular vision, {John viii. 56,) so Isaiah, as another
prophet of God, must have seen the glory of Christ
(if he had seen it at all) through the same prophetic
anticipation, and must have spoken of Christ's com
mission (if he had spoken of him at all) through
the same prophetic power : the reference, therefore,
is one which goes to prove, that whenever the pro
phets, such as Abraham, Isaiah, or any other pro
phets, are declared to have seen or spoken of future
events, they must have seen or spoken of them
through the prophetic power vested in them by
God. I never attempted to prove, that the words
" day" and " glory" are synonymous, nor did I de^
clare that Isaiah saw the day of Christ, that the
Editor should have occasion to advance that " it is
not the day of Christ which the Evangelist describes
Isaiah as having seen, but his glory." HoWevet, I
cannot help being of opinion, that in such phrases,
on particular occasions, as " He saw the day of the
king Messiah," or " He saw the glory of the king
Messiah," the words " day" and " glory" amount
almost to the same thing. My limited understand
ing cannot, like the Editor's, discover how " Isaiah
fixes the time when he thus saw Christ's glory, even
when it was said, ' he hath blinded their eyes,' " &c.,
for I find the Jews were from time to time charged,
by several of the prophetis> with disobedience, and
with having been blinded and hardened. Deut.

487
xxviii. 28 : " The Lord shall smite thee with mad-»
ness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart."
xxix. 4 : " The Lord hath not given you an heart
to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto
this day." 1 Kings xviii. 37: " Hear me, O Lord,
hear me, that this people may knpw that thou art
the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their
heart back again." Isaiah Ixiii. 17, as noticed
before. The Editor refers tp the prophet Isaiah, (pp. 533,
570,) saying, that Isaiah, in ch. vii., " predicting the
birth of Christ, identifies his divine and his human
nature, ' Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.' This
passage the Holy Spirit applies to Christ, in Matt.
i. 22, 23." He regrets my applying the above verse
to Hezekiah, in an immediate sense, though totally
unable to reject the proof of such application, de
duced by me, in my Second Appeal, fi'om its con
text, and from the sacred history. He rests his re
jection entirely upon the phrase, "A virgin shaD
conceive," found in the English version, as being
used in the future.tense, on the ground that " Heze
kiah could not have been the child at the time abottt
to be conceived by the virgin, for this plain reason,
that God never foretels past things. The birth of
Hezekiah was not then a thing to come ; for, he
was at. least six years old when this prophecy was
spoken.-^This our author will see by merely com^
paring the fact, that Ahaz reigned sixteen years, aind
Hezekiah began to reign when he was five^and-

488
twenty years did. Hezekiah must then. have been
six, if not seven, years old when this prophecy was
delivered." The Editor, then, charges me with
having expended, in vain, twelve pages on this, as
Well as on the passage in ch. ix, oi Isaiah. Here
we find again a new .instance, in which a diligent
study of the Bible, for thirty or forty years, but ac
companied with early religious prejudices, has not
been able to save the student from making such an
error as to take the term r\'\r\, " pregnant," in the
original verse, in Hebrew, as meaning absolutely,
" shall conceive," and to declare, unthinkingly, that
'" Hezekiah could not have been the child at that
time to be conceived." How will the Editor render
the same terra mn, found in Gen. xvi. 11, "Thou
hast conceived, or art with child"? Will he, on his
adopted principle, interpret it, " Thou shalt con
ceive ?" He must, in that case, overlook verses 4th
•and 5th of the same chapter, which testify Hagar's
having already conceived before the angel of the
Lord had seen and spoken to her, in verse the 11th.
" He went in unto Hagar, and she conceived ;
-and when she saw she had conceived," i&c. (4).
" And Sarai said unto Abraham, My wrong be
,upon thee : I have given my maid unto thy bosom ;
and when she saw that she had conceived," &c. (5).
Did not the Editor ever reflect upon Jer. xxxi, .8,
containing the same terms mn, or "pregnant," and
m^»i, or " bearing," as are found in Isaiah vii, 14? —
a passage which might have suggested to the Editor
the propriety of not making so positive an assertion.

489
that " Hezekiah could not have been the child at
that time to be conceived." Did the Editor entirely
overlook the same term JT\n, signifying pregnant, in 2
Sam. xi. 5, and Isaiah xxvi, 17, Gen. xxxviii. 24, 25,
Exod. xxi, 22, 2 Kings viii. 12, Amos i. 13? The
fact is, that we find in the original Hebrew, nnhsrt,
signifying " the virgin," which, if not referred to a
particular person before-mentioned, iraplies, in the
figurative language of the Scripture, either a city, or
the people of a city, as I noticed in pages 272, 273,
and 280, of my Second Appeal ; and also we find
mn synonymous with the participle " conceived," in
stead of " shall conceive." The verse, therefore, thus
runs : " Behold, the virgin (the city of Jerusalem,
or the nation) is pregnant, and is bearing a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel." (14.) " For before
the child* shall know to refuse the evil, and choose
the good, the land that thou (Ahaz) abhorrest shall
be forsaken of both her kings," (16,) i. e. Rezin, the
king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, who, at
that time, had besieged Jerusalem, as is evident
from the preceding verses ; and such personifying
* In the seventeenth year of the reign of Pekah, the king of
Israel, Ahaz was born ; and twenty years old was Ahaz when hie
began to reign in Jerusalem, and he reigned sixteen years. 2
Kings xvi. 1, 2. Hence it appears, that he lived thirty-six years
only; and as Hezekiah began to reign after the death of his
father Ahaz, when he was twenty and five years old, (2 Kings
xviii. 2,) he must havebeen born when his father Ahaz was ten,
or at most, eleven years of age, which was rather contrary to the
common course of nature.

490
phrases as " oppressed virgin," and "bring forth
children," are found also applied to the city, or the
people of the city, in the prophets, in other instances
similar to that of Isaiah vii. 14, in question. Micah
iv. 10: "Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O
ddugkter qf Zion, like a woman in travail." Isaiah
xxiii. 12: " And he said. Thou shalt no more re
joice, O thou oppressed virgin, daughter of Zidon."
But unless orthodox authors changed " the virgin"
into " a virgin," and " conceived" into " shall con
ceive," they could not apply the verse in a direct
sense to Mary, the mother of Christ, and to Christ
himself; and consequently, to suit their convenience,
they have entirely disregarded the original scripture,
the context,, and the historical facts.
In noticing my explanation of the rnohsn * " the
virgin," in the Second Appeal, the Reverend Editor
states, that " it is true, n, the emphatic of Hebrew,
is generally rendered in the Septuagint by the Greek
article: that they are by no means equivalent in
value, however, he may convince himself by refer
ring to that excellent work on the Greek article for
which the learned world- is indebted to Dr. Middle-
ton, the Bishop of Calcutta." I am really sorry to
observe that the Editor should have given such an
evasive answer to so important a point; he, how-
* In Isaiah lii. 2, the city, or the people of the city, is- once
called "a captive daughter;" in ch. liv. 1, it is once styled
" barren," mpr ; " a harlot" in Ezekiel xvi. 35, and in other
instances.

491
ever, was obliged to do so, knowing that ^ in He
brew, before a noun, as .\ in Arabic, is invariably
a definite article. In his attempt to remove the
inconsistency between his maintaining the idea of
the deity of Jesus and applying to him verses 15
- and 16 in Isaiah vii., by which he is declared sub
ject to total ignorance, the Reverend Editor attri;-
butes (p. 534) such ignorance to the human nature
of Jesus, forgetting what he, in common with other
orthodox Christians, offers as an explanation of such
passages as declare all power in heaven and earth to
have been given to Jesus by the Father of the uni
verse, which is, that all power was given him in his
human capacity, while in his divine capacity he en
joys independent omnipotence. Is not the power of
distinguishing good from evil included in all power
given to Jesus, according to the Editor, in his human
capacity? How, then, can the Editor be justified
in maintaining the idea that, in his human nature,
he, though possessed of all power in heaven and
earth, was unable, before the age of maturity, to
distinguish the good from the evil, as found in verses
15 and 16? I beg also the attention of the Editor
to Luke ii. 46 — 50, shewing that Jesus was possessed
of knowledge of his divine commission even in his
early youth, and also to the Editor's own declaration,
(page 536,) " The spirit of the Lord was to rest
upon him, as the spirit of wisdom and understand
ing. ' Nothing but early prejudice can persuade a
man to beUeve that one being at one time should he

492

both subject to total ignorance and possessed of om
niscience — two diametrically opposite qualities.
Let us now refer to the context of the verse in
question. The first verse ofthe same chapter speaks
of the king of Syria and the king of Israel having
besieged Jerusalem ; verses 3 and 4, df the Lord's
having sent Isaiah, the prophet, to Ahaz, the king
of Jerusalem, to offer him consolation and confidence
against the attacks of these two kings ; verses 5 and
6, ofthe two kings having taken evil counsel against
Ahaz, and of their determination to set the son of
Tabeal on his throne ; verses 8 and 9 foretel the
total fall of Ephraim (the ten tribes of Israelites who
separated from Judah, which comprised the two
remaining tribes) and of Samaria within three score
and five years ; verses 10 and 11 mention the Lord's
offering to Ahaz a sign, which he (verses 12 and 13)
declined; verses 14 — 16 contain the Lord's promise
to give spontaneously a sign of the destruction of
Ahaz's enemies in the person of the son borne by the
virgin of Jerusalem ; the delivery of Judah from
these two kings before the child should becorae of
age; verse 17, and following verses, foretel what
was to happen in Judah, bringing the king of Assy
ria in. opposition to the kings of Syria and of Israel,
who were then inimical to the house of David. The
first four verses of chap, viii., speak ofthe birth of a
son to Isaiah, the prophet, and of the depredations
by the Assyrians on the land of Damascus, the dapi-
tal of Syria, and on the land of Samaria, the head of

498
Ephraim, before that son should have knowledge to
cry, " My father and my mother." Hence it is evi
dent that the child mentioned in ch. vii. 14, called
Immanuel, was much older than the child mentioned
ch. viii. 3 ; for the attacks upon Syria and Israel by
the Assyrians took place only, before the former
became of age to know right from wrong, but while
the latter was still unable to pronounce a single
word. Verse 6 speaks ofthe army of Rezin, and of
the son of RemaUah, the kings of Syria and Israel,
having refused the soft waters of Shiloah,* a river
in Judah, figuratively meaning peace ; verses 7 and
8, of the Lord's declaring that he would bring into
the land of Immanuel, upon these invaders, the
strong waters of the river, that is, the armies of the
king of Assyria ; verses 9 and 10, of the combination
of the people against the king of Judah, which turned
to their own destruction, for the sake of Immanuel.
It is worth noticing, that the last. word in verse 10,
is translated in the English version, " God is with
us," instead of leaving it, as it is in the original He
brew, " Immanuel," though in two other instances
(ch. vii. 14, and ch. viii. 8) the word " Immanuel"
is left unchanged as it stands in the original. Verses
11 — 17, pronounce the Lord's displeasure at the dis
obedience of the tribes of Israel, advising them to
* Shiloh, found in Gen. xlix. 10, implying a redeemer, differs
in signification, and also in spelling, from the word " Shiloah,"
herein mentioned as. signifying rivers: in Genesis^ nh>m ; in
Isaiah viii. 6, nhvf.
2k

494
fear the Lord, and not fear the confederacy of the
kings of Syria and Israel. Verse 18 declares the
Lord's having given the prophet and the children
for signs and for wonders in Israel ; and the remain
ing verses of this chapter speak of false prophets, of
the miserable situation of the Israelites — a fact which
is fully related in the 2nd book of Kings, xvi. 5 :
" Then Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, son of
RemaUah, king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to
war ; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not over
come him." Ver. 6: "At that time, Rezin, king
of Syria, recovered Elath to Syria, and drove the.
Jews from Elath ; and the Syrians came to Elath,
and dwelt there unto this day." Ver. 7 : " So Ahaz
sent messengers to Tiglath-PUeser, king of Assyria,
saying, I am thy servant and thy son. Come up
and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria,
and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise
up against me." Ver. 8 : " And Ahaz took the silver
and gold that was found in the house of the Lord,
and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it
for a present to the king of Assyria." Ver. 9 : "And
the king of Assyria hearkened unto him : for the
king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took
it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and
slew Rezin."
It is now left to the public to reflect seriously on
the above circumstances stated in the context, and
to pronounce whether thereby it appears that verse
14 is originally applied to Hezekiah, the son and

495
heir of Ahaz, king of Jerusalem, a child born before
the defeat of his enemies, the Immanuel, whose land
was Judah ; or to Jesus of Nazareth, born at least
500 years afterwards : and also to decide whether or
not the land which Ahaz abhorred, had been for
saken by the king of Syria and of Israel, from the
interference of the king of Assyria, before Hezekiah
came to years of discretion ; or whether that event
took place only after the birth of Jesus. As to the
application of verse 4 to Jesus Christ, by St. Mat
thew, my language in the Second Appeal was, that
" the evangelist Matthew referred in his Gospel to
ch. vii. 14 of Isaiah, merely for the purpose of ac
commodation ; the son of Ahaz and the Saviour
resembling each other, in each being the means, at
different periods, though in different senses, of esta
blishing the throne of the house of David. In the
same manner, the apostle referred to Hosea xi. 1, in
ch. ii. 15 of his Gospel, and in many other instances."
Nevertheless, the Reverend Editor charges me with
having blasphemed against the word of God, by
attempting to persuade him and others^, in my ex
planation of the above verse, " that the evangelist
Matthew ought not to be credited." I, indeed, never
expected such an accusation from the Editor. To
acquit myself of the charge, I intreat my readers to
refer to the translation of the four Gospels by Dr.
Campbell, a celebrated Trinitarian writer, in whose
notes (page 9) that learned divine says, " Thus ch.
ii. 15, a declaration from the prophet Hosea xi. 1,
2k2

496
which God made in relation to the people of Israel,
whom he had long before called from Egypt, is ap
plied by the historian allusively to Jesus Christ,
where all that is meant is, that with equal truth, or
rather, with much greater energy of signification,
God might now say, / have recalled my son out qf
Egypt. Indeed, the import of the Greek phrase, as
commonly used by the sacred writers, is no more, as
Le Clerc has justly observed, than that such words
of any of the prophets may be applied with truth to
such an event."
Did these orthodox writers also attempt to per
suade people to discredit the evangelical writings by
applying Hosea xi. 1, originally to Israel, and allu
sively to Jesus Christ ? The Editor will not, I pre
sume, get the sanction of the public to accuse those
learned divines of blasphemy. I did no more than
adopt their mode of expression in examining Isaiah
vii. 14, compared with Matt. i. 22, 23, and Hosea
xi. 1, with Matt. ii. 15 ; yet I am charged with blas
phemy against the authority of the Gospel df Mat
thew. I must repeat the very words I used in the
Second Appeal, in comparing the book of Hosea with
the Gospel of Matt,, (pp. 263, 264,) that the pub
lic may judge whether the language of the Editor,
as to my attempt to discredit the Gospel, is just and
liberal. " Thus Matt. n. 15, 'Out of Egypt have
I called my son,' the evangelist refers to Hosea xi.
1, which, though really applied to Israel, represented
there as the son of God, is used by the apostie in

497
reference to the Saviour, in consideration of a near
resemblance between their circumstances in this in
stance : — both Israel and Jesus were carried into
Egypt and recalled from thence, and both were de
nominated in the Scriptures the ' Son of God.' The
passage of Hosea thus runs from ch. xi. 1 — 3 :
' When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and
called my son out of Egypt. As they called them,
so they went from them : they sacrificed unto Baa
lim, and burnt incense to graven images. I taught
Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms;
but they knew not that I healed them ;'— in which
Israel, who is represented as a child of God, is de
clared to have sacrificed to Baalim, and to have
burnt incense to graven images — circumstances which
cannot justly be ascribed to the Saviour."
The Reverend Editor likewise, in opposition to
my explanation, applies Isaiah ix. 6 to Jesus : " For
unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and
the government shall be upon his shoulder : and his
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the
mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of
Peace ;" and all that he says (page 534) in support
of his referring this verse to the deity of Jesus, is in
these words : " To secure to Hezekiah that passage
in ch. ix., our author gives us a translation, or rather
a paraphrase of it by Jonathan, in his Targum, to
which we shall merely oppose that given by Bishop
Lowth." Can the interpretation of the Old Testa
ment given by Jonathan and other celebrated Jewish

498
writers, some of whom lived prior to the birth of
Jesus, be discredited from the authority of one, or
one thousand. Christian bishops, to whom, at any
rate, Hebrew is a foreign language ? Can a Trini
tarian, in arguing with one not belonging to the
orthodox sect and establishment, quote with propri
ety, for the refutation of his adversary, the authority
of a Trinitarian writer? The pubUc may be the
best judges of these points. As these Jewish wri
tings are not unprocurable, the public may refer to
them for their own satisfaction. Is there any autho
rity of the sacred writers of the New Testament
authorizing the Editor to apply Isaiah ix. 6, even in
an accommodated sense, to Jesus ? I believe nothing
of the kind : — it is mere enthusiasm thai has led a
great many learned Trinitarians to apply this verse
to Jesus. The Editor avoided noticing the context,
and the historical circumstances which I adduced in
my appeal tp prove the application of the verse in
question, to Hezekiah. It may be of use, however,
to caU his attention again to the subject. I therefore
beg of him to observe those facts, and particularly
the following instances. Ch. ix. 1, promises that
Israel shall not suffer so severely from the second as
from the former invasion oS the king of Assyria^
when he invaded Lebanon and Naphtali and Gralilee
beyond Jordan. So we find it mentioned in 2 Kings
xv. 29 : " In the days of Pekah, king of Israel,
Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, took Ijon, and Abel-
beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Razor,

^99
and Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land of Naphr
tali, and carried Israel captive to Assyria." But in
the reign of Hezekiah, so far from reducing Israel
to captivity, the king of Assyria was compelled to
return to his country with great loss, leaving Israel
safe in their places. (2 Kings xix. 35, 36.) Vers, 2
and 3, declare the joy which Israel were to feel at
their delivery from the hands of their cruel invaders,
and (verse 4) at throwing off the yoke and rod of
the oppressor. We find accordingly, in 2 Kings
xviii. 7, that Hezekiah rebelled against the king of
Assyria, and served him not. Verse 5 foretels the
destruction of the army of the invaders. So we find,
2 Kings xix. 34, 35, that the angel of the Lord
slew a great part of the army of the Assyrian in
vaders. Verses 6 and 7 speak of the illustrious son
who was then to reign with justice and judgment.
So we find in 2 Kings xviii. 3 — 7, that Hezekiah
during his reign did what was right in the sight of
God, so that, after or before him, there was none
like him among the kings of Judah ; and that the
Lord was with him wheresoever he went. Verses
9 and 10 speak of the displeasure of the Lord at the
pride and stoutness of heart of Ephraim and the in
habitants of SaHaiaria> the enemies of Hezekiah and
his father. So we find in 2 Kings xviii. 10, II,
that the people of Samaria were defeated and made
prisoners by the Assyrians in the sixth year of Heze
kiah. Verse II, of the Lord's setting up the adver
saries of Rezin, the king of Syria, against him. So

500
we find in Isaiah vii,, that Rezin, the king of Syria,
who, with Ephraim, besieged Jerusalem at the time
the city had borne the child mentioned in ch. vii.
14, was defeated by his adversaries. Verses 12 —
20 describe the anger of God, as occasioned by the
wickedness of Israel. Verse 21, of Ephraim and
Manasseh having joined together to invade Judah.
Ch. X. 1 — 6, denounce punishment to the wicked
people of Judah by the hands of the Assyrians. So
we find in 2 Kings xviii, 13, that in the fourteenth
year of king Hezekiah, the great king of Assyria
came against Judah, and took all her fenced cities.
Verses 8 — 14, ofthe boasting ofthe king of Assyria
as to his power and conquests of many kingdoms,
and his destruction of the gods of different nations,
and of his contempt for the living God of the Jews
in Jerusalem. So we find in 2 Kings xviii. 33 — 35,
and xix. 11 — 14, that the king of Assyria boasted of
his great power, and of having subdued the gods of
the nations, and that he despised Jehovah, the true,
living God, even blaspheming him in a message to
Hezekiah. Verses 12 — 26, promising to punish the
king of Assyria, and to bring ruin upon him, for his
high boastings, and for his contempt against the
Lord. So we find in 2 Kings xix, 21 — 34, that
the Lord encouraged the virgin, the daughter of
Zion, and the daughter of Jerusalem, to despise the
king of Assyria, whom he had determined to punish
for his disrespect; and promised safety to the inha
bitants of Jerusalem on the prayer offered by Heze-

501
kiah. So also we find in 2 Kings xix. 35, and
2 Chron, xxxii. 21, that the Lord sent his angel into
the camp of the king of Assyria and slew his mighty
men, leaders and captains. Verse 27 promises the
king of Judah's liberation from the yoke of the king
of Assyria. So we find, 2 Kings xviii. 7, that Heze
kiah rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served
him not afterwards. It was not Hezekiah alone that,
in the beginning of his reign, acknowledged depen
dence upon the king, of Assyria, but his father Ahaz
also confessed the superiority of the king of Assyria,
and sued to him for protection against the kings of
Syria and of Israel when Hezekiah was only a child.
(2 Kings xvi. 7, 8.)
The public may now judge whether or not the
above circumstances, and the contents of chapters
vii. and viii,, noticed in the preceding paragraphs,
determine the appUcation of Isaiah ix, 6, 7, to Heze
kiah, who " did that which was right in the sight
of the Lord ;" " removed high places ;" " broke the
images and cut down the groves ;" " trusted in the
Lord God of Israel ;" " clave to the Lord, and de
parted not from following him ;" " with whom the
Lord was ,- " who " prospered whithersoever he
went ;" and prior and subsequent to whose reign,
'f was none like him among all the kings of Judah."
(2 Kings xviii. 3 — 7.) And they may also decide
whether the delivery of Israel from the attack of the
Assyrians, and the punishment inflicted upon the

502
king of Assyria in the prescribed manner, took place
in the reign of Hezekiah, or that of Jesus Christ. If
my readers compare minutely chapters vii. — x., and
xxxix. oi Isaiah with 2 Kings xv., xvi., xviii.— xx.,
they will, I trust, have a still clearer view of the
subject. In common with the son mentioned in Isaiah
ix. 6, who was called Hezekiah, " God my strength"
'' Immanuel" " God with us," Wonderful, Coun
sellor, mighty God, the Father of the everiasting age,
the Prince of Peace," human beings, and even inani
mate objects, were designated by the same terms, or
similar epithets, as noticed in pages 283 — 285, 315,
316, of my Second Appeal, without being held up
as the most high Jehovah,
Moreover, the difference between " to be" and
" to be called" is worth observing, as I noticed in the
note at pp. 315, 316, of the Second Appeal, to which
I beg to refer my readers. As to the phrases " no
end," and " for ever," or " everlasting," found in
Isaiah ix. 6, 7, these when applied to creatures are
always to be taken in a limited sense, the former
signifying plenteousness, the latter long duration, as
I observed in note, page 277 of the Second Appeal.
Vide Gen. xlix. 26 ; Heb. iii. 6.
St. Matthew, in an accommodated sense, applies
Isaiah ix. 1, 2, to Jesus, whose spiritual reign deli
vered also the inhabitants of Zebulun, and the land
of Napbtalim and Galilee, from the darkness of sinj

503
in the same way as in Hezekiah's reign their in
habitants were saved from the darkness of foreign
invasion. As the Editor and many orthodox Christians lay
much stress on the appUcation of the term Immanuel
to Jesus, I offer the following observations. The
sum total of their argument is derived fi-om the fol
lowing verse. Matt, i, 23 : " And they shall call his
name Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is God
with us." This name is composed of three Hebrew
words, " Emma" ay with ; " noo," iJ us ; " el," ^«
God ; that is, with us God ; hence the advocates
for the Trinity conclude that Jesus is here called
God, and that he must therefore be God. But let
us ascertain whether other beings are not, in common
with Jesus, called by designations compounded with
el, or God, in the sacred writings, or whether the
term el is exclusively applied to Jehovah and Jesus,
and then direct our attention to the above-stated
conclusion. Gen. xxxii. 24 : " And Jacob was left
alone, and there wrestled a man with him until the
breaking of the day." Ver 30 : " And he (Jacob)
called the name of the place ^«'J3, Vemel ; for I
have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Here the place is called the face oiel, (God,) and the
angel who wrestled with and blessed Jacob, and
whom he saw there, is styled el (God). Ver. 28:
" And he (the angel) said. Thy name shall be called
no raore Jacob, but IsraeZ ,• for as a prince hast thou
power with God and with. men,'and h^t prevailed."

504
As Jacob in wrestiing with the angel, shewed hira
his power and prevailed, he was called Israel, the
prince of God, or, properly speaking, the prince of
the angel ; for it would be the grossest blasphemy to
say that Jacob wrestled with the Almighty God, and
prevailed over him. So we find in Gen, xlvi. 17,
" MalchieZ," that is, " my king God ;" Dan. viii. 16,
" Gabriel," " mighty God ;" 1 Chron. xv. 18,
" JaazieZ," " strong God ;" Ver. 20, Jehiel, " living
God ;" 1 Sam. viii. 2, " The name of his first-born
w;as Joel," that is, " Jehovah God."
Moreover, the very term Immanuel is applied
immediately in Isaiah vii. 14, to the deliverer of
Judah from the invasion of the king of Syria, and
that of Israel, during the reign of Ahaz ; but none
esteemed him to be God, from the application of this
term to him. Besides, by referririg to]^ Parkhurst's
Hebrew Lexicon, on the explanation of the word el,
(or God,) we find " that Christian emperors of the
fourth and fifth centuries would suffer themselves to
be addressed by the style of "your divinity," "your
godship." And also by referring to the Old Testa
ment we find the terms* h». el, t=)>n^« elohim, or
God, often applied to superiors. No one, there
fore, can be justified in charging the apostle Mat
thew with inconsistency, on account of his having
* Ezekiel xxxi. II : qiu ^« " The mighty one of the Hea
then." Exod. XV. 15 : i«ia 'Jis "The mighty men of Moab."
1 Sam, xxviii. 13 : >n'«1 a»nV« " I saw God," that is, Samuel.
Exod. xxii, 8 : cs'nVwn "sK " To the Gods;" that is, the judges.

505
used, even in an accommodated sense, the phrase
" Immanuel," for Jesus, appointed by God as the
Lord of the Jews and Gentiles.
The Editor denies the truth of my assertion in the
Second Appeal, (page 283,) that David is also called
the holy one of Israel, in Psalm Ixxxix., and insists
that Jehovah and the future Messiah only are styled
the holy one. I therefore beg to refer my readers
to the whole context of the Psalm in question, a few
passages of which I here subjoin. Ver. 19, 20 :
" Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and
saidst, I have found David, my servant ; with my
holy oil have I anointed him," Vers, 26, 27 : " He
shall cry unto me, thou art my Father, MY GOD,
and the Rock of MY SALVATION. Also I will
make him my first-born." Ver. 35 : " Once have
I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto
DAFID." Vers. 38, 39 : " But thou hast cast off
and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine
anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of
thy servant." Ver. 44 : " Thou hast made his
glory to cease." Ver. 45 : " Thou hast covered him
with shame." The public now may judge whether
the above sentences are applicable to king David, or
to Jesus, whose glory never ceased, with whom God
has never been wroth, and who cannot be supposed
to have been covered with shame. Besides, it is
evident from this passage, that the term " holy one"
is applied to one constantly styled a servant.
The Editor inquires, (page 570,) what instances I

506
bring that these names, peculiar to God, such as
wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlast
ing Father, the Prince of Peace, were applied to
certain kings in Israel ; I therefore beg to refer him
to the passages mentioned in pages 315 and 316 of
the Second Appeal, in which he will find the same
epithets given to human beings, and even to inani
mate objects.
With a view to deduce the deity of Jesus Christ
from the comparison of Isaiah xxviii. 16, with
Isaiah viii. 13, and with 1 Peter ii. 8, the Reverend
Editor thus comments (page 570): "The declara
tion is, that Jehovah of hosts shall be for a stum
bling-stone, and for a rock of offence to the two
houses of Israel : but after the delivery of this pro
phecy, was he this to them prior to the coming of
Christ? As the house of Israel was carried away
captive a few years after the delivery of this pro
phecy, if not a year or two before, it is doubtful
whether they ever saw this prophecy while in their
own land ; but Christ has been a stone of stumbling
and rock of offence to aU of every tribe for nearly
eighteen centuries, while he has been a sanctuary to
all who have trusted in him." I need not prolong
the discussion by pointing out, that Isaiah deUvered
this prophecy in the reign of Ahaz ; that the capti
vity of one of the houses of Israel took place in the
reign of Hezekiah, his son, and that of the other
house, in the reign of Zedekiah, the ninth king of
Judah, from the time of Ahaz. As the Editor ac-

507
knowledges the fact of the. house of Israel being
" carired away captive a few years after the delivery
of this prophecy," he will undoubtedly be persuaded
to confess also, the circumstance of their distress and
misery just before, as well as during the time of cap
tivity, by an attentive reference to the sacred histo
ries, 2 Kings and 2 Chron. The necessary conse
quence, then, will be, that he will clearly perceive
that the above-stated prophecy of Isaiah had been
duly fulfilled long before Christ's birth, the Lord of
hosts having become for a stumbling-stone and for
a rock of offence to the two houses of Israel, soon
after the prophet's declaration ; and that 1 Peter ii.
7, 8, (" The stone which the builders disallowed,
the same is made the head of the corner. And a
stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, even to
them who stumble at the word, being disobedient,")
is but a general statement of the ill consequences
attached to disobedience, whether on the part of
Israel, or of the Gentiles, to the word delivered to
them by Jesus in his divine commission. Jesus is
here represented as a stone, rejected by men but
chosen by God; and, consequently, he must be a
stumbling-stone to those who reject him, stumbling
at his word. Common sense, if not biassed by early
prejudice, is sufficient to decide, that a stone, which
is chosen and made the head of the corner by a
maker, must not be esteemed as the maker himself.
The Editor comments, however, on the phrase,
" made the head of the corner," in verse 7, saying,

508
" As to his being made the head of the comer by
his heavenly Father, this can no more affect his un
changeable deity, than his being made flesh." This
is as much as to say, that the circumstance of his
being made the head of the corner is as much a
proof of his changeable nature as the fact of his
being made flesh ; for were we to admit, that the
circumstance of an object being made flesh, or mat
ter, which he was not before, does not evince the
changeableness of the nature of that object, we must
then be at a loss to discover even a single changea
ble object in the world. If one's being made flesh,
and his growth and reduction, in the progress of
time, should not be considered as an evidence of a
change in him, every man might claim the honour
of an immutable nature, and set up as God made
flesh. The Editor says, (page 571,) that I " attempted
to evade Isaiah xl. 3, (' The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord,
make straight in the desert a high way for our
God,') by coupling it with Malachi iii. 1, (' Behold,
I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the
way before me ; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall
suddenly corae into his temple, even the messenger of
the covenant, whom ye delight in ; behold, he shall
corae, saith the Lord of hosts,') and confining his
animadversions to the latter." I trust the Editor, by
referring to Mark i. 2, 3, will find, that in coupling
the above verses, I did no more than follow the

509
example of that evangelist, who also coupled them
in his gospel. As the explanation, adopted by me,
of the prophecy of Malachi, fully explains the pas
sage of Isaiah, I confined my animadversion to the
former ; for, " we find in the book of that prophet,
distinct and separate mention of Jehovah, and of the
Messiah, as the messenger of the covenant : John,
therefore, ought to be considered as the forerunner
of both, and as the preparer of the way of both ; in
the same manner as a commander, sent in advance
to occupy a strong post in the country of the enemy,
may be said to be preparing the way for the battles
of his king, or of the general, whom the king places
at the head of his army." (Second Appeal, pp. 285,
286.) On which explanation the Editor observes,
that " The fact is, that Malachi does not mention
two; it is Jehovah who was suddenly to come into
his temple ; and afterwards, Jehovah and the mes
senger of the covenant are identified by the pro
phets," adding, " he shall come," not " they." But
we find, in the original Hebrew, Mai. iii. 1, " and
the messenger of the covenant," with the conjunc
tion " and," after the mention of the Lord. It is,
therefore, evident, that the messenger of the cove
nant is distinctly and separately mentioned. How
the Editor supposes that " Malachi does not men
tion two," I am unable to guess. We find also,
immediately after the mention of " the messenger
of the covenant, whom ye deUght in," the prophet
adds, "Behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of
2l

510
hosts," as the saying of Jehovah.— How can the
mention of the riiessenger of the covenant, in the
third person, by the Deity, prove the unity of that
riiessenger with the Deity? Were we to admit,
that every being spoken of in the third person by
God, is identified with God, the number of iden
tified gods must, in that case, amount at least to
thousands in the sacred writihgs. It is worth ob
serving, that in the original Hebrew, " the mes
senger of the covenant" stands as nominative to the
verb Nl or " shall come," with the pronoun " he."
The verse thus stands in the original : " Behold, I
will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the
way before me ; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shalj
suddenly come to his temple ; and the messenger of
the covenant, whom ye delight in ; behold, he shall
come, (or, IS COMING,) saith the Lord of hosts."
The Editor adds, "That J-esus is Jehovah^ mentioned
in Isaiah xl. 3, whose Way John was sent to pre
pare, is confirmed by., the testimony of Zechariah,
and John his son." As to the nature of Jestis, Ze
chariah gives us to understand, {Luke i. &d,) that
God " hath raised Up an hom of salvation for us in
the house of his servant David." In the eyangelifeal
Writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we find Jesus
represerited by John, as mightier than himself In
John~We find still more explicit testimony, (i, 29,)
" Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the
sin of the world." (30.) " This is he of whom I
said. After me cometh a man who is preferred before

511
me." My readers may now judge whether Zecha
riah and John confirmed the identity of Jesus with
Jehovah, or represented him as a creature raised and
exalted by his and our Father, the Most High.
Some orthodox divine? having attempted to prove
the deity of Jesus, by comparing Isaiah xl. 10,
(" Behold, the Lord God will come with a strong
hand, and his arm shall rule for him : behold, his
reward is with him, and his work before him,") with
Rev. xxii. 12, (" Behold, I come quickly, and my
reward is with me, to give to every man according as
his work shall be,") I brought to their nptice, (in my
Second Appeal, page 296,) John v. 30, 22, " The
Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment unto the Son;" and Matt. xvi. 27, " For
the Son of Man shall corae in the glory of his Fa
ther, with his angels, and then he shall reward every
man according to his wprks." To weaken the force
of my argument, the Editor says, (p. 573,) " These
passages, however, do npt in the least affect the
question, which is not, by what authority Christ re
wards, but whether he he the person described as
rewarding; and this, these very passages confirm,
particularly Rev. xxn. 12." If in the adniinistering
of judgment and of reward, as well as in the per
formance of miracles, the authority by which these
things are done should be qonsidered as a matter of
no consequence, the almighty power of Jesus, and
that of several others, , might be established on an
equal footing. Is it not, therefore, a subject wprthy
2l2

512
of question, whether Joshua ordered the sun and the
moon to stop their motions, by the authority of God,
or by his own power ? Is it not a question worth
determining, whether Elijah raised the dead by the
authority ofthe Most High, or independently ofthe
Almighty power? But if we consider it incurabent
on us to believe and to know that those .prophets
performed works peculiarly ascribed to God, by the
authority of his Divine Majesty ; why should we
not deem it also necessary to ascertain whether the
authority to judge men, and reward them accord
ingly, as well as the power of performing miracles,
were vested in Jesus, by the omnipotent God, or ex
ercised by him independently of the Father of the
universe? In point of fact, we find the following
positive avowal of Jesus himself^" The Father
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son."-—" As I hear I judge ; and my judg
ment is just : because I seek not mine own will, but
the will of the Father who hath sent me." Here
the Editor offers the following explanation, saying,
that "All power, as to providence and final judg
ment, is committed to him, not merely as the Son,
but as the Son of Man, the Mediator, because he
made himself the Son of Man." This amounts to
the doctrine of the two-fold nature of Jesus, the
absurdity of which I have often noticed. I may,
however, be permitted to ask the Editor, whether
there is any authority for the assertion that Jesus,
as the Son of Man, was dependent on God for the

513
exercise of his power; but as the Son pf God was
quite an independent Deity? So far from meeting
with such authority, we find that Jesus, in every
epithet that he was designated by, is described to be
subject to and dependent on God. Acts xvii. 3 1 :
" Because he hath appointed a day in which he will
judge the world in righteousness, by that MAN
whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given
assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him
from the dead." John viii. 28: " Then said Jesus
unto them. When ye have lifted up the SON of
MAN, then shall ye know that I am he, and that /
do nothing qf myself; but as my Father hath taught
me, I speak these things." xvii. 1, 2: " Father, the
hour is come: glorify thy Son, that THY SON also
may glorify thee. As thou hast given HIM power
over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as
many as thou hast given him'' Heb. i. 8, 9 : " Thy
throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever ; a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom : Thou
hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; there
fore God, even THY GOD, hath anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." The
Editor says, "His glory he (the Son) may, for a
season, lay aside, but his divine nature he can never
change." I wish to be informed what kind of divine
nature it was that could be divested of its glory* and
power,-^ even for a season. To my understanding,
* John xvii. 5, 22. f John xvii. 2 ; Acts x. 38.

514
such divinity must be analogous to matter without
space or gravity, or sunbeam without light, which
my limited capacity, I must confess, cannot com
prehend. The Editor finally argues, that " as the Father's
committing to the Son the entire work and glory of
being the final judge of all, judging no man himself,
does not change his glorious nature, so the Son's lay
ing aside his glory and becoming a man, in no way
changes his original natute and godhead." It is true
that God's committirig to the Sph the authority of
judgment, bestowirig on the sun the power pf cast
ing light upon the planets round him, and enabling
superiors to provide food and protection for their de
pendents, do not imply ariy change in his glorious
nature ; for it is ordained by the laWs of nature, that
nothing can be effected, in this visible world, without
the intervention of some physical means ; but that
the Son's, or any other being's, laying aside his
glory and becoming a man, must produce at least a
temporary change in his nature, is a proposition aS
obvious as any that can be submitted to the Under-
stariding. I have, of course, omitted to quote John v. 23,
during this discussion in my Second Appeal, be
cause it has no relation to the subject, and because I
noticed it fully in another part df that publication,
page 1B9.
I will also refrain from noticing, in this place,
Heb. i. 12, alluded to by the Editor, as 1 have

515
already considered that passage as fully as possible
in the preceding chapter, pp. 452, 463.
The Editor next comes to Isaiah xliv. 6 : " Thus
saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his redeemer
Jehovah of hosts, I am the first and I am the last,
and beside me there is no God ;" eojpparing it with
Revi i. 8, and xxn. 13. This argument has been
already replied to in my Second Appeal ; it shall be
again adverted to shortly. He then endeavours to
prove that Jesus cannot be meant as prohibiting
John frora worshipping him in verse 9, saying, that
" In this book five persons address at different times :
two of the elders around the throne, two angels, and
he who is the grand speaker throughout the book —
whom he, after the first chapter, often introduces
without the least notice, while he previously describes
every other speaker with the utmost care." The
Editor, however, has quoted only instances in whidi
John describes the two dders and the two angels in
a distinct manner} but I cannot find that he adduces
even a single instance where the " grand speaker" is
" introdnced without the least notice." Again, he
says, " How Could Jesus forbid John to worship him,
after he received worship by the command of God
from all the angels ?" I may be, on the same prin
ciple, justified in asking the Editw, How the angel
could forbid John to worship him, while he knew
that other angels ojf God, and even human beings,
had received worship from fellow-creatures ? Joshua
V. 14: "And Joshua fell on his face to the ^rth.

516
and did worship, and said unto him," (the captain of
the host of the Lord,) " What saith my Lord unto
his servant ?" Numb, xxii. 31 : " And he (Balaam)
saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and
his sword drawn in his hand, and he bowed down
his head, and fell flat on his face." Daniel ii. 46 :
" Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face
and worshipped Daniel." As the Edhor's argument,
therefore, must apply with equal force to angels as
to Jesus, it is quite plain that no conclusion can be
drawn from it relative to the identity of the being
who, in Rev. xxii. 9, forbids John to worship him.
The fact is, that the word " worship," in scriptural
language, is used sometimes as implying an external
mark of religious reverence paid to God ; and since,
in this sense, worship was offered by John to the
angel, or td Jesus, he refosed it, as is evident from
the last sentence of verse 9, " worship God ;" — and
sometimes the same word " worship" is used as sig
nifying merely a token of civil respect due to supe
riors : and accordingly, in this latter sense, not only
Jesus, but angels and prophets, and even temporal
princes or masters, used to accept of it, as we find
in Matt, xviii. 26, " The servant, therefore, fell down
and worshipped him," and so in various other in
stances. It denotes, in this acceptation, raerely a
mark of reverence, which neither identifies those to
whora it is offered with the Deity, nor raises them
to a level with their Creator, the Most High. My
readers wiU observe, that the author of the hook of

517
Revelation declares hiraself, in ch. i. 17, to have
fallen at the feet of Jesus ; and he speaks also, in
ch. V. 8, of the four beasts and four-and-twenty elders
having fallen down before the Larab; avoiding, how
ever, in these places, as well as throughout the whole
book of Revelation, the use of the word worship to
express the reverence shewn to the Larab ; while to
the words " fell down," when referring to God, he
adds invariably, " and worshipped him." Vide ch-
vii. 11, xi. 16, xix. 4, and v. 14. 3rdly. He says,
" How could Jesus, who declares himself to be Alpha
and Omega, the beginning and the end, reject wor
ship frora John ?" I do not wonder at the Editor's
entirely neglecting to notice my remarks on the
terras " Alpha and Omega," or, " the beginning
and the end," in the Second Appeal, page 295, — to
wit, " Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, are,
in a finite sense, justly appUcable to Jesus," — when
I find hira regardless of the explanation given by
John hiraself respecting these terms, and by St.
Paul, one of his fellow-labourers. Rev. iii. 14:
" These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true
witness, the beginning qf the creation qf God: I
know thy works," ,&c. Col. i. 15 : " The first-bom
of every creature." 1 Cor. xv. 24 : " Then cometh
the end, when he shall have delivered up the king
dom to God, even the Father." Ver. 28 : " And
when all things shall be subdued unto him, then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that
God may be all in all."

518
As to Rev. i. 8, introduced again by the Editor,
the expressions it contains are given as those of God
himself^ and not of Christ, since it describes the
speaker to be Him " who is, and who was, and who
is to come, the Almighty" — an epithet pecuUarly
applied to God five times in the book of Revdation,
and very often throughout the rest of the sacred
writings, and which is but a repetition of what is
found in the preceding verse (4) of that chapter.
Being equivalent to " Jehovah," it has never been
appUed to Jesus in any part of the Revelation, either
separately or joined with the terms " Alpha and
Omega." But, as I have already fully noticed this
verse in page 475, I will not -return to the subject
here. 4thly. The Editor urges, " How could Jesus,
who searches the heart, reject the acceptance of wor
ship ?" In answer to which, I beg to remind him,
that the prophets and the apostles also, as far as
they possessed the gift of prophecy, were able to
discover what passed in the hearts of other men, or,
in other words, were '* searchers of hearts." Thus,
in the Acts (f ihe Apostles, ch. v. 3, 4, 8, 9, St.
Peter is represented as a searcher of the heart ; but
he is again stated, in ch. x. 25, 26, to have prohi
bited Cornelius from offering him worship. And in
2 Kings vi. 32, Elisha is declared to have known
what passed in the heart of the king, without our
therefore acknowledging him as an object of reli
gious worship.
The Editor, lastly, lays stress on the phcase found

619
in Rev. vii. 17, " The Lamb who is in the midst of
the throne," overlooking the application of the same
word " midst" to the elders and the four beasts, in
ch. iv. 6. Besides, such a phrase as " to sit with
the Father on his throne," iraplies nothing in the
book of Revelation except an acquisition of holy
perfection and honour, which Jesus, in common
with every righteous Christian, acquired through his
merits. Ch. iii. 21 : " To him that overeometh will
I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also
overcame, and am set down with my Father in his
throne." In answer to his assertion, that it is " the Lamb
whom the blessed constantly adore, crying, Holy,
holy, holy, Lord God Almighty," I beg to refer my
readers to ch. iv. 8, which contains this phrase ; nay,
rather to the whole of that chapter, where they will
find that no mention of " the Lamb," or Jesus, is
once made.
The Editor observes, (page 577,) that " in verses
5, 6, of ch. xxi., another speaker besides the angel
is introduced in an abrupt manner." I therefore
repeat verse 11 of ch. xx., and verses 5 — 7 of ch.
xxi., and leave my readers to judge whether or not
the speaker here is introduced in the same abrupt *
* In the book of Revelation, John introduces, about eighty
times, different speakers, but not once without a distinct notice
of the speaker in the context. In ch. xvi. 14, 15, the day of the
Lord is metaphorically introduced as a speaker. Vide 1 Thess.
v. 3, and 2 Peter iii, 10.

520
manner as he is alleged to be in ch. xxii. 12, accord
ing to the interpretation of the Editor. Ch. xx. 11 :
" And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat
on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled
away, and there was found no place for them." Ch.
xxi. 5 : " And he that sat upon the throne said.
Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto
me. Write, for these words are true and faithful."
Ver. 6 : " And he said unto me. It is done. I am
Alpha and Omega," &c. Ver. 7: " He that over
eometh shall inherit all things, and I will be his
God, and he shall be my son."
I really cannot perceive what the Editor could
have meant by the following remark : " He there
(in ver. 5) uses the same language found in ch.
xxii. 6, ' Write, for these words are true and faith
ful' !" I hope he could not have intended to identify
the speaker in ch. xxii. 6, who represents himself as
a fellow-servant of John, with the speaker in ch.
xxi. 5, who thus, speaking of himself, says, (ver. 7,)
"I will be his God, and he shall be my son." Be
sides, the language found in ch. xxi. 5, is not " the
very same" used in ch. xxii. 6, since in the former
the whole speech stands thus — " Write, for these
sayings are true and faithful ;" but in the latter we
find only, " These sayings are faithful and true ;"
but not the verb " write" nor the casual preposition
"for." The Editor comes next to what he calls internal
evidence ; saying, " Internal evidence, however, de-

521
monstratcs that this angel neither said, ' Behold I
come quickly,' (ver. 7,) nor ' I am Alpha and Omega'
(ver. 13)." Let us now examine the context, and
the style of the writings of the book of Revelation.
1st. There is not a single instance in the whole book
of Revelation, in which a speech is repeated without
the previous introduction of the speaker ; and in this
instance we find an angel is previously introduced in
ver. 6, as the speaker of ver. 7. The passage in
question (vers. 6 — 13) runs thus : " And he said unto
rae, These sayings are faithful and true: and the
Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to
shew his servants the things which must shortly be
done. Behold, I corae quickly : blessed is he who
keeps the prophecy of this book. I John saw these
things, and heard them. And when I had heard
and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of
the angel who shewed me these things. Then saith
he unto me. See thou do it not ; for I am thy fellow
servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of
them which keep the sayings of this book : worship
God. And he saith unto me. Seal not the sayings
ofthe prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still ; and he
which is filthy, let hira be filthy still: he that is
righteous, let him be righteous still ; and he thatis
holy, let him be holy still. And behold, I come
quickly, and my reward is with rae, to give every
man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha
and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and

522
the last." I am, therefore, quite at a loss to compre
hend how the Editor can justify himself in ascribing
verses 6, 8, and 9, to one being, and verse 7 to ano
ther, in which there is no notice whatsoever of a new
speaker. 2ndly. There is only one agent in. the
whole train of these verses, extending as far as verse
20, and no unbiassed mind can, in the face of all the
rules of composition, reject the relation of a verb to
an appropriate nominative standing before it, in order
to refer the same to a noun which is not found in
any of the immediately preceding sentences. Srdly.
Were we to follow the example of the Editor, and
refer verses 6, 8, and 9, to an unknown angel, and
verse 7 abruptly to Jesus, (which I conceive we
cannot do, without defying common sense, and all
the acknowledged laws of grammar,) we must be
totally at a loss to account for the strange conduct
of John towards Jesus, his Master, in falling down
to worship before the feet of the angel, and neglecting
Jesus entirely, though he saw and heard them both
at one time, or rather his .vision of Jesus was subse
quent to that of the angel. 4thly. John himself
explains whom he meant by the angel mentioned in
xxii. 6, identifying this angel with Jesus, expressly
named in the first chapter of Revelation. Chap.
xxn. 6 : " And the Lord God of the holy prophets
sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things
which must shortly be done." Chap. i. 1 : " God
gave unto him, (Jesus,) to shew unto his servants
things which must shortly come to pass." As in the

523
English version there is some difference, though of
no consequence, in these two phrases, I therefore
quote the original, containing the precise words in
both instances, Bsi^ai to«s hovTiOig aorou a. ^si ysvsa^M
ev ra^si. I hope now that the explanation of the author of
the book of Revelation, joined with the above-stated
circumstances, will not fall short of producing con
viction in the raind of the Editor and my other op
ponents. We may easily find out the angel who is described
in the latter end of chap. i. 1, as being sent by Jesus,
by reference to chap. xxii. 16 : "I Jesus have sent
mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches." We find here two things distinctly : one,
that Jesus, designated as an angel in xxii. 6, shewed,
as directed by God in ch. i. 1, all things which must
shortly comelto pass ; and the other, that he sent his
angel to shew to John and his other servants these
things in the churches, respecting the Christian dis
pensation, as expressly mentioned in ver. 1 of the
book of Revelation, as well as in xxii. 16. 5thly.
I will now have recourse to the rule recom
mended by the Editor, " that when the speaker is
not expressly named, his language designates him."
As the phrase "I corae quickly," found elsewhere in
the book of Revelation, is used expressly by Jesus as
speaker in five different instances, (ii. 5, 16, iii. 11,
xxn. 12, 20,) we must naturally ascribe this phrase
in ver. 7, to Jesus, and must, therefore, refer the

524
immediately following verses (8, 9) to him, in per
fect consistency with all other scriptural writings.
It is not only in ver. 9 that Jesus calls himself a
servant of God, and addresses Christians as brethren,
but also in Matt. xii. 18, he represents himself as a
chosen servant ofthe Most High; and in xxviii. 10,
and John xx. 17, designates the disciples as his
brethren. If the Editor should say, according to the general
mode of Trinitarian exposition, that the adoption of
such designations was in reference to the human
capacity of Jesus, he will perhaps give up the present
difference from me, under the supposition that in this
instance also Jesus calls himself a servant of God,
and his followers brethren, as well as forbids John to
worship him, merely in his human capacity.
I now conclude my reply to this branch of the
Editor's argument, with a few remarks in allusion to
such questions of the Editor, as "Is it that the Son
of God, after receiving the worship of the highest
archangel at God's express command, forbade John
to worship him ?" &c. I would ask, in turn. Can
any man be justified in ascribing deity to one whose
language is this : " As I received of my Father"
{Rev. ii. 27) ; " I have not found thy works perfect
before God" (iii. 2) ; "I wUl confess his name before
my Father, and before his angels," (ver. 5) ; " Him
that overcoraeth will I make a pillar in the temple
of my God: I will write upon him the name of
my God, and the name of the city of my God, which

525
cometh down out of heaven from my God"} (Ver. 12.)
Is it consistent with the nature of God to acquire
exaltation through merit? Chap. v. 12: "Saying
with a loud voice. Worthy is the Lamb that was
slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and
strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing."
Ch. iii. 21 : " To him that overeometh will I grant
to sit with me in my throne, even as / also over
came, and am set down with my Father in his throne."
Is it becoming of the nature of God to sing thus,
addressing himself to another being : " Great and
marvellous are thy works. Lord God Almighty ;
just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy
name ? for thou only art holy," &c. ? ch. xv. 3, 4.
Is not the Lamb throughout the whole Revelation
mentioned' separately and distinctly from" God?
Ch. i. 1 : " The Revelation of. Jesus Christ, which
God gave unto him." Ver, 2: " Who bare record
of the word qf God, and of the testimony qf Jesus
Christ." Vers. 4, 5 : "And peace from him who
is, and who was, and who is to come ; and from the
seven spirits which are before his throne; and from
Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness. Ver. 9 :
" For the word of God, and for the testimony of
Jesus Christ." Ch. v. 9 : " Thou wast slain, and
hast redeemed us to God." Ver. 10 : "And hast
made us unto our Godkings and priests." Ch. xi. 15 :
" The kingdoms of this world are become the kingS
doms of our Lord, and of his Christ." Ch. xii. 17 :
2m

526
" Who keep the commandments of God, and have
the testimony of Jesus Christ." Ch. xiv. 12 : " That
keep the pommandments of God, and the faith of
Jesus." Ch, xxi. 23 : " For the glory of God did
lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." John
in ascribing to the Lamb most honorary epithets,
those generally printed in capitals,. takes great care
in the choice of words. Ch. xix. 16 : " He (the
Lamb) hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name
written. King of kings, and Lord of lords, Ch. xvii.
14 : " For he (the Larab) is Lord of lords, and King
of kings," The apostle never once declares him td
be " God of Gods," the pecuUar epithet of the
Almighty Power. So the most holy saints sing
first the song of Moses, and then that of the Lamb ;
having perhaps had in view the priority of the for
mer to the latter in point of birth. Ch. xv. 3 :
" And they (the holy saints) sing the song of Moses,
the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb."
In answer to one of the many insinuations made
by the Editor in the course of his arguments, to wit,
" If this be Christ, what must become of the pre
cepts of Jesus ?" (page 576,) I most reluctantly put
the following query in reply : If a slain lamb be God
Almighty, or his true emblem, what must be his
worship, and what must become of his worshippers ?
On the attempt to prove the deity of Jesus Christ
by comparing Isaiah xiv. 23, (" Unto me," i. e. God,
every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear,")
with Rom. xiv. 10 — 12, ("But why dost thou judge

527
thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy
brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-
seat of Christ For it is written. As I live, saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue
shall confess to God. So, then, every one of us shall
give account of himself to God,") I observed in my
Second Appeal, (page 288,) that " between the pro
phet and the apostle there is a perfect agreement in
substance, since both declare that it is to God that
every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess
through him before whose judgment-seat we shall
all stand : at the same time both Jesus and his
apostles inform us, that we must stand before the
judgment-seat of Christ, because ihe Father hqs com- *
mitted the office of final judgment to him." To
which the answer of the Editor is this, " We here
beg leave to ask our authdr, where the phrase through
him is to be found ? It must be in the author's copy
of the prophet and the apostle — it is not in ours."
By these words the Editor clearly means to insinuate,
that the words in question are gratuitously inserted
in my explanation, and without any authority in the
Holy Scriptures. At least I am otherwise at a loss
to understand what he means by saying that the
words of ray paraphrase ate not to be found in his
edition of the Bible ; for it would be unworthy to
suppose of him that he Wished to impress his readers
with the idea, that I was quoting a particular passage
falsely, instead of the fact that I was only giving my
idea of its import. That I was fully warranted in
2m2

528
my interpretation, I hope to convince the Editor
himself, by teferring him to the following passages,
in which it is expressly declared that it is through
Jesus that glory and thanks are to be given to God,
and that we have peace with God ; and also that it
is BY Jesus Christ that God judgeth the world.
Rom. xvi. 27 : " To God only wise, be glory through
Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." Ch. v. i. " We have
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Ch. i. 8 : "I thank my God through Jesus Christ."
Ch. ii. 16 : " In the day when God shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. v. 18 :
" All thuigs are of God, who hath reconciled us to
himself hy Jesus Christ." John v. 22 : " For the
Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all jadg-
ment unto the Son." After considering these texts,
no one can, I think, refuse to admit the correctness
of my assertion, that it is to God every knee shall
bow through Christ, before whose judgment-seat we
shall stand, " because the Father has committed the
office of final judgment to him," as being founded
upon the best authority that man can appeal to.
Upon the interpretation of the above-mentioned
passage of Isaiah, to wit, " It is Jesus that swears
here by himself," I observed in my Second Appeal,
" How can they escape the context, which expressly
informs us that Jehovah God, and not Jesus, sware
in this manner ?" To this the Editor replies, that
" the Son was Jehovah before he was Jesus," &c.
Is not this merely a begging of the question, inas-

529
much as one may equally assert that Moses or
Joshua was Jehovah before he was Moses or
Joshua ?
He further says, that " Jesus is so preeminently
Saviour, that there is salvation in no other." I agree
with the Editor so far as to declare Jesus to be,
under God, the only Saviour mentioned in the re
cords of the Christian dispensation ; but previous to
his birth there were many saviours raised by God
to save his servants, as noticed already in pages
402, 409.
The Editor adds, that in [^Isaiah xiv.] ver. 24, righ
teousness is used in such a sense as is principally appli
cable to the Son. I therefore transcribe the verse, that
the reader may judge whether or not his position has
any foundation : " Surely, shall one say, in the
Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to
hira shall men come; and all that are incensed
against him shall be asharaed."
Respecting the attempt to prove the deity of Jesus
from the circumstance of his being figuratively
represented as the husband or the supporter of his
church, John iii. 29, F^h. v. 23^ and also God's
being called the husband of his creatures, Isaiah
liv. 5 — I requested in my Second Appeal, (pages 292,
293, that " my readers would be pleased to examine
the language employed in these two instances. In
the one, God is represented as the husband of all his
creatures, and in the other, Christ is declared to be
the husband, or the head of hSs followers : ' there is.

530
therefore, an inequality of authority evidently as
cribed to God and to Jesus. Moreover, Christ him
self shews the relation that existed between him and
his church, and himself and God, in John xv. 1 :
' I ara the true vine, and my Father is the husband
man.' Ver. 5 : ' I am the vine, ye are the branches,'
&c. Would it not be highly unreasonable to set
at defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus_between
God, himself, and his chnrch ?" The Editor has not
taken the least notice of this last argument ; he only
glances over the former, saying, (page 579,) " Had
our author examined the context with sufficient care,
he would have found that those to whom God de
clares himself the husband, are so far from being all
his creatures, that they are only one branch of his
church, the Gentiles, the children of the desolate, in
opposition to the Jews, the children of the married
wife." I wonder how the choice of the designation
" thy Maker," in Isaiah Uv. 5, in preference to
others, and its true force, could escape the notice of
the Editor, as the phrase " thy Makpr is thy hus
band" irnpUes in a genera.1 sense that whosoever is
the niaker is also the preserver, and, consequently,
God is the husband, or the preserver, pf all his crea
tures, ineluding the Jews more especially as his
chosen people. I, however, wish to know how the
Editor justifies himself in concluding real unity be
tween God and Jesus from the application of the
term husband to them^^ while Jesus declares the
relation between God, himself, and his church, to

531
be such as that existing between the husbandman,
the vine, and its branches*
Sorae orthodox divines having attempted to esta
blish the deity of Jesus, by comparing Jer. xxiii.
5, 6, (" I will raise unto David a righteous branch,
and a king shall reign and prosper — and this is his
name whereby he shall be called, the lord our
righteousness,") with 1 Cor. i. 30, (" Christ Jesus,
who of God is raade unto us wisdom and righteous
ness," &c.,) I replied, in my Second Appeal, (page
286,) that " I only refer my readers again to the
passage in Jer. xxxiii. 16, in which Jerusalem also
is called 'the lord our righteousness,' and to
the phrase, ' is made unto us of God', found in the
passage in question, and expressing the inferiority of
Jesus to God; and also to 2 Cor. v. 21, ' that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him ;'
where St. Paul says, that all Christians may ' be
made the righteousness of God ;' " to which the Re
verend Editor thus replies (page 5QQi) : " This does
not at all affect the question in hand, which is simply,
whether this righteous branch of David, this king,
who shall reign and prosper, be JeSus Christ or not :
and to prove this, we need only call in the testimony
of the angel to Mary, Luke i. 32, 33, ' The Lord
God shall give unto him the throne of his father
David : And he shall reign over the house of Jacob
for ever.' " The Editor here overlooks again, the
force of the phrase, " God shall give unto him (Jesus)
the throne of his father David," implying, that the

632
throne and exaltation which Jesus was possessed of,
was but the^ee gift oi God.
To lessen the force of such phrases as, " being
made of God," " God shall give unto him," &c., the
Editor adds, that, " relative to his ' being made of
God righteousness to us,' this can of course make no
alteration in the Son's eternal nature." I therefore
beg to ask the Editor, if one's being made by an
other any thing whatsoever that he was not before,
does not tend to prove his mutable nature, what na
ture, then, can be called mutable in this transitory
world ? The Editor again advances, that Jesus
" was Jehovah before he became incarnate," &c.
This is a bare assertion which I must maintain to be
without any grdund, unless he means to advance the
doctrine, that souls are emanations of God and pro
ceed from the deity.
As to Jerusalem being called, " Jehovah our
righteousness," the Editor says, " We raay observe,
that it is the church of Christ, the holy Jerusalera,
yiho bears this name, to the honour of her glorious
head and husband, who is, indeed, Jehovah her
righteousness." (Page 581.) Let us reflect on this
answer of the Editor. In the first place, the term
Jerusalem, in Jer. xxxiii. 16, from its association
with the term " Judah," is understood as signifying
the well-known holy city in that kingdom, having
no reference to the church or followers of Christ.
In the second place, if the Editor understands by
the term " Jerusalem," here, the church of Christ,

533
and admits of Jerusalem being figuratively called
" Jehovah our righteousness," on the ground that
Christ is its head, and that, consequently, it bears
that name " to the honour of her glorious head"
though, in reality, different from and subordinate to
him, how can he reject the figurative application of
the phrase " Jehovah our righteousness" to Jesus,
on the same ground and same principle, which is,
that as Jehovah is the head of Christ, consequently
Christ bears this name " to the honour of his head"
though, in reality, different frora and subordinate to
God? Vide 1 Cor. xi. 3 : "But I would have you
know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the
head of the woraan is the man, and the head of
Christ is God."
The Editor shews an instance in Isaiah, in which
seven women wish to be called by the name of a
husband, to have their reproach taken away. He
must also know, that thousands of sons and descen
dants are called by the name of one of their fathers,
and servants by the name of their masters, to the
honour of the father or the master. Vide Isaiah
xlviu. 1; Gen. xlin. 6; Hosea xi. 8, 9; Exod. xxiu.
21. The Editor then proceeds to divide the hono
rary names, found in scripture, into two kinds ; one
given by men, and the other given by God ; but he
must know that the names given by prophets, or by
common men, if used and confirmed by God, or by
any of the sacred writers, become as worthy of at-

534
tention as if they had been bestowed originally by
the Deity himself.
The Editor again uses the following words, " The
incommunicable narae Jehovah," the self-existent,
from the verb mn hawah, " to be or to exist,"
" which is applied to no one throughout the Scrip
ture besides the sacred three," &c. We know very
numerous instances in which the name " Jehovah"
is applied to the most sacred God, but never met
with an instance of applying to two other sacred
persons the simple term " Jehovah." I wish the
Editor had been good enough to have taken into
consideration that this is the very point in dispute,
and to have shewn instances in which the second
and third persons of the deity (according to the
Editor's expression) are addressed by this name.
He forther observes, that " no one supposes that
Jehovah-Jireh, " God will see or provide," given by
Abraham to the place where he offered Isaac, was
intended to deify that place, but to perpetuate the
fact that the Lord did there provide a sacrifice in
stead of Isaac; — that Jehovah-nissi, "God, my
banner," given by Moses to his altar, intended any
thing more than that God was his banner against
the Amalekites ; — that Jehovah-tsidkenu, " Jehovah
our righteousness," the name men should call Jeru
salem, or Christ's church, was intended to deify her,
but to demonstrate that her Lord and head, who is
righteousness, is indeed Jehovah." Here I follow the

535
very same mode of interpretation, adopted by the
Editor, in explaining the sarae phrase, " The Lord
our righteousness," found in Jer. xxiii. 6, referred to
the Messiah ; that is, the appUcation of this phrase to
the Messiah does not deify him, but demonstrates,
that his Father, his employer, his head, the Most
High, who is his righteousness, is the Lord Jeho
vah ; so that the consistency cannot be overlooked
which prevails through all the phrases of a similar
nature ; for as Christ is represented to be the head
of his church, so God is represented to be the head
of Christ, as I noticed in the foregoing page 533.
Lastly, the Editor says, " Compound names, there
fore, do not of themselves express deity, but they
express facts more strongly than simple assertions or
propositions." I ara glad to observe, that he differs
frora a great many of his colleagues, in their attempt
to deify the Messiah from the application of the
above phrase to him ; but as to the facts demon
strated by this phrase, they may be easily ascer
tained from comparing the application of it with
that of exactly similar phrases to others, as I have
just observed.
The Editor now raentions (page 583) a few more
passages which, he thinks, tend to " illustrate, not so
ranch the narae as the divine nature of the Son. In
Jer. V. 22, we have this expostulation ; ' Fear ye
not me ? saith the Lord. WiU ye not tremble at my
presence, who have placed the sand for the bound of
the sea, by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it :

536
and though the waves toss themselves, yet can they
not prevail?' This, however, is only a part of that
work of creation ascribed to him, who, while on
earth, exercised absolute dorainion over the winds
and the waves in no name beside his own." But
what this passage of Jeremiah has to do with the
divine nature of Jesus, I am unable to discover.
The Editor might have quoted, at this rate, all the
passages of the Old Testament, that ascribe to God
the supreme controul over the whole world, as evi
dence in favour of the deity of Jesus, as he was sure
to find always many persons of the same persuasion
to applaud any thing offered in favour of the Trinity.
As to his position, that Jesus " exercised absolute
dominion over the winds and the waves in no name
beside his own," I beg to quote John x. 25, to shew,
that whatever power Jesus, in comraon with other
prophets, exercised over wind and water while he
was on earth, he did it in the name of God : " Jesus
answered them, I told you, and ye believed not ; the
works that I do in my Father's name, they bear
witness of me." " And Jesus lifted up his eyes and
said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me."
I say Jesus in common with other prophets, because
both Elijah and Elisha the prophets, exercised power
over wind and water and other things, like Jesus, in
the name of the Father of the universe. 1 Kings
xvU. 1, xviu. 44, 45 ; 2 Kings n. 21 ; sometimes
without verbally expressing the name of God ; ch,
v. 8—13, 27, ch. U. 10.

537
Upon the assertion in my Second Appeal, that
the " epithet God is frequently applied in the Sacred
Scriptures to others beside the Supreme Being," the
Editor observes, that " this objection Jeremiah cuts
up, ch, X. 1 1 : ' The gods that have not made the
heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from
the earth, and frora under these heavens;' which
declaration sweeps away not only the gods of the
heathen, but all raagisterial gods, and even Moses
himself, as far as he aspited to the godhead : but
frora this general wreck of our author's gods, Christ
is excepted, he having raade these heavens, and laid
the foundation of the earth." Let us apply this rule
adopted by the Editor respecting the prophets, to
Jesus Christ. We do not find him once represented
in the Scriptures as the maker of heavens and earth,
this peculiar attribute having been throughout the
whole sacred writings ascribed exclusively to God
the Most High. As to the instances pointed out by
the Editor, Heb. i. 10, and Col. i.\7, I fully ex
plained them in pp. 447, 448, 452, as having refer
ence to God, the Father of the universe. Moreover,
we observe in the New Testament, even in the same
book of Hebrews, that whatever things Jesus made
or did, he accompUshed as an instruraent in the
hands of God. Heb. i. 2 : " Whom he hath ap
pointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the
worlds." Ephes. iii. 9 : " Who created all things
by Jesus Christ." It would, indeed, be very strange
to our faculties to acknowledge one as the true God,

638
and yet to maintain the idea that he created things
by the directions of another being, and was appointed
as heir of all things by that other. Again, in pur
suance of the same rule of the Editor, I find that
Jesus, like other perishable gods, both died and was
buried, though raised afterwards by his Father, who
had the power of raising Elijah to heaven, even
without suffering hira to die and be buried for a
single day. My readers may now judge whether
Jesus Christ be not included, in common with other
perishable gods, in the rule laid down by the Editor.
To deify Jesus Christ, the Editor again introduces
the circumstance of his being a searcher of hearts, to
execute judgment. Rev. ii. 23, and also quotes Heb. ¦
i. 3, Having examined these arguments in pages
449 and 518, I will not return to them herp.
He adds, in this instance, " We are hence assured
that the Father, who perfectly knows the Son, did
not commit to him all judgment so entirely as to
judge no man himself^ without knowing his infinite
fitness for the work." It is evident that the Father
did not commit to the Son all judgment so entirely
as to jndge no man himself, without qualifying him
for so doing, that is, without giving him the power
of knowing all the events of this world in order to
the distribution of rewards and punishments. Matt.
xxviu. 18: " All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth." Notwithstanding this, the power of
knowing those things that do not respect the execu
tion of judgment by the Son, is not bestowed upon

539
him, and the Son, therefore, is totally ignorant of
them. Mark xiii. 32 : " But of that day and that
hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels which
are in heaven ; neither the Son, but "the Father."
No one destitute of the power of omniscience is ever
acknowledged as Supreme God by any sect that
believe in revealed religion.
He quotes Heb. iv. 13, " Neither is there any
creature that is not manifest in his sight ; but all
things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him
with whom we have to do," in order to corroborate
the idea that Christ knew all the secrets of men.
Supposing this passage to be applicable to Jesus
Christ, it does not convey any other idea than what
is understood by Rev. ii. 23, which I have already
noticed. But the Editor must know that in the
iraraediately preceding verse, the word of God, or
revelation, while figuratively represented as a two-
edged sword, &c., is in the sarae allegorical sense
declared to be " a discerner of the thoughts and
intents of the heart." There is, therefore, no incon
sistency in ascribing the knowledge of the intents of
hearts to hira through whora that revelation is com
municated, and who is appointed to judge whether
the conduct of men is regulated by them in conform
ity to that revelation.
The Editor says, (page 584,) that "in Ezekiel
xxviii., God says, respecting a man who arrogated
to himself the honours of Godhead, ' Son of man,
say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord

540
God ; — Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast
said, I am a God, — behold, thou shalt die the death
of the uncircumcised,' &c. How different the Fa
ther's language to the Son : "" Thy throne, O God,
is for ever and ever ! Why this different language
to the prince of Tyrus and to Jesus?" Had the
Editor attentively referred to the Scriptures, he would
not have taken the trouble of putting this question
to me ; for he would have easily found the reason
for this difference ; that is, the king of Tyrus called
himself God, as above-stated ; but Jesus, so far from
robbing the Deity of his honour, never ceased to
confess that God was both his God and his Father.
(John XX. 17.) Also, that the prince of Tyrus ma
nifested disobedience to God; but Jesus even laid
down his life in submission to the pvirposes of God,
and attributed divine favour towards himself to his
entire obedience to the Most High. Rom. v. 1 9 :
'' For as by one raan's disobedience, raany were
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous." John x. 17 : " Therefore doth
my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that
I might take it again." Luke xxii. 42 : " Father, if
thou be willing, remove this cup frora me : never
theless, not my will, but thine be done." As the
conduct of the prince and that of Jesus towards God
were quite different, they were differently treated by
the Father of the universe. As to the above verse,
(" Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,") God
does not peculiarly address Jesus with the epithet

541
God, but he also uses for the chiefs of Israel and for
Moses the same epithet.
The Editor quotes 1 Cor. iv. 5 : " Judge nothing
before the time, until the Lord come, who both will'
bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will
make manifest the counsels of the heart ; and then
shall every man have praise of God." The passage
simply amounts to this : " Judge not either me or
others before the time, until the Lord come, who
will bring to light the dark and secret counsels of
men's hearts, in preaching the gospel ; and then
shall every one have that praise, that estimate set
upon him by God himself, which he truly deserves."
— Locke.
¦ It is not Jesus alone that was empowered by God
to know and to judge all secret events ; but, on par
ticular occasions, others were intrusted with the same
power, as has already been noticed in page 518, and
will also be found in Dan. ii. 23 : " I thank thee,
and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast
given me wisdom and might, and hast made known
unto me now what we desired of thee ; for thou hast
now made known unto us the king's matter." And
in 2 Samuel xiv. 19, 20: "And the king (David)
said. Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this?
And the woman answered and said. My Lord is
wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God,
to know all things that are in the earth." I Cor.
vi. 2, 3: " Do ye not know that the. saints. shaU
judge the world? And if the world shall be judged
2n

542
by you, are fe unworthy to judge the smallest mat
ters ? Know ye not that wte shall judge angels ?"
&c. Here Christian saints are declared to be judges
of the deeds of the whaie world, and of dourse to be
possessors of a knowledge of all events, both public
and; private, so as to enable them to perform so deli
cate a judgment. Besides, a knowledge of future
events is by no means less WPnderful than that of
past things or present secrets of hearts ; yet we find
all the prophets of God W^ere endued with the former.
I Kings XX. 22: " And the prophet came to the
king of Israel, and said unto him, 'Go, strengthen
thyself, land mark, and see what thou dPest ; for at
the return of the year the king of Syria will come
up against thee " So we find the same gift of foture
knowledge granted to righleous men in numerous
l«ista«e!es. H-e then cites Dmiel i. and vii., and founds upon
them the fofipWkjg question: " If, then, by nature
hfe Was feot Gdd^ t^ iMure the cteatot of heaven and
teat^, he md his kingdoin must psri:^ from under
the heavens." To this my reply is, that we ^nvd
Jipstis subjected to the death of the cross while on
earthy andj aftfer the -general resurrection, to Him
that put all things under him. (1 Cor. xv. 28.)
The Ste, therefpte, is not % nature G®d, the cre-
atPt'of heayen and earth. As to the sophistry that
attr?btites the death and subjugation of Jesus only to
his human capacity, it migjht be applicable to every
human individual, alleging 'that Ihey, being the chil-

543
dren of Adam, the son of God, (Luke in. 38,) are
¦possessed of a divine nature also, and that their death,
consequently, is in their human capacity alone, but
that in their divine nature they cannot be sulgected
to death. (Vide pp. 464 — 469 of this Essay.)
By applying to Jesus the epithet " most holy,"
found in Dan. ix. 24, the Editor attempts to prove
the eternal deity of the Son, forgetting, perhaps, that
the same term " most holy" is applied in the Scrip^
tures even to inanimate things. Numb, xviii. 10 c
*' In the most holy place shalt thou eat it." Exod,
xxix. 37 : " It shall be an altar most holy."
The Editor, in noticing Hosea, says, that " the
evangelist's quoting this passage, (' Out of Egypt
hfcve I called my scai,') plainly shews that it r^erred
to Christ as well as to Israel ; but the difference is
manifest: Israel was God's adopted son, constantly
rebelling against his Father ; Jesus was God's proper
son, of the same nature with his Father, (as is every
proper son,) and did always what |deased him."
This assertion ofthe Editor, that " Israel was God's
adopted son," is, I think, without foundation; for
they are declared, like Jesus, to be begotten sons of
God ; but were not, Uke Ghrist, entirdy devoted to
the wiU ofthe Father of the universe. Deut. xxxii.
18 : "Ofthe iRock that begat ihee thou art unmind
ful, and hast forgwtten God that formed thee." Exod,
iv. 22 : " And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus
saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first-
bom." He then quotes Hosea iii. 5 : " Afterward
2n2

544
shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord
their God, and David their king," On which he
comments, that David had then been in his grave-—
he could be sought only in heaven : — as David, in
common with other saints, could not search the
heart and know the sincerity of prayers, this pro
phecy must be asagned to the son of David, the
Messiah. I really regret to observe, that as the Jews
endeavour to misinterpret such -passages as are most
favourable to the idea of Jesus being the expected
Messiah, so Christians, in general, try to refer to
Jesus any passages that can possibly be explained as
bearing the least allusion to their notion of the Mes
siah, however distant in fact they may be from such
a notion. By so doing, they both only weaken their
respective opinions. The above citation, on which
the Editor now dwells, is an instance. Let us refer
to the text of Hosea iu. 4 : " For the children of
Israel shaU abide many days without a king, and
without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and with
out an image, and without an ephod, and without
teraphim." Ver. 5 : " Afterward shall the children
of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and
David theif king, and shall fear the Lord and his
goodness in the latter days." Does not the poetical
language of the prophet determine to the satisfaction
of every unbiassed man, that, after long sufferings,
Israel will repent of their disobedience, and seek the
protection of their God, and the happiness which
their fathers enjoyed during the reign of David ? as

545
it is very natural for a nation or tribe, when oppres
sed by foreign conquerors, to remember their own
ancient kings, under whose governments their fathers
were prosperous, and to wish a return of their reign,
if possible. If the Editor insist upon referring this
prophecy to Jesus, he must wait its fulfilment ; as
Israel has not as yet sought Jesus, as the son of
David, the Messiah, who was promised to them.
The Editor says, (page 586,) that Peter, in Acts
ii. 21, appUes to Jesus Joel ii., whereby he iden
tifies Jehovah with him: but we find Peter here
quoting only a part of Joel ii, 32 : " And it shall
come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name
of the Lord shall be saved." So far from applying
this to the Son, and identifying him with God, the
apostle explains, in the immediately following verse,
(22,) his nature, and his total subordination to God :
" Ye raen of Israel, hear these words ; Jesus of Na
zareth, a man approved of God among you by mi
racles and wonders and signs, which God did by
him in the midst of you," &c. The Editor then
adds, that Paul also addressed himself " to all who,
in every place, call on the name of Jesus Christ our
Lord." (I Cor. i, 2.) I therefore quote Locke's
paraphrase on this verse, as well as his note on
Rom. X, 13, with a view to shew the Editor, that the
phrase, " call on the narae of Jesus," is not a correct
translation in the English version. " To the church
of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sepa
rated from the rest of the world, by faith in Jesus

546
Christy called to be saints, with all that are every
where called by the name of Jesus Christ, their:
Lord and ours." (Locke on 1 Cor> i. 2.) Note on
Rom. Xi 13, page 384 : " Whosoever hath, with
care, looked into St. Paul's writings, must own him
to be a close reasoner, that argues to the point ; and
therefore, if, in the three preceding verses, he re
quires an open profession of the gospel, I cannot but
think, that ' all that call upon him,' (verse 12,) sig
nifies, all that are open, professed Christians ; arid if
this be the meaning of ' calUng upon him,' (verse
12,) it is plain it must be the meaning of ' calling
upon his name,' (verse 13,) a phrase not very remote
from ' naming his name,' which is used by St. Paul
for professing Christiariity, 2 Tim, ii. 19, If the
meaning of the prophet Joel, from whom these
words are taken, be urged, I shall only say, that it
will be an ill rule for interpreting St. Paul, to tie up
his use of any text he brings out of the Old Testa
ment, to that which is taken to be the meaning of it
there. We need go no farther for an example than
the 6th, 7th, and Sth verses of this chapter, which I
desire any one to read as they stand, {Deut. xxx. 11
—14,) and see whether St. Paul uses them here, in
the same sense." If the Editor still insists upon the
accuracy of the translation of the phrase, " call upon
the name of JesUs," found in the version, he will, I
hope, refer to Matt, x. 40 — 42 : " He that receiveth
you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth
him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in

547
the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's re
ward, &c. — And whosoever shall give to drink unto
one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in
the name of a disciple, verily, I say unto you, he
shall in no wise lose his reward ;"->^when he wili
perceive, that calUng on the name of Jesus, as being
the Messiah sent by Godj. is an indirect call on the
name ofGod; in the same manner as one's yielding
to a general sent by a king, amounts to his submis
sion to the king himself^ and secures for him the
same favour ofthe king as if he had yielded directly
to the sovereign.
The Editor then quotes Arms iv. 13, perhaps on
account of its containing the phrase, " declaring
unto man what is his thought." As I have noticed
this su^ect alteady, oftener than once, pages 618
and 541, I will not return to it here.
He again quotes Zech. iii. 2: "And Jehovah said
unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan ; even
Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee :
is not this a brand plucked out of the fire ?" The
Editor then proceeds to say, that " this passage,
with ch. ii. 8, * Thus saith. the Lprd of hosts. After
the glory hath he sent me,' and ch. xiii. 7,, * Awake,
O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who
is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts,' forms another
three-rfold testimony of the distinct personality of the
Son, and hjs equaUty with the Father." I am un
able to discover exactly what the Editor intends by
his two first qsaotations. With respect to the former.

548
that " Jehovah said unto iSatan, Jehovah rebuke
thee," &c,, the Editor must be well aware that God
speaks of himself, very frequently, throughout the
sacred books, in the third person, instead of the first.
Isaiah li. 1 : " Hearken to me, ye that follow after
righteousness, ye that seek the Lord," &c. 15 :
" But I am the Lord thy God, that divided the sea,
whose waves roared : The Lord of hosts is his. name."
Even in this very hook oi Zechariah, we find that
the prophet speaks of himself sometimes in the
third person. Zech. i. 7: " In the second year of
Darius, came the word of Jehovah unto Zechariah,"
&c. vii. 8: " And the word of the Lord came unto
Zechariah, saying," &c. Neither God's nor Zecha-
riah's speaking of himself, in the third person, in
poetical language, can be construed into a proof, of
the pluraUty of either of their persons, or of the
equality of either with some other being. .; The fact
is, that Zechariah prophesies, in the secpnd year of
Darius, king of Persia, of the Lord's will to build
the second temple of Jerusalem, by Joshua, Zerub-.
babel, and Senrnh ; and to rebuke Satan, who would
discourage Joshua, the high-priest, from that un
dertaking ; as is evident from the following passage.
Zech. i, 1 : " In the eighth month, in the second
year of Darius, came the word of the Lord to Ze-
chariah," &c, 16: " Therefore, thus saith the Lord,
I am returned, to Jemsalem with mercies; my house
shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and a
line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem." ii. 2:

549
" Then said I, Whither goest thou i" And he said
unto me. To measure Jerusalem," &c. iii. 1, 2:
" And he shewed me Joshua the high-priest stand
ing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing
at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said
unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan ; even
the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee :
is not this a brand plucked out of the fire ?" As to
Zerubbabel, the" prophet says, iv. 9, " The hands of
Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house ;
his hands shall also finish it" &c. Respecting
Semuh, vi. 12, 13, " Thus speaketh the Lord of
hosts, saying. Behold the man whose narae is Se
muh ; and he shall grow up out of his place, and ye
shall build the temple of the Lord : Even he shall
build the temple of the Lord ; and he shall bear the
glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and
he shall be a priest upon his throne : and the coun
sel of peace shall be between them both," — that is,
between Semuh and Joshua, raentioned in the im
mediately preceding verse 11. In the English ver
sion the meaning of the name of Semuh is used, viz.
" Branch," instead of Semuh itself, both here and in
ch. iii. 8, and the comraentators choose to apply the
narae thus translated to Jesus, though no instance
can be adduced of Jesus Christ's having been so
called, and though the prophet expressly says, in
ch. vi. 12, " whose name is Semuh." He is speak
ing of the SECOND building of the temple, which
began in the reign of Darius, king of Persia, long

550
before the birth of Christ. Vide the whole book of
Zechariah. The second quotation is, " For thus saith the Lord
of hosts. After the glory hath he sent me unto the
nations which spoiled you ; for he that toucheth
you, toucheth the apple of his eye." (ii. 8.) The
prophet here communicates to the people the words
of God, that " after he has sent me with his will, to
the nations who tyrannize over Israel, that* he who
touches Israel touches the apple of his own eye."
Zechariah very often, in his book, introduces him
self as being sent by God ; but how the Editor,
from these circumstances, infers the separate per
sonality of the Son, or his equality with the Father,
he will, I hope, explain. If he insists upon the
equality of the Most High, with him who says, in
the verse in question, " After the glory hath he sent
me," (upon some ground that we know nothing of^)
he would be sorry to find at last, that he equalizes
Zechariah, instead of Jesus, with God. I will, ac
cording to the plan already adopted, notice the third
quotation, " Awake, O sword," (xiii, 7,) in a subse
quent chapter, among the other passages alluded to
in the second chapter of this work,
* The word >d in the original Hebrew, signifies " that," as
well as " for." See Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon.

551

CHAPTER IV.
On the Editor's Replies to the Arguments contained^
in Chapter II. qf the Second Appeal,
To my inquiry, in the Second Appeal, " Have we
not his (Christ's) own express and often repeated
avowal, that all the powers he manifested were com
mitted to him as the Son, by the Father of the uni
verse ?" the Editor thus replies in the negative (page
588) : " No ; — that he was appointed by the Father
to act as mediator between him and sinners, we have
already seen; for without this he could have been
no mediator between his Father and his offending
creatures." Every unbiassed man may easily pro
nounce, whether it is consistent with any rational
idea of the nature of the Deity, that God should be
appointed by God, to " act the part of a mediator,"
by " laying aside his glory, and taking on himself
the form qfa servant;" and may discern, whether it
is not most foreign to the notion of the immutable
God, that circumstances could produce such a change
in the condition of the Deity, as that he should have
been not only divested of his glory for more than
thirty years, but even subjected to servitude. Are
not the ideas of supreme dominion and that of sub
jection, just as remote as the east from the west?
Yet the Editor says, that while he was stripping

552
himself of his glory, and taking upon himself the
form of a servant, he was Just as much Jehovah as
before. The Editor, in common with other Trinitarians,
conceives, that God the Son, equally with God the
Father, (according to their mode of expression.) is
possessed of the attributes of perfection, such as
mercy, justice, righteousness, truth, &c., yet he re
presents them so differently as to ascribe to the
Father strict justice, or rather vengeance; and to the
Son, unlimited mercy and forgiveness, that is, the
Father, the first person of the Godhead, having been
in wrath at the sinful conduct of his offending crea
tures, found his mercy so resisted by justice, that he
could not forgive them at all, through mercy, unless
he satisfied his justice by inflicting punishment upon
these guilty men ; but the Son, the second person of
the Godhead, though displeased at the sins of his
offending creatures, suffered his mercy to overcome
justice, and by offering his own blood as an atone
ment for their sins, he has obtained for them pardon
without punishment ; and by means of vicarious sa
crifice, reconciled them to the Father, and satisfied
his justice and vengeance. If the justice of the Fa
ther did not permit his pardoning sinful creatures,
and reconciling them to himself, in compliance with
his mercy, unless a vicarious sacrifice was made to
him for their sins ; how was the justice of the Son
prevailed upon by his mercy, to admit their pardon,
and their reconciliation to hiraself, without any

553
sacrifice, offered to him as an atonement for their
sins? It is then evident, that, according to the
system of Trinitarians, the Son had a greater portion
of mercy than the Father, to oppose to his justice, in
having his sinful creatures pardoned, without suffering
them to experience individual punishment. Are
these the doctrines on which genuine Christianity is
founded ? God forbid !
If the first person be acknowledged to be pos-r
sessed of mercy equally with the second, and that
he, through his infinite mercy towards his creatures,
sent the second to offer his blood as an atonement
for their sins, we must then confess that the mode
of the operation and manifestation of mercy by
the first is strange, and directly opposite to that
adopted by the second, who manifested his mercy
even by the sacrifice of life, while the first person
displayed his mercy only at the death of the second,
without subjecting himself to any humiliation or
pain. In answer to the Editor's position, that Jesus, even
as a mediator, was possessed of every power and per
fection that was inherent in his divine nature, I only
beg to remind him of a few sacred passages among
many of a sirailar nature. John iii. 35 : " The
Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand." Ch. xvii. 22 : " And the glory
which thou gavest me, I have given them," &c.
Ch. V. 26 : " For as the Father hath life in himself,
so hath he given to the Son to have Ufe in himself."

554
Luke i. 32 : " And the Lord shall give unto him
the throne of his fathet David." Matt. ix. 8 : " But
when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and
glorified God, who had given such power to men.''
Ch. xxviii. 18 : " Jesus came, and spake unto them,
saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in
earth." On these texts I trust no commentary is
necessary to enable any one to determine whether all
the power and glory that Jesus enjo)^d were given
him by God, or were inherent in his own nature.
The Editor again denies Christ's having "possessed
a single power, perfection, or attribute, which was
not eternally inherent in his divine nature ;" and
defies me " to point out one attribute or perfection in
the Father, which from scripture testimony the Son
has not been already shewn to possess," I therefore
take upon myself to point out a few instances which
I hope will convince the Editor that the peculiar
attribates of God were never ascribed to Jesus, nor
to any other human being who may have been, like
Jesus, figuratively called gods in scriptural language.
In the first place, the attribute of being the " Most
High" or \vhv by which the supreme Deity is dis
tinguished above all gods, is not found once ascribed
to Jesus, though invariably appUed to the Father
thipoughout the scriptural writings. 2ndly. Jesus
was never called almighty, or ¦>im a term peculiarly
used for the Deity. Nay, moreover, he expressly
denies being possessed of almighty power. Matt.
XX. 23 : " But to sit on my right hand, and on my

555
left, IS not mine to give, but to them for whom it is
prepared of my Father." Ch. xxvi. 53 : " Think
est thou that I cannot now pray to my father, and
he shall presently give me more than twelve legions
of angels ?" John xi. 41 : " Then they took away
the stone from the place where the dead was laid ;
and Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said. Father, I
thank thee that thou hast heard me" He also denies
his omniscience, Mark xiii. 32 : " But of that day
and that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father." Any being if not supreme, almighty, and
omniscient, and, raore especially, one subjected to the
transitions of birth and death, must, however hi^ly
exalted, even by the title of a god, and though for
ages endowed with all power in heaven and in earth,
be considered a created being, and, like all creatures^
be in the end, as the apostle declares, subject to the
Greatot of all things. Besides, in the creed which
the generality of Trinitarians profess, God is de
scribed as self-existent, having proceeded from none ;
but the -Son, on the contrary, is represented as pro
ceeding from the Father. Here even the orthodox
amongst Christians ascribe the attribute of self-exist
ence to the Father of the universe alone.
In my Second Appeal I observed, that " the sun,
although he is the most powerful and most splendid
of all known created beings, has yet no claim to be
considered ^klentical in nature with God, who has
given to the sun aU the heat," &c,; to which the

556
Editor replies, " What is the sun to his Maker ?" —
I wish he had also added, " but that which a son
and creature is to his Father and Creator ?" When
he again inquires, saying, " If the sun has no claim
to godhead, has its Maker none ?" (alluding to Christ,)
he might have recollected that neither the sun nor
Jesus has ever arrogated to himself godhead, but
that it is their worshippers that have advanced doc
trines ascribing gpdhead and infinite perfection to
these finite objects. Notwithstanding that we daily
witness the power of the glorious sun in bringing
into life, and preserving to maturity, an infinite va
riety of vegetable and animal objects, yet our grati
tude and admiration recognize in him only a being
instrumental in the hands of God, and we offer wor
ship and duty to him alone, who has given to the
sun all the light and animating warmth which he
sheds on our globe. On the same ground, whether
we understand from scriptural authority, that the
supreme Deity made thrpugh Jesus Christ all the
things belonging to the Christian dispensation, or
every thing relating to this visible world, (as inter
preted by the worshippers of Jesus,) we must not, in
either case, esteem him as the supreme Deity, in
whose hand he is represented by the same Scriptures
but as an instrument.
The Editor says, that though the power of effect
ing a material change, without the aid of physical
means, be peculiar to God, " yet this power Christ
not only possessed, but bestowed on his apostles.'

t)57
Suppdsing Jesus alone had the power of effectirtg
material changes without the aid of physical means^
and of bestowing on others the same gift, it could
have proved' only his being singular in the enjoy-
merit of this peculiar blessing of God, and not his
being identical or equal with Him who conferred
such a power on him ; but it is notorious that Jesus
was not at all peculiar in this point. Were ndt the
miracles performed by Joshua and Elijah, as Won
derful as those done by Jesus ? Did not Elijah
bestow on his servant Elisha the power of effecting
changes without physical means^ by putting his own
spirit on him ? Is Elijah, from the possessidn of this
power, to be considered an incarnation of the Supreme
Deity ? 2 Kings ii. 9—12 : " And it came to pass
when they (Elijah and Elisha) were gone over, that
Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee
before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said,
I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon
me. And he said. Thou hast asked a hard thing,
nevertheless if thou see me when I am taken from
thee, it shall be so unto thee ; but if not, it shall not
be so. — And Elijah was taken up by a Whirlwind
into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried. My
father, my father," &c. Vers. 14—15 : " And
when he had smitten the waters, they parted hither
and thither, and Elisha went over. When the sons
of the prophets saw him, they said. The spirit of
Elijah doth rest on EUsha. And they came to meet
him, and bowed themselves to the ground before
2o

558
him." Besides, we find in the evangelical writings,
that notwithstanding the power of performing mira
cles given by Jesus to his apostles, they could riot
avail themselves of such a gift, until their faith in God
was become firm and complete : it is thence evident
that God is the only source of the power and infiu
ence that one creature has over another. Matt. x. 1 :
" And when he had called unto him his twelve dis
ciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits,
to cast them out, and to hfeal all manner of sickness,
and all manner of disease." Ch. xvii. 16 : " And I
brought him (the lunatic child) to thy disciples, and
they could not cure him." Vers. 19 — 21 : " Then
came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said. Why
could not we cast him out ? And Jesus said unto
them. Because of your unbelief ; for verily I say
unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard-
seed, ye shall say unto this mountain. Remove hence
to another place, and it shall remove, and nothing
shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind
goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." Mark
xi. 22 : " And Jesus answering saith unto them,
(his disciples,) Have faith in God ; for verily I say
unto you, that whosoever shall say unto this moun
tain. Be thou removed," &c.
In my Second Appeal I mentioned, that it is
evident from the first chapter of Genesis, that " in
the beginning of the creation, God bestowed on man
his likeness, and sovereignty over all living creatures.
Was not his own likeness, and that dominion, pecu-

559
liar to God, before mankind were made partakers of
them ? Did God then deify^ man by such a mark of
distinctiori ?" On which the Editor thus remarks :
" It is in realit/ asking. Did God make him cease
to be a creature by thus creating him ? We presume
he expects no answer." If the Editor acknowledges
that God, by bestowing on man his peculiar likeness
and dominion, did not make him cease to be a creature,
is he not, according to the same principle, obliged to
admit the opinion, that although God raised Jesus
above all, and bestowed on him a portion of his pecu
liar power and influence, yet he did not make him
cease to be a creature ?
In my Second Appeal, (pagesl57, 158,) I selected
nineteen passages Out of many, in which Jesus dis
tinctly disavows the divine nature, and manifests his
subordination to God; to which . the Editor replies,
" They can prove nothing to his purpose, till they
shew that his thus becoming incarnate, changed that
divine nature which he possessed from eternity," &c,
I therefore take upon myself to ask the Reverend
Editor, whether the following passages found among
those already quoted, do not prove the entire hu
manity pf the .Son, or (in the words of the Editor) a
pomplete change in his divine nature, if he was ever
possessed of it ? " As the. Father gave me command
ment, even so I do'' " I can of mine ownself do
nothing," " AU that the Father giveth me shall
come to me." .," As ray Fathet hath taught me I
speak these things." To my Father and your Father,
2o 2

566
and to my God and your God." " Behold my servant
whom I have chosen." If these dedatations do
fall short of shewing the human nature of the person
who affirms them, I, as well as the Editor, should
be at a loss to point out any saying of any of the
preceding prophets, that might tend to substantiate
their humanity. The Editor may perhaps say, after
the example of his orthodox friends, that these, as well
as other sayings to the same effect, proceeded from
Jesus in his human capacity. I shall then entreat
the Editor to shew me any authority in the Scrip
tures, distinguishing one class of the sayings of Jesus
Christ, as man, from another set of the same author
as God. Supposing Jesus was of a two-fold nature,
divine and human, as the Editor believes him to be ;
his divine nature in this case, before his appearance
in this world, must be acknowledged perfectly pure
and unadulterated by humanity. But after he had
become incarnate, according to the Editor, was he
not made of a mixed nature of God and man, pos
sessing at one time both opposite sorts of conscious
ness and capacity ? Was there not a change of a
pure nature into a mixed one ? I will not, however,
pursue the subject further now, as I have already
fully noticed it in another place (pages 464 and 467);
The Editor adverts here to Heb. i. 10, I Cor. xv.
24, 25 ; but as I have examined the former in
page 452, and the latter in page 455, I will nPt
revert to the consideration pf them in this place.
At page 589, the Editor thus censures me : " To

561
say that «n the mouth of the Father, ' for fever and
ever' means only a limited period, is to destroy the
eternity of God himself;" and he quotes, " Jehovah
shall reign for ever and ever." I have shewn by
numerous instances, both in my Second, and in the
present Appeal, that the terms " for ever," " ever
lasting," when applied to any one except God, signify
long duration: I therefore presume to think that the
Editor might have spared this censure as being alto
gether undeserved. I will here, however, point
out one or two more passages iri the mouth of the
Father, which contain the term " for ever," and in
which it can imply only long duration. Gen. xvii. 8.
" And I will give Unto thee, and unto thy seed after
thee— ^all the land of Canaan, for ah everlasting
possessiota." Jer. vii. 7 : " Then will I cause you to
dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your
fathersybr ever and ever." Dan. vii. 18 : " But the
saints ofthe Most High shall take the kingdom for
ever, even for ever and ever." Is the'land of Canaan
now in possession of Israel ; and will it remain in
their possession after all rule, authority, and power
have been put down, and after the Son has delivered
Up his kingdom to God the Father of the universe ?
1 Car. XV. 24, 28.
The Editor in the course of this discussion noticed
Philipp. ii. 6, whence he doncludes that Jesus was in
the form of God, and thought it hot robbery to be
equal with God, yet took upon himself the form of a
Servant, and became obedient to death ; I will, there-

562
fore first give the verse as it stands in the English
version, and for the purpose of shewing the gradual
progress of truth, I will add some subsequent
translations of the same verse, by eminently learned
Trinitarian authors, and finally transcribe it as found
in the original Greek, with a verbal translation.
English version. Philipp. ii. 6 : " Who, being in
the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal
with God."
Secondly. In a new translation from the original
Greek, by James Macknight, D. D. verse 6 thus
stands: "Who being in tljr form of God, did not
think it robbery to be Uke God." So John Park-
hurst, M. A., the author of a Greek and English
Lexicon to the New Testamerit, who was also an
orthodox writer, thus translates, conformably to the
opinion of Drs. Doddridge and Whitby, two other
celebrated orthodox writers, page 322 : " Philipp.
ii. 6, TO sivai tcra. ©sto, to be as God. So itra ©sto
is most exactly rendered, agreeably to the force of
io-a in many places in the LXX., which Whitby
has collected in his note on this place. The proper
Greek phrase for equal to God is lerov rm ©sm, which
is used John v. 18: 'Therefore the Jews sought
the more to kill hira, because he not only had broken
the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God.' " (This is not the
only instance that [in which] the Jews misunderstood
Jesus, for in many other instances they misconceived
his meaning. John ii. 19, 21 ; vi. 41, 42, 52, 60.)

563
The term, " to be like God," as it is used by
several orthodox writers, neither amounts to an iden--
tity of one with the other, nor does it prove an
equality of the former with the latter. Gen. i. 26 :
'' God said. Let us make man in our image, and
after our likeness." 1 Chron. xii. 22: "At that
time, day by day, there came to David to help him,
until it was a great host, like the host of God." Ch.
xxvii. 23 : " The Lord had said that he would in
crease Israel like to the stars of heaven." Zech. xii.
8 : "In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabi
tants of Jerusalem, and he that is feeble among them
at *that day shall be as David : and the house of
David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord
before them," 1 John iii. 2 : " But we know that
when he shall appear, we shall be like him," &c.
Another Trinitarian author, Schleusner, in his
Lexicon to the New Testament, renders the passage
" Non habuit praedse loco similitudinem cum Deo,"
" He did not esteem likeness to God in the place of
a prey." The substance of this translation is adopted
in the Improved Version pf the New Testament.
12 3
3dly. The original Greek runs thus : 'Og sv ft-OjOf^vj
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
©sou 05rapp^a)V,oop^' dp7rayj«,oi/ TjyTjtraTo to eivou itra, ©so).
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 '
" Who in form of God being, not robbery thought
9 10 11 12
the being like God." Which words, arranged ac
cording to the English idiom, will run thus : " Who

664
being ih the form of God, did not think of* the
robbery the being like God," This interpretation
is most decisively confirmed by the context of the
verse in question. Verse 3 of the same chapter :
" Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory ;
but, in lowliness of mind, let each esteem other better
than themselves." Ver. 4 : " Look not every man
on his own things, but every man also on the things
of others." Ver. 5 : " Let this mind be in you which
was also in Christ Jesus." Ver. 6 : " Who, being
in the form of God, did not think of the robbery of
being like God." Ver. 7 : " But made himself of
no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men."
Where the sense of a passage is complete without
introducing an additional word more than is express-'
ed, no one, unless devoted to the support of some
particular doctrine, would think of violating fidelity
to the original text by interpolation in the transla-
lation. Here the apostle requires of us to esteem
others better than ourselves, according to the exam
ple of humility displayed by Jesus, who, notwith
standing his godly appearance, never thought of those
perfections by which he approached man's ideas of
God, hut even made hiraself of no reputation. It
would be absurd to point oUt one's own opinion of
* We find the verb ^yEOftat implying to esteem as well as to
think, with a simple accusative, [2] Pet. iii. 9 : u« tiv£s pfa^vr^ra
¦qyovvrai, " as some men count slackness" (properly speaking^
" tliink of slackness").

666
his equality with God as an instance of humility.
How can we be following the example of Christ, in
thinking others better than ourselves, if he, as the
orthodox say, did not think even his Father higher
than himself? We, however, must not suffer our
selves to be misled by any such orthodox interpreta
tion to entertain so erroneous an idea of Christ's
opinion of himself, bearing in mind that Jesus
himself proclaims, " My Father is greater than I,"
John xiv, 28,
No one can be at a loss to understand the differ
ence of essence between Christ and his creator God,
implied in the phrase, " being in the form of God ;"
as the distinction between " being God," and " being
in the form of God," is too obvious to need illustra-'
tion. Even Parkhurst, one of the most zealous ad
vocates for the Trinity, thought it absurd to lay stress
on the term " being in the form of God," in support
of the deity of Jesus Christ, (See p. 443.) " Mop4»j,
perhaps from the Hebrew n«io appearance, and na
aspect. Outward appearance, form, which last word
is from the Latin forma, and this, by transposition,
from the Doric /xopc^a, for [JLop<pri. See Mark xvi.
12, (comp. Luke xxiv. 13,) Philipp. ii. 6, 7, where
the 6th verse refers not, I apprehend, to Christ's
being real and essential God, or essential Jehovah,
(though that he is so is the foundation of Christi-
anitjti) but to his glorious appearance as God before
and under the Mosaic dispensation."
Should any one, in defiance of the common accep-

566
tation of the word " form," and of every authority,
insist upon its implying real essence in the phrase,
" being in the form of God," he must receive it in
the samp sense in the following verse, , " took upon
himself the form of a servant;" and he must then
admit and believe that Christ was pdssessed of the
real essence of God and the real essence of a servant.
How can we reconcile real Godhead with real servi
tude, even for a moment ?
Nor can the phrase, " Was made in the likeness
of man," in verse 7, be admitted to identify him
with Jehovah, any more than we can allow that
Samson is so identified by the use of the, parallel
expression in Judges xvi. 7 and 17: "I shall be
weak, and be as a man ;" " Arid' be like any man."
In the English version, the word other is found;
that is, " be like another man ;" which is not war
ranted by the original Hebrew, as Mr. Brown, an
orthodox commentator,! justiy remarks in the margin.
The Editor says, (p. 590,) "Relative to Christ's
being the first-born of every creature, we reply with
Dr- Owen, whose work on Socinianisrii has never
been answered, — ' It is not said Christ is irpmroxristts,
first-created, but irpmroroxos, the first-born ; and
Christ is so the first-born, as to be the only-begotten
Son of God, is so the first of every creature that is,
he is before them all, above them all, heir to them
all, and sd no one of them.'" Although both " first-
created," and " first-born," from the common ac
ceptation of these words, equally imply a created

567
nature, yet the reason for St. Paul's choice of the
word " first-bom" is obvious ; for when used in
reference to a creation not produced in the natural
course, first-born signifies superiority to other crea
tures of the same class, and not " an only-begotten
son," as Dr. Owen and the Editor seem to suppose.
I will here point out the sense in which the word
" first-born" is used in the Scriptures wheri obviously
not relating to natural birth. Exod. iv. 22, we find
in the mouth of Jehovah himself, Israel desigiiated
by the terms, " my son, even my first-bom'' Agairi,
Jer, xxxi. 9 :" I ara a Father to Israel, and Ephraim
is my first-bom." Psalm Ixxxix. 27: " I will make
him (David) my first-born, higher than the kings
of the earth." And now I will take upon myself to
ask the Editor, whether Israel, as well as David, was
so " first-born" as " to be the only-begotten son of
God," and was also " before all the creatures, above
them all, heir to them all, and so no one of them ;"
or whether that designation was not rather applied
both to the nation and to the individual because they
were principal persons, and to shew that they were
respectively chosen of God above the rest of his
creation ? Rom. viu. 29 : " For whom God did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be cPnformed
to the image of his Son, that he might be the first
born among many brethren." St. John defines
what would be understood by the term " to be bom
qf God." Vide 1 John iv. 7 : " Beloved, let us love
one another : for love is of God, and every one that

568
loveth is bom of God, and knoweth God." Hence
Jesus is considered and declared to be the head of
the children of God, So the term " only-begotten
son" signifies most beloved among children, whether
natural or spiritual, and not an only son of a father;
as we find, in Heh. xi. 17, this very term applied to
Isaac, though Abraham had another son by Hagar.
As to his assertion, " Christ is no one of them,"
(that is, of creatures,) I only quote a few passages
in which Jesus himself and his apostles enumerated
him as " one of them." Matt. xxv. 40 : " Verily,
I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto
one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done
it unto me." Here it is the King and Lord, sitting
upon the throne of his glory at the last day, whp is
represented as styling the poor and helpless his bre
thren. Ch, xxviu. 10 : " Then said Jesus unto
them. Be not afraid. Go and tell my brethren that
they go into Galilee ; and there shall they see me."
John XX. 17 : " But go to my brethren, and say
unto them, I ascend^ to my Father and your Father,
and to my God and your God." 1 Cor. ix. 5 : "As
the brethren ofthe Lord and Cephas." Heb. u. 11:
" For he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified^
are all of one (Father) ; for which cause he is not
ashamed to call them brethren'' Ver. 12: "Say
ing, I will declare thy name unto my brethren. In
the midst ofthe church will I sing praise unto thee."
As to the Editor's reliance on the subsequent verses
to shew that the creation of all things was effected

569
by Christ", I refer my readers to page 440 of this
Essay, where I observe that the apostle Paul raeans,
in these passages, only the creation of all the things
in the Christian dispensation, as is explained in Eph.
i, 21, 22, which represent Jesus as head over all
things belonging to the church. I need not renew
the subject of Revelations, repeated by the Editor,
as I have already exarained it in pageg.518, 538,
I have shewn, in pages 512, 513, that whatever
power Jesus possessed either as man. Son of man,
God, or Son of God, he received the same from the
Father of the universe ; therefore the assertion of
the Editor, that (" certain powers were conferred on
Jesus, not as a man, but as the Messiah, Christ, the
anointed Son of God") is, I presume, one of the mys
teries of the doctrine of [the] Trinity. How can the
Editor reconcile the passages, quoted in my Second
Appeal, to this assertion ? Let him answer what is
there advanced, in the course of the discussion of
this very subject, of a few points of which I beg to
remind him.
1st. " In John xvii. 5, ' And now, O Father, glo
rify me with thine ownself, with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was,' with the same
breath with which he prays for glory, he identifies
the nature in which he does so. With that under
which he lived with God before the creation of the
world." Is not this petition to God for glory, by
the same person, who says he was with God before
the foundation of the world? Was he, before the

570
foundation of the world, a man, or of a two-fold na
ture, human and divirie ? If he was God almighty
before the foundation of the world, how could that
God implore another being for the restoration of the
glory, which he at one tirae had, but lost subse
quently ?
2ndly. In John viii. 42, Jesus declares, that he
came not of himself, but that God sent him. Does
not he avow here, that his coming to this world was
not owing to his own will, but to the will of another
being? Was he not entirely at the disposal of God,
the Most High, even before his coming into this
world ? Iw Heb. x. 5 — 7, the apostle declares, that
Jesus, at the time of his coming to the world, saith,
that God had ptepared him a body, and that he
comes to the world to do the will of God. Had he
been God before he had come to this world, how ¦
could he, in common with all other creatures, attri
bute his own actions to the will of the Supreme Dis
poser of all the events of the universe ?
The Editor next quotes a part of Heh. i. 12,
" Thou art the same." This I have fully noticed in
page 452.
The Editor disapproves highly of ray assertion, in
the SeCdnd Appeal, " Christ was vested with glory
frpm the beginning of the world." I therefore beg to
quote one or two scriptural passages, which, I hope,
will justify that assertion. 1 John u. 13: "I write
unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that
is from the beginning." Rev. in. 14 : " These things

571
saith the Amen, the beginning of the creation of
God." The Editor insinuates, that I have contradicted
myself by " ridiculing the idea of Christ's having
two natures," after I had declared that Christ " lived
with God before the creation of the worldy ' and that
" it would have been idle to have informed them,
(the JeWs,) that, in his mere corporeal nature, Jesus
was inferior to his Maker, and it must, therefore,
have been his spiritual nature, of which he here
avowed his inferiority to God." I cannot perceive ,
what contradiction thpre is in the assertion, that
Christ lived in the divine purpose and decree* be
fore the world was, and that he, not merely as a
man, before the assuming of the office of the Mes-s-
siah, was inferior to his Creator, but that he was so
even after he had been endowed with the Holy
Spirit in the river of Jordan, and with the power of
performing miracles, which is said to be a spiritual
gift. — Supposing he, like Adam, lived with God be-
* On John xvii, 5. He liad it (the same glory) with the Fa
ther before the world was, that i^, in the Father's purpose and
decree. In the language of scripture, what God determiiies to
bring to pass, is represented as actually accomplibhed ; thtfS, tlie
dead are represented as living, Luke xx. 36— 3S. Believers are
spoken of as already glorified, Rom. viii. 29, 30. Things that are
not, are called as though they, were, Rom. iv. 1 7, And in verse
12 of this chapter, Judas is said to be destroyed, though he was
then living, and actually bargaining with the priests and rulers to
betray his Master. See also verse 10 ; Eph. i. 4 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ;
Rev.jciii, 8; Heb, x, 34. (Improved Version.)

572
fore his coming into this world, (according to the
doctrines maintained by some Christians,) and after
wards was sent to the world, in the body of Jesus,
for effecting human salvation, as John the Baptist
was esteemed to be Elijah, even this doctrine does
hot preclude us from rejecting the idea of a two-fold
nature of God and man.
The Editor says, that when " he (Jesus) emptied
himself of his glory, did he lay aside his divine na
ture, of which his glory was merely a shadow?" and
then he recommends me to reflect, for a moment, on
what the term glory implies ; " understood either of
praise or grandeur, it is merely the reflection or in
dication of a glorious nature." I have reflected, for
sorae years past, and do now seriously reflect, on the
divine nature, but I find it inconsistent with any
idea I can adrait of the eternal and unchangeable
Almighty, that he should empty hiraself of his glory,
(call it praise or grandeur, which you like,) though
for a season, and should afterwards offer supplica
tions for the same glory to himself, as if another
being ; addressing that otherself as his own father ;
since God is often declared to have hardened the
heart of men so [as] to disqualify them from perceiv
ing his glory, instead of having degraded himself by
setting aside his oWn title to praise, or the grandeur
which is inherent in his nature.
The Editor adds, " If it was deserved glory, it was
that of which his nature was worthy, and the Fa
ther's giving it to him, when no being existed beside

573
the sacred three, was the Father's attestation to the
Son's eternal Godhead." If the Father's giving to
Jesus deserved glory, should be acknowledged aS
amounting " to his attestation to the Son's God
head," we must be under the necessity of admitting
the attestation of Jesus to the eternal deity of his
apostles, from the circumstance of his having given
them the same deserved glory; — John xvii. 22,
" And the glory which thou hast given me I have
given them," &c.
The Editor twice says, that " Micah informs us
that the Son is from everlasting." I wish he had
mentioned the chapter and verse to which he alludes,
that I might have examined the passage.
He perhaps alludes to the phrase " everlasting,"
found in the English version, in Micah v. 2, " Out
of thee shall he corae forth unto me that is to be
ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of
old, from everlasting." I will, therefore, quote Park
hurst's explanation of the original Hebrew word dhri
•which is translated in the English version " everlast
ing;" and then notice the translation of this very
Hebrew word, in many other instances, by the au
thors of the English version ; and lastly, I will repeat
the context, that my readers may be able to judge
whether any stress can be laid on the phrase alluded
to by the Editor. — First, from Parkhurst's Hebrew
and English Lexicon, " abn and a^i» are used both as
nouns and participles, for time hidden and concealed
from man, as well indefinite. Gen. xvu. 8, 1
2p

574
xiii. 13, 2 Sam. xii. I0> and eternal. Gen. iii. 22,
Psalm ix. 8, as finite, Exod. xix. 9, xxi. 6, 1 Sam.
i. 22, comp. ver. 28, 1 Sam. xxvii. 12, Isaiah xxxii.
14 ; as well past. Gen. vi. 4, Deut, xxxii. 7, t/b*A.
xxiv, 2, P*a/»t xU. 14, cxiii. 3, Prov, vni. 23, as
future. It seems to be much more frequently used
for an indefinite, than for irfinitCi time. Sometimes
it appears particularly to denote the continuance of
the Jewish dispensation Pr age. Gen. xvii. 13, Etod.
xii. 14, 24, xxvii. 21, and al. freq., and sometimes
the period of time to the Jubilee, which was an emi
nent type of the completion of the Jewish and typi
cal dispensation, by the coming and death of Christ."
2ndly, the author of this Lexicon (though devoted to
the cause of the Trinity) giyes the translation of the
term aViy found in Micah v. 2. In the ddurse Of fex-
plaihing the force of the S^drd «v» says he, " Micah
V. 1, or 2, VDNVini and his (the Messiah's) goings
forth have been from of old, tzh^i '»>o from the days
of antiquity." 3dly, from the EhgUsh version, Isaiah
Ixiii. [11], " Then he remembered the days <^old"
or tsViff »)i», exactly as is fourtd in Micah V. 2. 1 Sm^.
xxvii. 8, " Those tiations were of old," for the same
Hebrew term cJi'w. DeUt. xxxii. 7, " Remember
the days (f old" for the same HdbteW Wdtd. Gen.
vi. 4, " Which were oif old, men of terioWn," fdr <ihe
same term aVu?. Psalm Ixxviii. 5, " I have con
sidered the days df old, and the years of ancient
tiriiefe." Here the terfta aijs which is tettdeted in
Micah V. 2, " of old" and the term caViP tratislated

575
in the same verse " everlasting," are both mentioned.
4thly, the context is verses 2- — 4 : " Whose goings
forth have been from [of] old, from everlasting ; there
fore will he give them up, until the time that she
which travaileth hath brought forth ; [then] the rem
nant of his brethren shall return unto the children of
Israel : and he shall stand and feed in the strength
qf the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord
his God," &c. Can the phrases, " his God" " in
the strength qf the Lord" ' and " his brethren," be
consistently used for one who is the everlasting God ?
If so, how can we reconcile to our understanding the
idea of the everlasting God's reigning in the strength
of another, having the Jews ?is his brethren, and
looking up to another superior, who is designated
by " his God" ? If a body of men, distinguished for
their talents, learning, and situation in life, from
tirae to time, be determined to support their long-
established inventions, in defiance of scripture, rea
son, and common sense; how can truth make its
appearance, when so violently resisted ? In fact,
verse 2d of Micah thus correctly stands : " Out of
thee (BPthlehera) shall he (the last expected Mes
siah) corae forth "unto me that is to be ruler in Israel,
whose sources* of springing forth have been from of
ancient, from the days of old."
* These are the seed of Abraham and that of David, through
which <3od declares, by the mouths of the ancient prophets, that
he will raise the Messiah to save the world, — Vide Parkhurst's
Hebrew Lexicon, " 3, The place whence any tWng comes,- Job
2p2

576
The Editor advances, that " even son" implies an
equality of nature with the Father : certainly it does
so, when referred to one carnally begotten, but
otherwise, it signifies a distinguished creature. 1
Chron. xxviii. 6 : " And he said unto me, Solomon
thy son, he shall build my house and my courts:
for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be
his father." Job i. 6 : " When the sons of God
came to present themselves before the Lord," &c.
Is Solomon, because he is called a son of God, to be
considered a partaker of the divine nature? Are
the angels, designated " the sons of God," considered
to be of the same nature with the Deity ? The Edi
tor, however, adds, (page 594,) " Our author hints,
that in the sacred writings others have been termed
the sons of God : this, however, only proves, that
Christ is, by nature, the Son of God, while all others
are the sons of God by adoption, or metaphorically."
To establish Christ's being the only Son of God, he
quotes Rom. viii. 32, in which Christ is terraed God's
own son; and John i. 16, where he says, that." the
Holy Spirit also terms him, not merely the only son,
but the only-begotten son of the Father." I therefore
quote here verse 32 in question, with the preceding
xxviii. 1, Isaiah Iviii. 11, Psalm Ixv. 9, Ixxv. 7 ; in which last pas
sage, «yi» is used for that part of the heavens whence the solar
light «v« cometh forth, i. e. the east. Comp. Psalm xix. 6, 7."
Parkhurst also rejects the popular meaning, saying, " Not his
(Messiah's) eternal generation from the Father, as this word has
been tortured to signify."

577
verse of the same chapter of Romans: " What shall
we then say to these things ? If God be for us, who
can be against us ? He that spared not his own
Son, but delivered hira up for us all, how shall he
not with him also freely give us all things ?" Here
St. Paul proves, beyond doubt, the unlimited mercy
of God towards men, as' manifested by his appoint
ment of his own Son to save mankind from death,
at the risk of the life of that son, without limiting
the honour of a spiritual birth to Jesus, and denying
to others the same distinction, who, in common with
Jesus, enjoy it according to unquestionable sacred
authorities. Deut. xxxii. 18 : " Of the Rock that
begat thee thou art unmindful." Exod. iv. 22 :
" Israel is my son, even my first-bom." 2 Sam. vii.
14 : " I will be his (Solomon's) father, and he shall
be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten
him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the
children of men." Did St. Paul mean to destroy
the validity of these, as well as of many other texts
to a similar eflfect, by representing Christ as the only
being distinguished by the title of Son of God, and
excluding angels, Adam, Israel, Solomon, and David,
from this spiritual dignity? I firmly believe he did
not. If a king, who had several children, sent one of
them to fight battles against those who committed
depredations on his subjects, and his son so sent,
gained a complete victory in that war, but with the

578
loss of his own Ufe ; and if, with a view to exalt or
magnify the attachment of this sovereign to his peo
ple, one of his subjects declares that his sovereign
was so deeply interested in the protection of his peo
ple as to send his own son, even the most beloved,
to repel the enemies at the hazard of his life, and
that he had not spared his own son in securing the ,
lives of his people : does he confine the royal birth
to that son, or does he degrade other sons of the
king from that dignity ? I beg my readers will read
Rom. viii. 31, 32, and reflect upon their purport. —
Besides, we find in the original Hebrew, Gen. i. 27,
" God created man inhis imaged and in the English
version, " in his oum image."
Did the original writer of Genesis mean, that God
created man in some fictitious or adopted image re
sembling that of God ? Did the authors of the En
glish version violate the origirial construction by
adding the word " own," to the phrase " in his
image" ? Or did they add it only for the energy of
expression? Psalm Ixvii. 6: " God, even our own
God, shall bless us." Does the writer here exclude
God from being the God of the world, by the use of
the word own in the verse, against the declaration of
Paul ? Rom. iii. 29, " Is he the God of the Jews
only? Is he not also of the Gentiles ? ,Yes, of the
Gentiles also," Or does he use this word to shew
the Israelites' especial attachment to God? In 1
Tim. i. 2, Payl uses the expression, " Timothy, my

579
own son in the faith." Did he thereby exclude his
thousands of spiritual disciples frora being his sons
in the faith ?
In reply to his allusion to John i. 16, in which
Jesus is said to be " the only-begotten Son of the
Father," I beg to refer the Editor to Heb. xi. 17:
" By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up
Isaac ; and he that had received the promises offered
up his only-begotten son." Whence he may per
ceive that the phrase " only-begotten," implies only
most beloved among the children, as Abrahiam had,
at that time, another son beside Isaac, namely, Ish-
mael, by Hagar, given to him as his wife, Gen. xvi.
3, 15. Were we to take the word of John, " only-
begotten," in its literal sense, in defiance of Heb. xi.
17, we mu^ discredit the express word of Gdd, de
claring Israel his begotten and first-born son, and
describing David to be his begotten son.
It is worth noticing, that the author of the Epistie
to the Hebrews, applies the last phrase, " begotten
son," in an accommodated sense to Jesus, Heh. i. 5.
I say, in an accommodated sense, since, in Psalm ii.
7, it is David that declares, during the prosperous
tirae of his reign, " The Lord hath said unto mc.
Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee."
Besides, how can the orthodox Christians, who con
sider Jesus as the begotten Son of God frora eter
nity, with consistency raaintain the opinion, that
God had begotten him, at a particular day, during
the reign of David? They may, perhaps, apply

580
some of their mysterious interpretations to this pas
sage of the Psalms ; but they will, of course, in that
case, pardon my inability to comprehend them. I
will not return to the subject of Rev. i. 8, and Heb.
i. 10, though the Editor recurs to them in this
place. As to his frequent repetition of such phrases as
" Jesus is Jehovah God," " a tremendous being in
his wrath," &c,, I only say, they are best calculated
to work upon the minds of those that are brought
up in the notion of the trinity, but do not carry any
weight with them, in an argument subject to the
decision of an enlightened public.
I asserted in my Second Appeal, that Jesus
removed the doubt that arose with regard to the
sense in which the unity should be taken in John
X. 30, (" I and my Father are one,") by representing
the unity so expressed to be such as he prayed might
exist amongst his apostles, which was, of course, the
unity of will and design, and not identity of being, as
is evident from John xvu. 11, "that they [may] be
one as we are," and verse 22, " that they may be one,
even as we are one ;" on which the Editor makes the
following remarks.
" The declaration, John xvii. 22, ' that they [may]
be one even as we are one,' was made at a time, and
to persons totally different from that in John x. 30,
' I and my Father are one ;' the latter was made to
the gainsaying Jews, and the former in prayer to his
heavenly Father ; nor is there the least hint given

581
that any doubt had arisen among the disciples re
specting the expression ' I and my Father are one.' "
It astonishes me very much to meet with a new rule
laid down by the Editor, that no comraentary upon,
or explanation of a passage or phrase by the author
of it, can have any weight, if it is made or given at a
subsequent period in the course of a solemn prayer
to God, or before a body of new hearers, without an
express declaration of their doubts as to the meaning
of it. If this rule stand good, many commentaries
and notes by authors on their respective works must
cease to be of use, and the universally adopted rule,
that passages of Scripture should be explained by
their reference to one another, must be annulled.
In ch. X. 30, " I and my Father are one," Jesus
declares unity to subsist between himself and God ;
and in ch. xvu. 11 and 22, by praying that " they
(his disciples) may be one, as he and the Father are
one," he explains that the unity between him and
the Father was of the same kind as that which he
prayed to be granted to his disciples ; hence by the
unity so prayed for, cannot be meant any thing else
than unity of will and design. Although that unity
may not be of the sarae degree that subsisted between
him and the Father, yet the force of the preposition
" as" shews that it is of the same kind.
Jesus could not mean in praying for his apostles,
verse 11, an unity in nature among them, whence we
might have inferred unity in nature between him and
his God; since they were long before this prayer.

682
created in the one human nature; nor could he
pray for a renewed spiritual nature to be given to
them, (as the Editor thinks to be the case,) because
they were already endued with that spiritual union,
as is evident from the passage of the very chapter,
(xvU. [6, 8, 16, 22,]) " They have kept thy word."
— " And have known surely that I came out from
thee, and they have believed that thou didst send
me'' — " They are rmt ofthe world, even as I am not
of the world" — " The glory which thou gavest me,
/ have given them," Besides, unity in spiritual
nature is not the same kind of unity which subsists
between the individuals of one nature.
Supposing unity of nature existed between God
and Jesus Christ, (as the Editor believes,) in the
same manner as it is found in one begotten by a man
or animal and his parents, and that Jesus actuaUy
meant by the words, " my Father," in verse 30, to
affirm God to be his real Father, would it not be
quite idle in Jesus to have declared, that he as a Son
was of the same nature with his Father, instead of
saying that he was a Son entertaining the same Will
and design with his Father, since the former circum
stance is natural and obvious, but the latter is not
always found to exist, as we daily find among the
children of men ? Were the circumstance of one's
calling God his Father received as a proof of his
being actually the son of God, and, of course, of his
unity in nature with the Deity, we must consider
David as a real son of God, and of the same nature.

583
Psalm Ixxxix. 26 : " He shall cry unto me. Thou
art MY Father, my God, and the rock of my salva
tion;" and we also must esteem Israel one in nature
with God ; {Jer. iii. 4, " Wilt thou not from this
time cry unto me. My Father, thou art the guide
of ray youth ?") We must even admit all Christians
to be one in nature with the Father of the universe,
for we are taught to pray to our Father in heaven.
Matt. vi. 9. See also verses 1, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 18,
and 32 of the same chapter. John xx. 17 : " My
Father and your Father," &c. 2 Cor. i. 3 : " The
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," and " the Father
of mercies," &c. To enable my readers to take a clear
view of this passage, I here quote the Gontex:t, as
well as the note found in the Improved Version upon
it. Vers. 29, 30 : " My Father, who gave them
me, is greater than all : and none is able to pluck
them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father
are one :" that is, " To snatch my true disciples out
of my hand would be to snatch them out df my
almighty Father's hand ; because ' I and my Father
are one ;' one in design, action, agreement, affection.
See ch. xvu. 11, 21, 22. 1 Cor. in. 8 : ' Now he
that planteth, and he that watereth are one.'" (Im
proved Version.) Both in the Scriptures, and in
ordinary composition, unity, when referred to two
substances, implies invariably perfect concord of will,
or some other qualities, and by no means oneness of
nature, — a fact which my readers will perceive by a
slight attention to the common usage of language,'

684
and also to' the following verses : Gen. ii. 24 : " And
he (the husband) shaU cleave unto his wife, and they
two shall be one fiesh." Ezek. xxxvii. 19 : "I will
take the stick of Joseph, and will put them with
him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them
ONE stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.''
1 Cor. X. 17 : " For we being many are one bread,
and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one
bread." I never amused myself with the thought that
Christ did " pray that his disciples might be one
with him and his heavenly Father," nor did I ever
rejoice at the idea, that Jesus, " a man approved of
God," was one in nature with the invisible Most
High ; I only observed in my Second Appeal, that
if Trinitarian authors succeeded in their attempt to
prove the deity of Jesus Christ from a perverted
interpretation of such phrases as " the Father in me,
and I in him ;" " he dwelleth in God, and God in
him ;" they would unavoidably increase the number
of the persons of the godhead much beyond three,
since sirailar expressions are frequently found applied
to the disciples of Jesus. John xiv. 20 : " At that day
ye shall know, (addressing himself to his disciples,)
[that] I am in my Father, and ye in me, and Iin you."
Ch. xvii. 21 : " Thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us." John vi. 56 :
" He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I in him." 1 John iv. 15 :
" Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of

685
God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." 2 Peter
i. 4 : " That by these ye might be partakers of the
divine nature."
The Editor seems displeased at my having declined
to submit indiscriminately to my countrymen the
whole doctrine of the New Testament, because cer
tain passages therein, having undergone human dis
tortions, occasion much dispute. I therefore beg to
refer him to page 360 of this Essay, as well as to all
church history, which shew that my plan was con
formable to the example laid down by the apostles
and primitive Christians, who used to accomraodate
their instructions to the gradual progress of their
followers. In answer to his question, " How was it that I
did not feel struck with the absurdity of a creature's
creating all things," &c. ? I beg only to reply by
another question, viz. How does the Reverend Edi
tor justify the idea, that one who was in the human
shape, possessed of human feelings, and subject to
the calls of nature, was the very God whom he de
fines as existing for ever, immaterial, invisible, and
above all mortal causes or effects ?
The Reverend Editor says, that " nothing can be
more incorrect than my assertion, p. 168, that Jesus
in John x. ' disavowed the charge of making himself
God:' — after having borne the fullest testimony
to his equaUty with God, in chapters v. and viu.,
at length prevaricates and retracts for fear of
death," I therefore refer to chapters v. and viii., and

586
now ask the Editor whether he calls the following
sayings of Jesus, found in chapters v, and viii., the
fullest testimonies to his equality with God ? " The
Son can do nothing of himself" " For the Father
loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that him
self doeth." " So the Son quickeneth whom he will ;
for the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
all judgment unto the Son." " He that heareth my
word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath ever
lasting life." " So hath he given to the Son to have
life in himself, and hath given him authority," &c.
" I can of mini ownself do nothing." " I seek not
mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath
sent me." " For the works which the Father hath
given me to finish," &c. " I am come in my Father's
name'' Ch. viii. : " But he that sent me is true"
" I do nothing qf myself, but as my Father hath
taught me I speak these things." " But now ye
seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth
which I have heard qf God." " Neither came I
myself, but he sent me." " I seek not mine own
glory." " I know him (God) and keep his saying."*
Do these testimonies amount to the equality of Jesus
with his God and Father ? If so, the Editor must
have in view a definition of the term " equality"
quite different from that maintained by the world.
I at the same time entreat the Editor to point out a
* As to John v. 23, I b^g to refer my readers to the subse
quent chapter of this Essay, where I will examine the same verse
fully.

587
single verse in either of these two chapters contaming
a proof of the equality of Jesus Christ with God^
setting in defiance all the phrases I have now quoted
frora these very chapters. After reflecting upon the
above-cited phrases, the Editor will, I hope, spare
the charge, that Jesus " at length prevaricates and
retracts for fear of death ;" for his disavowal of deity
in ch. X. 36, was quite consistent with all the doc
trines and precepts that he taught in the evangelical
writings. (Vide the whole of the four gospels.)
The Editor then adds, that '5 the confession, (in
X. 34 — 36,) which our author terms a disavowal of
deity, was the very confession for which they sought
again to take him, because they still thought he
made himself God." I am, therefore, under the
necessity of quoting the context, to shew that the
Jews seemed appeased at the explanation given by
Jesus himself, as to their misunderstanding of him,
and that they sought again to take him on account
of another subsequent assertion of his. The context
is, (32—39,) " Many good works have I shewed yoU
from my Father"; for which of those works do ye
stone me ? The Jews answered him, saying, For a
good work We stone thee not ; but for blasphemy ;
and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God. Jesus answered them. Is it not written in
your law, I said ye are gods ? If he called them
gods unto whom the word of God came, (and the
scripture cannot be broken,) say ye of him whom
the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world.

588
thou blasphemest, 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. Therefore they
sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their
hand." Does not Jesus here appeal to scripture, on
the ground that if the sacred writings, every assertion
of which is but true, are justified in calling magistrates
and prophets gods, and that the Jews in reading the
Scriptures styled those superiors by the epithet gods,
in conformity to their Scriptures, they could not in
justice accuse him, the sanctified Messiah of God, of
blasphemy, for his having called himself only the Son
of God ? Does not Jesus here justify the use of the
phrase " Son of God," for himself, in the same
metaphorical sense that the term " gods" was used
for the magistrates and prophets among Israel ? If so,
he of course relinquishes his claim to the use of the
phrase " God," and " Son of God" in its real sense.
If a commoner, who holds a high situation under
govemment, suffers himself to be called " honour
able," and, consequently, be accused of presumption
in permitting himself to be designated by that title,
on the ground that he was not actually the son of a
* I have already in a preceding page (584) stated that such a
phrase as " one is in another, and the other is in him," implies
in scriptural language only unity in design and will, as it is
frequently applied to the apostles in reference to God, and to
their Lord and Master Jesus Christ.

589
nobleman, would he not justify himself against this
charge by saying, " You call all the judges Lords in
their judicial capacity, though they are not noblemen
by birth; yet you charge me (who hold a more
dignified situation than the judges) with arrogance,
because I suffer myself to be addressed as ' honour
able' — a title which the children of noblemen enjoy"?
In following the example of Jesus, I now appeal to
scripture, and also to common sense, that my readers
may judge thereby whether verses 34 — 36 contain a
confession of godhead, or a disavowal of deity, made
by Jesus hiraself.
It is not only a single instance in which Jesus
oraitted to correct the Jews in their misconceiving
the phrase, " The Father is in me, and I in him,"
(verse 38,) but in many other instances he left them
in ignorance. {John ii. 19, 21.) When Jesus told
the Jews to destroy the teraple, that he might raise
it again in three days, they misunderstood him, and
supposed that he intended to raise the temple of
Jerusalem, and found fault with hira, from this mis
conceived notion, before the high-priest. John ii. 21 :
" But he spoke of the temple of his body ;" as well
as John vii. 34 — 36, viii. 21, 22, as I noticed before
in pages 433, 562. The Editor, lastly, says, that
" Jesus at last chose to die under this very charge,
rather than clear up the mistake, if it was such.
This was their last and grand charge : ' We have a
law, and by that law he ought to die, because he
made himself the Son of God,' which they esteemed
2 a

590
blasphemy worthy of death." The Editor must be
well aware that the Jews had such an inveterate
enmity against Jesus, that they not only charged
him with what they found in him contrary to their
law, but even with wilful exaggerations. John v.
15 : " The man departed and told the Jews, that it
was Jesus who had made him whole." Ver. 16 :
" And therefore did the Jews persecute him, (Jesus,)
and sought to slay him, because he had done these
things on the sabbath day." (To perform a cure on
the sabbath day, is supposed by the Jews to be a
breach of the traditions of the elders, and not a crime
worthy of death ; yet they sought to kill Jesus under
that pretence.) Ver. 17 : " But Jesus answered
them. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,,
because he not only had broken the sabbath, but
said also that God was his Father, making himself
equal with God." Although the Jews, in their own
defence, called God their Father, without subjecting
themselves to the charge of blasphemy, (John viii.
41, " JVe have one Father, even God") yet they
soUght to kill Jesus on the false ground, that he
equalized himself with God by calling God his Fa
ther. It is Worth observing, that, lest the Jews
fehould infer his independence in doing miracles, and
Wrest his words from the purpose, (" My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work,") Jesus firmly avows
his entire dependence on God in whatever he had
performed, in verse 19, (" Verily, I say unto you.

591
the Son can do nothing [of] himself," &c.,) and
also in the following verses, insomuch that the Jews,
being unable to find any plea for his destruction,
remained quiet, and left Jesus in peace. (Vide the
whole of ch. v.) In Luke xxiu. 2, the Jews charged
him with having perverted the nation by represent-*
ing himself as their king, and. having forbidden to
give tribute to Csesar-^a charge which was full of
misrepresentation. Let ns return now to the text quoted by the Reve
rend Editor : " We have a law, and by our law he,
ought to die, hecause he made himself the Son qf
God s" — whence it is evident, that, notwithstanding
the great hatred which the Jews /entertained towards
our Saviour, and the misrepresentation they were
guilty of in their accusation against him, the severest
charge which they preferred under the pretence of
religion, was, that '* he made himself the Son of
God," and they would have, of course, accused him
of having made himself God, to Pilate, whom they
found inclined to release Jesus, and in presence of
the multitude, this being better calculated to excite
the wrath of the latter and horror of the former, had
the Jews ever heard him declare himself God, ot
say any thing that amounted to his claim to the
Godhead. The high-priest and other chief accusers
knew very well that their people w^e taught to
consider God as their Father, and to caU themselves
the children of the Most .High (correctly sspeaking,
2a2

592
the sons oi the Most High, Psalm Ixxxii. 6) ; and
this idea was so familiar among them, that Jesus
also admitted them to be the particular children of
the Deity. Mark vii. 27 : " But Jesus said unto
her. Let the children first be fiUed," &c.
The Editor says, (page 597,) that " our author
queries on what principle any stress can be laid on
the prophetic expression quoted in Heb, i. from the
Psalms, ' Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'
We reply merely on this principle, that it is spoken
by God, who cannot lie." Are not these words also,
" Ye are gods," spoken by Him who cannot lie ?
Is not the very verse of Hebrews, " Thy throne, O
God, is for ever and ever," applied originally to So
lomon by Him who cannot lie, and, in an accom
modated sense, to Jesus by the apostle ? I will not
introduce the subject again, it having been noticed
in page 449. The Editor expresses his astonishment
at what I say in the Second Appeal, that the phrase
" for ever" must mean a limited time when referred
to an earthly king or a creature, and therefore it
carries no weight in the proof of the deity of Jesus
when applied to him. The reason which he assigns
for his surprise is. How could I take this phrase in
a finite sense when appUed to Jesus, the eternal Je
hovah ? Did not the Editor feel astonished at the
idea that he employs the application of the phrase
" for ever" in his attempt to prove the deity of Jesus,
and then employs the circumstance of the eternal

593
deity of Jesus for the purpose of proving that infinite
duration is understood by the phrase " for ever,"
when referred to Jesus ?
As he admits that " for ever," when referred to a
creature, implies a limited time only ; he, therefore,
must spare this phrase, and try to quote some other
term peculiar to God, in his endeavour to establish
the deity of Jesus.
The Editor says, that the expression of Jesus to
Mary, (John xx. 17,) " Go to my brethren, and
say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your
Father, and to my God and your God," was merely
in his human nature. I wish the Editor had fur
nished us with a list enumerating those expressions
that Jesus Christ made in his human capacity, and
another shewing such declarations as he made in his
divine nature, with authorities for the distinction. I
might have, in that case, atteritively examined them,
as well as their authorities. From his general mode
of reasoning, I am induced to think that he will
sometimes be obliged, in explaining a single sentence
in the Scriptures, to ascribe a part of it to Jesus as
a man, and another part to' bim in his divine nature.
As for example, John v. 22, 23 : " For the Father
judgeth no man, but hath comraitted all judgment
unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son,
even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth
not the Son, honoureth not the Father who [hath] sent
me [him]". The first part of this sentence, " hath
committed all judgment unto the Son," must have

594
been (accPrding to fhe Editor) spokeri in the human
nature of Jesus Christ, since the Almighty, in exer
cising his power, does not stand in need of another's
vesting him with that power. The second part of
the same sentence, " all men should honour the Son,
[even] as they honour the Father," must be ascribed
by the Editor to Jesus as God, he having been wor
thy to be honoured as the Father is. And the last
part, " who hath sent me, [him,]" relates again to
Christ's human capacity, since it implies his subjec
tion to the disposal of another. Is this the internal
evidence of Christianity on which the orthodox di
vines lay stress ? Surely not.
As to the exclamation of Thomas, (John xx. 28,)
" My Lord and my God !" it is neither a confession
ofthe supreme deity of Jesus by him, nor is it a vain
exclamation, since it is evident, from verse 25, that
Thomas doubted Christ's resurrection without any
reference to his deity ; and that, when he saw Jesus
and the print of the hails, he believed it, and being
struck with such a circumstance, made the exdama^
tion, " My Lord and my God !" accotding to the
invariable habits of the JeWs> Arabs, and almost all
other Asiatic nations, who, when sttuck with won-
derj often make exclamations in the name of the
D^ty ; and that Jesus, from these apparent circum-
^•ances, and having perceived his heart, says, " Be
cause thou hast seen me, thou hast believed" (verse
29)^ by which Jesus acknowledges the belief of
Thomas in the fact which he doubted in verse 25,

595
that is, his resurrection ; for the subject in question,
as it stands in the context, has no allusion to the
deity of Jesus ; and the form in which a confession
is made, is totally different from that of exclamation,
both in the Scriptures and in ordinary language.
How can Thomas be supposed to have meant to
confess the deity of Jesus in a mere exclamation,
" My Lord and my God !" without adding some
phrase conveying confession, such as " thou art" my
Lord and my God, and " I believe you to be" my
Lord and my God ? I beg that my readers will
attentively refer to the context, and to the common
habits of Asiatics on occasions similar to this, and
form their opinion respecting this subject. The
Editor quotes Matt. v. 37, which, with its context,
forbids all sorts of swearing ; but what relation this
has to the exclamation of Thomas, in John jcx;, 28,
I am unable to discover.
The Editor quotes six passages from the Gospel
and the book of the Revelation, four of which I have
already examined, and I notice now the reniaining
two verses. First, John i. 1 : " In the beginning
was the word, and the word was with God, and the
word was God." By the first sentence, ('' in the
beginning was the word,") the Editor attempts to
prove the eternity of the Son ; hy the second, (" the
word was with God,") his distinct personality ; and
by the third, (" the word was God,") his deity.
Let us first take this verse in jts literal sense, and
ascertain whether or not it is^ in that case, inte^gi-

696
ble. " In the beginning" — i. e. in the first time —
" was the word" — i. e. existed such a sound as was
capable of conveying a meaning. " The word was
with God" — i. e. this sound existed in the Deity,
since no sound can exist of itself. " The word was
God" — i. e. the word was the deity, or a deity, or
being like other attributes of the deity — it was divine.
The whole verse thus stands : " From the beginning
the word of God, or Revelation manifesting his will
and comraandraents, existed with hira as God hira
self;" and by the same word God made or estabUshed
all things ; as the Jewish and Mohummudan, as well
as Hindoo, theologians believe, on the authority of
the works respectively acknowledged by them, that
God made and established all things by his word
only. (Vide Gen.i. 3, et seq.) And he coramuni-
cated that Revelation to the world through Jesus
Christ, (as testified beforehand by John the Baptist,)
for the purpose of effecting the salvation of those
that received and believed the authority of that Re
velation. This is detailed throughout vers. 2 — 12.*
In verses 13, 14, John expressly personifies " the
word" in Jesus, as the bearer and deliverer of that
Revelation : " The word was made flesh," (or the
word was flesh,) " and dwelt among us," &c. To
explain fully this metaphorical representation, John
* The reason for the use of the masculine gender in these
verses, both in the original Gospel and in the English version, is
obvious, as the original word Xoyos, signifj'ing the " word," is
masculine.

597
designates Jesus by this name, with the additional
words " of life," once in his Epistle, 1 John i. 1,
" The word of life," and with the additional words
" of God," once in Rev. xix. 13, " His name is
called The Word of God ;" whereby he manifests
that Jesus, as the deliverer of the word of God, is
called by that name, and not actually identified with
the word, as otherwise raight have been supposed
from his Gospel, i. 1. John i. 1, is not the only in
stance in which an attribute of the Deity is thus re
presented as one with God ; for the very same writer
identifies love with the Deity, in John iv. 8, 1 6, on
the ground that love is of God, and is manifested in
the world by him, 1 John iv. 7.
Secondly, I have to notice the orthodox exposition
of the verse in question : they interpret the word
" beginning," as signifying all eternity, and by the
term " word," they understand Jesus the Son of
God ; that is, from all eternity the Son of God ex
isted with God, distinct in person, and he was also
God. The interpretation is, I presume, equally un
scriptural as it is revolting to the understanding, and
for several reasons : First, as long as a passage can
be consistently taken and understood in its literal
sense, there can be no apology for taking it in a
figurative one. Here we find no authority for iden
tifying Jesus with the " word," ob designating him
by that terra in any of the preceding gospels ; he is
only figuratively so called in Revelation, by the
name of " the word of God." Under these circum-

598
stances, to understand Jesus literally and so abruptly,
by the term " word," in John i. 1, (against the esta
blished doctrine of the Jews and the rest of the
oriental nations,) and to assume this word as existent
in the beginning, and as instrumental in the hands
of God, in moral and physical creations, is entirely
inadmissible. 2ndly, The Evangelist John, in his
Gospel, uses the word " beginning" in a finite sense,
and generally implying the beginning of the Chris
tian dispensation, John xvi. 4, xv. 27, viii. 25, 44,
vi. 64, ii. 11, and not once for " all eternity." Hence,
to understand the word " beginning" in an infinite
sense, is opposed to the sense adopted throughout
the whole of his Gospel. 3rdly, In the first verse of
Genesis, " In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth," we find, in a similar connexion, tlie
same phrase, " in the beginning." Were we to fol
low the orthodox interpretation, and take it in an
infinite sense, (i. e. from eternity God created the
earth and heavens,) we should be compelled to pro
fess the eternity of the world and become materia>-
lists. 4thly, To acknowledge the Son to be the
true God, and to have lived with the true God from
eternity, destroys at once the idea of the unity of
God, and proves, beyond every question, the plura
lity of the Deity. For, if we see one real man Uving
with another real man, though both of them are one
in nature and design, are we not compelled, by the
ordinary course of nature, to apprehend the dualilly
of man, and to say that there are two men ? Can

599
orthodox ingenuity prove, that there are not two,
but one man, or prevent the comprehension of the
duality of man ? If not, I wish to know whether,
after admitting that the real God, the Son, exists
with the real God, the Father, from eternity, the
Editor can consistently deny the existence of two
real Gods? Sthly, The exposition of the Editor
must render John i. 1, directly contradictory of
Deut. xxxii. 39, " I am he, and there is no God
with me." Here Jehovah himself expressly denies
having another real God with him in the universe,
for he is often said to have had fictitious gods with
him, and, therefore, Jehovah's denial, in this verse,
must be referred and confined to real gods. Psalm
Ixxxii. 1 : " God standeth in the congregation of the
mighty, he judgeth among the gods." He then
addressed himself to those nominal gods of Israel,
among whom he stood, " I said, ye are gods" (in
verse 6). But we firmly believe that John, an in
spired writer, could not utter any thing that might
contradict the express declaration of Jehovah, though
the Editor and others, from a mistaken notion, as
cribe this contradiction to the EvangeUst. 6thly,
They thus render the last sentence of the verse,
" the word was God," without the indefinite article
" a" before " God," while they translate Exod. vii. 1,
" I have made thee (Moses) a god to Pharoah,"
though, in the original Hebrew, there stands only
the word a'rt!?« or " God," without the indefinite
article " a" before it. If regard for the divine unity

600
induced them to add the article " a" in the verse of
Exodus, " a god to Pharoah," why did not the same
regard, as well as a desire of consistency, suggest to
them to add the article " a" in John i. 1, " the word
was a god" ? We may, however, easily account for
this inconsistency. The terin " God," in Exodus, is
applied to Moses, the notion of whose deity they
abhor ; but as they meant to refer the same term, in
John i. 1, to Jesus, (whose deity they are induced
by their education to support,) they leave the word
" God" here, without the article " a," and carefully
write it with a capital G. Lastly, If eternity be un
derstood by the phrase " In the beginning," in John
i. 1, and Jesus Christ be literally understood by the
" WORD," then we shall not only be compelled to
receive Christ as an eternal being, but also his apos
tles ; since Luke (ch. i. 2) speaks of himself and his
fellow-disciples, as " eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word from the beginning."
Thirdly, I shall now quote the interpretation of
this passage, by searchers after truth, who have been
enabled to overcome their early-acquired prejudices.
See Improved Version, for which the Christian
world is indebted to its eminently-learned authors.
" The Word.'] ' Jesus is so caUed because God
revealed himself or his word by him.' Newcome.
The same titie is given to Christy Luke i. 2. For
the same reason he is called the Word of life, 1 John
i. 1, which passage is so clear and useful a comment
upon the proem to the gospel, that it may be proper

601
to cite the whole of it. ' That which was from ihe
beginning, which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and
our hands have handled oi 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.' By a similar metonymy Christ is called the
Life, the Light, the Way, the Truth, and the Re
surrection. See Cappe's Dissert. Vol. I. p. 19."
" In the beginning,] Or, from the first, i. e. from
the commenceraent of the gospel dispensation, or of
the ministry of Christ. This is the usual sense of
the word in the writings of this Evangelist. John
vi. 64, Jesus knew from the beginning, or from the
first ; ch. xv. 27, ' Ye have been with me from the
beginning.' See ch. xvi. 14, ii. 24, in. 11; also 1
John i. 1, U. 7, 8; 2 John 6, 7. Nor is this sense
of the word uncommon in other passages of the
New Testament. 2, Thess. u. 13; Phil, iv, 15;
Luke i, 2."
" The Word was ivith Goc?.] He withdrew from
the world to commune with God, and to receive
divine instructions and qualifications, previously to
his public ministry. As Moses was with God in the
mount, Exod. xxxiv. 28, so was Christ in the wilder
ness, or elsewhere, to be instructed and disciplined
for his high and important office. See Cappe, ibid.
p. 22."

602
" And the Word was a God,~\ ' Was God.'
Newcome. Jesus received a commission as a pro
phet of the Most High, and was invested with ex
traordinary miraculous powers. But in the Jewish
phraseology they were called gods to whom the
word of God came. {John x, 35.) So Moses is
declared to be a god to Pharoah. {Exod. vn. 1.)
Some translate the passage, God was the Word, q. d.
it was not so properly he that spake to men as God
that spake to them by him. Cappe, ibid. See
John X. 30, compared with xvii. 8, ii. 16, iii. 34, v.
23, xii. 44. Crellius conjectured that the true read
ing was ©£8, the Word was God's, q. d. the first
teacher of the gospel derived his comraission from
God. But this conjecture, however plausible, rests
upon no authority."
" Was in the beginning with God^ Before he
entered upon his ministry he was fully instructed,
by intercourse with God, in the nature and extent of
his commission."
" All things were done by him.] ' All things
were made by him, and without him was not any
thing made that was made.' Newcome ; who ex
plains it of the creation of the visible, material world
by Christ, as the agent and instrument of God. See
his notes on ver. 3 and 10. But this is a sense which
the word eysvsTo will not admit. r<vojw.ow occurs
upwards of seven hundred -times in the New Testa
ment, but never in the sense of create. It signifies,
in this gospel, where it occurs fifty-three times, to

603
be, to come, to become, to come to pass ; also, to be
done or transacted, ch. xv. 7, xix. 36. It has the
latter sense. Matt. v. 18, vi. 8, xxi. 42, xxvi. 6.
All things in the Christian dispensation were done
by Christ, i. e. by his authority, and according to
his direction ; and in the ministry committed to his
his apostles, nothing has been done without his war
rant. See John xv. 4, 5, ' Without me ye can do
nothing.' Compare vers. 7, 10, 16; John xvu. 8;
Col. i. 16, 17. Cappe, ibid."
Verse 14: "Nevertheless, the Word was flesh."
" ' Though this first preacher of the gospel was
honoured with such signal tokens of divine confi
dence and favour, though he was invested with so
high an office, he was, nevertheless, a mortal man'
Cappe. In this sense the word flesh is used in the
preceding verse. ' Fleshy says Mr. Lindsey, Se
quel to the Apology, p. 136, ' is frequently put for
man' Psalm Ixv. 2; Rom. in. 20. But it fre
quently and peculiarly stands for man as mortal,
subject to infirmities and sufferings ; and as such, is
particularly appropriated to Christ here, and in other
places. 1 Tim. m. 16; Rom. i. 3, ix. 5; 1 Pet. ui.
18, iv. 1. 'O 7\.oyog trapl eysvsTO, the Word was
flesh, not became flesh, which is Newcome's trans
lation, or, was made flesh, which is the common
version. The most usual meaning of ytvoy.ai, is io
be. In this sense sysvsTo is used in this chapter, ver.
6 ; also in Luke xxiv. 19. The things concerning
Jesus of Nazareth, bg sysvsTo, who was, not who

604
became a prophet. See Cappe, p. 86; and Socinus
in foe."
Now my readers may judge which of these inter
pretations oi John i. 1, is consistent with scriptural
authority and conformable to the human under
standing. The Editor denies, positively, the charge of ad
mitting three Gods, though he is in the practice of
worshipping God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost. I could wish to know what he
would say, when a Hindoo also would deny Poly
theism on the same principle, that if three separate
persons be admitted to make one God, and those
that adore them be esteemed as worshippers of one
God, what objection could be advanced, justly, to
the oneness of three hundred and thirty three mil
lion of persons in the Deity, and to their worship in
different emblems ? for, oneness of three or of thirty
millions of separate persons is equally impossible,
according to human experience, and equally sup
portable by mystery alone.
The second passage of John, quoted by the Editor,
which I have not yet noticed, is John xvi. 30, "Now
are we sure that thou knowest all things." I admit
that Jesus knows all things concerning his ministry
and the execution of final judgment, but not those
that bear no relation to either of them, as I noticed
in pages 449, 518, and 538, since the phrase " all
things," is very often used in a definite sense, both
in the Old and New Testaments. In Joshua i. 17,

605
when the people said, " We hearkened to Moses in
all things," they meant, of course, things with regard
to the divine commandments. So, in Matt. xvii. 11,
Elias is said to have " restored all things," that is, all
things concerning his office as the forerunner of the
Messiah. In Mark xiii. 23, Jesus said to his dis
ciples, " I have foretold you all things," of course
what respected their salvation. Eph. vi. 21: " Ty
chicus, a beloved brother, and faithful minister in
the Lord, shall make known to you all things," of
course belonging to their salvation. Besides, the
Scriptures inform us, that those who devote them
selves to the contemplation of the Deity are endued
with the free gift of knowing all things ; but from
this circumstance they are not considered to be
elevated to the nature of God, nor numbered as per
sons of the Godhead. Prov. xxvni. 5 : " They that
seek the Lord, understand all things." 2 Tim. ii. 7 :
" And the Lord give thee understanding in all
things." 2 Sam. xiv. 20 : " And my Lord is wise,
according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to
know all things that are in the earth."
The Editor quotes Paul, (page 598,) " God our
Saviour," and 1 Peter, " The righteousness of God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ," and also Jude, [25,]
" To the only wise God our Saviour." He intends,
perhaps, to shew, that as both God and Jesus are
styled " Saviours," consequently Jesus is God. — I
have fully noticed that several others, beside Jesus,
were, like him, appointed by God to save people
2r

606
from time to time, and named Saviours in the Scrip
tures ; but that the use of this appellation does not
serve to prove the deity of any of them. Vide pages
402 and 405.
The Editor expresses his despite of Hindoo Poly
theism, triumphing in his own pure profession. I
wonder how it could escape the notice of the Editor,
that the doctrine of plurality in unity maintained by
him, and that professed by Hindoos, stand on the
same footing, since the Editor, as well as the Hindoos,
firmly declares the unity of God, while at the same
time both acknowledge the plurality of persons
under the same Godhead, although they differ from
each other in the exact number. The following
passage quoted by the Editor, " The gods who have
not made the heavens and the earth, shall perish
from the earth, and from under these heavens," is
equally applicable to several of the divine persons of
both parties.
In answer to the Editor's query. Where does the
unity of mankind exist ? I entreat to be allowed to
ask the Editor, where the unity of the Godhead exists ?
If he say, that it is one divine nature that exists
between the three sacred persons, I answer, that the
unity of mankind is one human nature, and exists
between so many individual persons.
In answer to his question. When were all man
kind one even in design and will ? I shall say that
mankind has always been one, and shall be one even
in will and design, in the glorious and prosperous

607
reign of Christ ; and that present difference in will
and design, or in rank and situation among its per^
sons, does not preclude them from unity of nature, as
the Editor himv^lf admits that " one equal in nature
to another ma_y yet be subordinate in office." Besides,
we find that the will of God the Father was some
times at variance with that of God the Son, Mat
thew xxvi. 39 : " O my Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me ; nevertheless, not as / wUl,
but as thou wilt." Mark xiv. 36 : " And he (Jesus)
said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee ;
take away this cup from me ; nevertheless, not what
/ will, but what thou wilt."
The Editor appeals to common sense, saying,
that " she sees around her every day," that one man
" equal in nature to another is yet subordinate in
office." She sees so indeed ; but when she sees one
man equal in nature to another, she reckons them
tux) men, whether one is subordinate in office to the
other or not. To this part of the evidence, I beg
the Editor will pay some attention. It is indeed
astcniishing, that in all his illustrations the Editor
brings the Godhead to a level with any genus, in
cluding various species under it, but feels offended if
any one should observe this fact to him.
The Editor says, (page 601,) " Nor is it true that
it was the constant practice of the Saviour to pray to
the Fathet fot the power of working miracles ; for he
never did them in his Father's name, as was the
2r2

608
invariable practice of the ancient prophets." In reply
to this, I only refer the Editor to John xi. 41, to
Markviii. 6, where we find Jesus had actually prayed
to the Father in raising the dead, and breaking the
bread ; and especially to John xi. 42, in which
Jesus, by saying " thou hearest me always" avows
that, during the whole period of his exeouting the
divine comraission, God heard his supplications,
though in several instances of performing miracles he
had not used verbally the name of God, in imitation
of the practice of some of the ancient prophets.
See 2 Kings v. 27, in which Elisha is said to have
made Gehazi a leper without verbal supplicatidn.to
God ; and in chap. ii. 10, Elijah bestowed on Elisha
his power of performing miracles, without praying
verbally to the Most High. As to the Editor's
assertion, that " he never did them (miracles) in his
Father's name," I again refer him to John x. 25,
" The works that I do in my Father's name, they
bear witness of me." Ver. 43 : "I am come in my
Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another
shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."
Here Jesus rests his divine commission on the name
of God, and rejects the claims of any one who comes
in his own name. He certainly sent his disciples to
work miracles in his own name, as the. Messiah sent
from God, that his apostles might procure faith in
him from Jews and Gentiles, whereby they both
might have their access to God through him. Mat-

609
thew X. 40 — 42 : " He that receiveth you receiveth
me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that
sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name
of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward ; and
he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a
righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these
little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a
disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise
lose his reward." These shew evidently that man
should be rewarded for any act that he may perform
in the name of a disciple, even in the name of a righ
teous man. How much more is he to be approved
in the sight of God, if he acts in the name of the
Messiah of the Most High !
I do not wonder at the idea of Christ's empower
ing his apostles to work miracles when we find other
prophets doing the same at their own choice, as I
have often noticed. The Editor says, " If it be
declared in scripture, that the Father created all
things by and for the Son, it proves only that the
Son is equal to the Father," and that the passages,
" ' He hath given to the Son to have Ufe in himself,'
' the first-born of every creature,' place the equality
of the Son with the Father beyond all dispute."
This must be a new made of proof, invented for the
support of the Trinity, founded on mystery, far
beyond my understanding. For if a creature's being
endowed with life by, or employed as an instrument

610
in the hands of another, puts them both on a footing
of equality, then, in the Editor's estimation, the clay
is equal to the potter ; the rod with which Moses
performed his miracles was equal to that great pro
phet ; and Moses himself, by whom, and for whom,
God exhibited so many wonderful works, was equal
to tiie Deity.

611

CHAPTER V.
Remarks on the Replies to the Arguments found in
Chapter the Third ofthe Second Appeal.
The Editor now comes (p. 602) " to the last,
and by far the easiest part of his work," that of
meeting my objections to the seven positions formerly
advanced in support of the deity of Christ. The
first of these is, that Jesus was possessed of ubiquity,
deduced from John iii. 13, " No man hath ascended
up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of Man, who is in heaven." The ubi
quity of Jesus is by the Editor grounded on the
phrase, " who is in heaveH," found in the present
tense, while Jesus was at that time on earth, I in
the first place observed in my Second Appeal, (page
175,) that this argument might, perhaps, carry some
weight with it, were not the frequent use of the
present tense in a preterite or future sense observed
in the sacred writings ; and were not a great number
of other passages to determine that the term " is'*
in this instance must be understood in the past tense ;
and to support this assertion, I quoted several pas
sages, a few of which the Editor has discussed,
leaving the rest quite unnoticed. One of these is
John via. 68: " Jesus said unto theiB', Verily, verily,
I say unto yo«, Before Abraham was, I am." To

612
weaken its force, the Editor says, " Why must this
declaration, ' Before Abraham was, I am,' be taken
in a preterite sense ? Because if it be not, our au
thor's cause dies." No ; but because it would bear
no sense unless thus understood, " Before Abraham
was, / was." The Editor further says, '' Did the
Jews, however, understand it thus ? So far from it,
that they esteemed it a decided declaration of Jesus's
equality with the Father, and took up stones to
stone him as a blasphemer." The Jews understood
Jesus as declaring himself to be more ancient than
Abraham, which they first inferred from his assertion
" Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and
he saw it, and was glad." {John viii. 56.) But there
is nothing in the context that can convey the least
idea of the Jews having esteemed the phrase " Before
Abraham was, I am," a " decided declaration of
Jesus's equaUty with the Father," or of their having,
in consequence, taken up stones to stone him. Nor
can the circumstance of their attempt to stone Jesus
be considered as a proof of their viewing the abdve
declaratiPn respecting his priority to Abraham, as
blasphemy against God, for they sought to slay
Jesus once on account of his having healed a man on
the sabbath day, which they considered as a breach
of their law, and not as a claim to equality with the
Deity ; {John v. 16 ;) and they wanted again to
destroy Jesus merely from his affirming, " I know
him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me ; {John
vii. 29, 30;) and finally from motives of political

613
safety, as far as regarded their connexion with the
Romans, the Jews resolved to kill him. {John, xi;
47, 48, 53.)
The Editor says, that " Jesus himself, meek and
lowly as he was, although he knew precisely in what
sense they understood hira, rather chose to work a
miracle for his own safety, than to deny his divinity."
From what I have just stated, and from all that I
mentioned in pp. 589, 562, it obviously appears that
neither the Jews understood his deity from the asser
tion, " Before Abraham was, I am," nor was it usual
with Jesus to correct them whenever they mistook
his meaning. The Editor might further perceive,
in John v. 20, and its context, that Jesus, though
charged with having a demon, omitted to correct
fully their mistaken notion ; and also, in John viii.
48, 49, that, on the Jews reproaching him with
being a Samaritan, and with being possessed by a
demon, the Saviour only denied the second, and
omitted to notice the former, which was the gross
est charge that one Jew could ever prefer against
another. The Editor seems doubtful as to the force of the
arguments he has adduced in turning the above verse
to his purpose, as he thought it proper to have re
course to " the body of eviderice previously adduced"
in his attempt to prove " Christ's ubiquity ;" but my
readers may be able to judge, from a calm examina
tion of this body of evidence, whether or not it has
any weight in proof of the ubiquity of the Son.

614
The Editor now lays down a rule for those in
stances where the present tense is used in the Scrip
tures for the past, saying, " In poetry, and sometimes
in lively narrative, the present is, with strict pro
priety, used for the past, because the transaction is
narrated as though passing before the reader s eyes."
I therefore beg the Editor to explain, conformably
to this rule, the instances I noticed, (Second Appeal,
pp. 175, 176,) and numerous other instances. John
xi. 8 : " His disciples say unto him," instead of said
unto him. Ver. 38 : " Jesus cometh to the grave,"
that is, came to the grave. Ch. xiu. 6 : " Then
cometh he to Siraon Peter," that is, he came to
Simon Peter. Do these come under the denomina
tion of poetry or lively narration ? If not, the Edi-
to'r's rule must fall to the ground* If the Editor
insists upon their being lively narration, because the
circumstances are " narrated as though passing be
fore the reader's eyes," how can we be prevented, in
that case, from taking the assertion in John iii, 11,
also for a lively narration, on the sarae ground, that
the circumstances are narrated in the verse in ques
tion " as though passing before the reader's eyes,"
although Jesus had in reality meant by present, the
past tense ?
The Editor further observes, that " it is a didactic
discourse, on the clearness and accuracy of which
depended the salvation of a man (Nicodemus) who
had hazarded much in coming to Jesus for instruc
tion." It is true that Jesus, as the greatest prophet

615
of God, (or an omniscient being, according to the
orthodox creed,) though well aware of the slow
apprehension of Nicodemus, instructed him in a lan
guage far from being clear and comprehensible to
him, both in the preceding and following verses.
Vide verse 3 : " Except a man be bom again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God." Ver. 8 : "So is
every one that is bom ofthe Spirit." Ver. 13 : "No
man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came
down from heaven," &c, Ver. 14 : " And as Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of Man be lifted up" — foretelling him of his
death on the cross by these ambiguous words. Nay,
moreover, he, in his discourse with the Jews and the
multitude, very often expressed his ideas in such a
manner, that not only the Jews, but his own disci
ples, mistook his meaning ; but he always regulated
his instructions as he was guided by his and our
heavenly Father. It would be, therefore, presump
tuous in us to lay down rules for his conduct, main
taining that " cornmon humanity, therefore, demand
ed that in further discourse with him, no word should
be used but in its direct and proper sense."
In answer to his assertion, " If, then, he would
only tell us how Jesus was regarded in those realms
of Ught and truth previously to his descent on earth,
he would himself settle this point," — I beg to refer
the Editor to such authority as no Christian can
ever deny ; I mean 1 Peter i. 20 : " Who verily

616
was foreordained before the foundation, of ihe world,
but was manifested in these last times for you."
And also to 2 Tim. i. 9 : " Who hath saved us, and
called us with a holy calling, not according to our
works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world
began'' If this plain explanation fall short of con^
vincing the Editor of the real sense in which the
pre-existence of Jesus and of his followers was meant,
my endeavour to correct his notion on this head
must be of no use.
In order to weaken the force of the argument I
founded on John vi. 62, " The Son of Man ascend
up where he was before" shewing the absence of
Jesus from heaven while he was talking to men on
earth, the Editor quotes Gen. xi. 5, xviii. 33, xxxv.
13, in which Jehovah is stated to have moved from
one place to anothei", though possessed of omnipre
sence. But the Editor overlooked, or thought it
judicious . to omit to notice, the real point of my
argument; in the Second Appeal, which I now repeat r
'•' For the attribute of omnipresence is quite incon
sistent with the human notions of the ascent and
descent effected by 'the Son of Man" It is not
impossible for.the omnipresent God that he should
manifest ; himself; wherever he chooses without vio
lating his omiapresence; butthe notion of occupy
ing two very distant places at one time by a son (f
man, is, of course, contrary to the ideas acquired by

617
human experience, unless this extraordinary circum
stance be ascribed to the power of performing- mira
cles bestowed on man by God.
Jesus, however, took every precaution in wording
his discourse with Nicodemus, by the use of the term
man in the very sarae verse, (13,) thus establishing
his humanity ; but, notwithstanding this, the preju
dices of a great number of his followers have induced
them to infer his ubiquity, and thereby his deity,
from the same verse.
I will not recur to the examination of such pas
sages as " who made all things," " who upholds all
things," &c., alluded td here by the Editor, having
often noticed them in the former part of this work.
Let us now come to the real point, and ascertain
whether or not the word, in the origirial Greek,
which is rendered " is" in the English versiduj in
the phrase " who is in heaven," actually signifies
the present tense, as a candid inquiry into this very
point will bring us to a satisfactory decision at once.
The. word in the original is mv, a participle, and not
a verb; and all that I said in my Second Appeal
may be compressed into three remarks. In the first
place, that the time of the participle is referred to
the time of the verb found in the sentence ; and to
corroborate this opinion, I quoted Bishop Middleton's
Doctrine of the Greek Article, Part i. p. 42, Note :
" We are to refer the time of the participle to the
time of the act, &c. impUed in the verb ; for past,
present, and future, cannot be meant otherwise than

618
in respect of that act."* And I also cited John i;
48, Ovra. ejSov (ts, " I saw thee when thou wast ;"
literally, " I saw thee being," in which the present
participle implies the past in correspondence with
the verb sjSov, ot " I saw," found in the same verse.
I now also beg the attention of the Editor to the
common usage of almost all the languages that have
the use of a present participle, in which he will find
the participle generally referring to the time of the
verb related to it. In English, for example, in the
following phrase, " Being ill, I could not call upon
you," the time of the present participle " being,"
refers, I presume, to the verb " could not call," im
plying the past tense.
In the second place, I quoted Levit. vii. 33, xiv.
47, in which the present participle is accompanied
with the definite article, observing, that " these pre
sent participles are referred to a time present with
respect to the act of the verbs connected with thera,
but foture, with respect to the command of God" —
that is, when the definite article is prefixed in Greek
to a present participle, it has reference to the verb
connected with it in an indefinite raanner. So we
find many instances in the New Testament similar
to those quoted from Leviticus. In the third place,
I said, " Moreover, we frequently find the present
* The Editor has given, in p. 607, a quotation from Bishop
Middleton, with some remarks of his own ; but I am perfectly
willing to leave it to the discerning reader to judge whether it
corroborates my opinion or makes against it.

619
participle used in a past tense, even without reference
to the time of the verb. John ix. 25 : Tu^'hos cov
apri ^XsTTO), " Being blind, now I see ;" that is,
" Having been blind, now I see."
The Editor, omitting to notice the second and
third arguments adduced by me, makes remarks
only on the first, saying, that " were this criticism"
(" being in heaven," instead of " is in heaven") per
fectly correct, it would not be of the least service to
our author, as, he being in heaven, is precisely the
same as, he who is in heaven." — I positively object
to the accuracy of this assertion of the Editor ; for
the verb " is," generally affirms an act or a state at
the time present when spoken ; but the present par
ticiple mv, or " being," even when preceded by the
definite article o, or " the," iraplies time indefinitely,
though the article o is often rendered by a relative
pronoun " who" or " which," and the participle by
a verb, for the sake of elegance in English composi
tion. I beg to refer the Editor first to those texts
quoted in my Second Appeal. Levit, vii. 33 : 'O
wpotr^epmv — a[}Tva Btrra-i o ^pa^iwv 6 ^B^iog, " The
offering (person) for him shall be the right shoul
der." Although the participle " offering" is found
here in the present tense, yet it indisputably impUes,
that at any time in foture in which the offering may
be made, " the offers shall be entitled to the right
shoulder." Lev. xiv, 47: 'O scrQwv — ttTmvsi to. \p,wria.
aoToo, " The eating (person) shall wash his clothes."
The word " eating," though found here in the pre-

620
sent participle, preceded by the definite Greek article
0, signifies any part of the future in which the act of
eating shall take place. The phrase, " the eating"
(person,) is rendered in the English version, " he
that eateth," conformably to the idiom of the En
glish language ; but this change of construction does
not produce any change in the real meaning conveyed
by the original Greek. As this phrase, " he that
eats," bears no allusion to the support of the doctrine
of the Trinity, no one will, I presume, scruple to
interpret it in its original sense ; that is, he who eats
at any time future with respect to the commandment
of God, shall wash his clothes.
Secondly, I refer the Editor to the passages he
quoted in p. 608, to save me the trouble of selecting
them. John iii. 4 : " How can a man be born when
he is old ?" literally, " being old ;" that is, at any
point of time, no man being old can be born. Ver.
15: "That no man believing on him should perish ;"
that is, no one who may be induced to believe Jesus
at any time, even up to the last day, should perish.
Ver. 18 : " He not believing is condemned already ;"
that is, he who rejects me at ariy time, is condemned
already; in the divine decree. Ver. 20: "Every one
doing evil hateth light," at any time whatsoever.
Ver. 29 : " He having the bride is the bridegtoom,"
at any period of time. Ver. 31 : " He being of the
earth, is earthly," at any period of time.' Again, ch.
V. 3 : " In these lay a great multitude of folk impo
tent," &c. In the original Greek, the verb " to

621
lie," is in the imperfect tense, and consequently the
participle may be thus rendered, " Who were impo
tent up to that time." Ver. 5 : " And a certain man
was there who had an infirmity thirty and eight
years." In this verse the participle is not preceded
by the article : this, however, signifies that a certain
man had an infirmity when he was present at the
pool — not at the time when St. John narrated this
circumstance. But with a view to expose my argu
ment to ridicule, the Editor puts his own words into
my mouth, saying, (p. 608,) " In this chapter, ver. 4,
we have, ' How can a man be born when he is old ?'
literally, ' being old,' on our author's plan, * having
been old, and now not being so ;' " and so on in all
the above-stated verses. But I wonder how he could
mistake what I have advanced in my Second Appeal
in explanation of a present participle preceded by the
article o in the following words : " The offering
(person) for him shall be the right shoulder : — the
eating (person) shall wash his clothes. These pre
sent participles are referred to a time present with
respect to the act of the verbs connected with them,
but future with respect to the command of God."
Now my reader may judge whether I confined the
meaning of a present participle to the past tense, as
the Editor, no doubt inadvertently, misrepresents my
arguments. Thirdly, I beg to refer the Editor to the transla
tion of that verse by the celebrated Dr. Campbell :
" For none ascendeth into heaven, but he who de-
2s

622
scended from heaven, the Son pf Man, whose abode
is in heaven ;" in which the sense of the participle is
referred to an indefinite time ; for a person whose
abode is in London, may have his temporary resi
dence in Paris.
Fourthly, I beg also to refer to the explanation of
the article o before a participle, given by Parkhurst :
" xi. With a participle it may generally be rendered
by who, that, which, and the participle as a verb.
Thus 1 John ii, 4, o "Keymv, he who saith, i. e. the
(person) saying. John ii 18, o mv, who is or was"
As to the assertion of the Editor, that were the
time of the participle " being," found in the phrase
" being in heaven," referred to the verb " to ascend
up to heaven," it would completely prove the ubi
quity of Christ, or involve perfect absurdity ; I pre
sume there would be neither of these difficulties, in
the event of the participle being referred to the verb
mentioned in the verse ; for one's being in heaven,
or having his abode in heaven, does not render his
ascent to heaven impossible, nor does it tend to prove
his deity. Let us apply these circumstances as they
stand literally to Moses and EUas, who descended
from their heavenly abode, and appeared with Jesus
Christ to his apostles, {Matt. xvii. 3,) and again
ascended, would it prove their ubiquity, or involve
absurdity ? But is there any thing more ahsurd than
an attempt to prove the ubiquity of a son of man
capable of occupying only a certain small space on
earth ?

623
In reply to his assertion, that " when John wishes
to describe a past state of action or being, he chooses
some past participle," I only beg to remind him,
that in the Greek language there is no past or future
participle for the verb £*/*.*, to he, and, consequently,
the present pa,rticiple is used for those tenses under
the specific rules.*
As to the second passage which he quoted to
demonsta-ate the ubiquity of Jesus, {Matt, xviii. 20,
" For where two or three are gathered together in
ray name, there am I in the midst of them,") I ob
served in my Second Appeal, " Is it not evident that
the Saviour meant here, by being in the midst of
two or three of his disciples, his guidance of them
when joined in searching for the truth, without pre
ferring any claim to ubiquity? We find similar
expressions in the Scriptures wherein the guidance
of the prophets of God is meant by words that would
* The true explanation o? the verse is giveu in the Improved
Version, as follows : " Now no man Jiath ascended up to heayen,
but he who c^me down from heaven,t even the Son of Man^
[who is in heaven.]" }
t "He who came down from lteaven.1 This clause is correlative to the preceding. If tlie
former is to be understood of a local ascent, the latter mnst be interpreted of a local descent.
Bat If the former clause is to be understood figuratirely, as H^pbelius aud Doddridge
explain it, the latter ought in all reason to be Interpreted figuratively likewise. If ' to
ascend into heaven,- signifies to become acquainted with the truths of God, 't^ descend
from heaven,* is to bring down, and to discover those truths to the world. And this text
clearly explains the meaning of the phrase wherever it occurs iu this evangelist. * €ouiii^^
down from heaven,' means coming from God, (see ver, 2,) aa Nicodemus expressed it, who
did not understand this of a local descent, but of » divine commission. So Christ interprets
it ver. 17. Sn."
% " Who K in iefloen.] This clause is wanting in some o( the best copies. If its authen
ticity is allowed, it is to be understood of tiie knowledge which Christ possessed of the
Father's will. See John i. 18."
2s2

624
imply their presence. Luke xvi. 29 : ' Abraham said
unto him. They have Moses and the prophets, let
thera hear them.' No one will suppose that this ex
pression is intended to signify that the Jews actually
had Moses and the prophets in person among them,
or that they could hear them speak, in the literal
sense of the words ; nor can any one deduce the
omnipresence of Moses and the prophets from such
expressions." The Editor, to avoid entering into the main argu
ment, puts the following questions, to which I shall
now reply. 1st. " If Christ guided them, must he
not have been with them for that purpose ?" Yes,
he has been with them in the same manner as Moses
and the prophets have been with the Israelites, as is
evident from the above-quoted passage of Luke, as
well as from another which I shall now cite. 1 John
iii. 24 : " And he that keepeth his commandments
dwelleth in him, and he in him : and hereby we
know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he
hath given us." 2ndly. " If there were only two
such little companies searching for the truth at the
same moment, must he not have possessed ubiquity
to guide them both ?" I reply by two other ques
tions. If the Jews of Galilee and of Jerusalem
" have Moses and the Prophets" at the same time
for their guidance, are Moses and the Prophets to be
supposed to have been possessed of ubiquity ? After
Elijah went up to heaven, (2 Kings ii. 11,) and his
spirit was seen resting on Elisha, who remained on

625
earth, (ver. 15,) does the circumstance of Elijah's
being in heaven, and being with his servant Elisha on
earth in spirit at .the same time, prove the ubiquity
of Elijah ? 3rdly. The Editor asks, " If he (Jesus)
was with Christians to guide them, has he left them
now ?" I reply, neither Jesus nor Moses and the
Prophets have now forsaken those that sincerely
search into truth, and are not fettered with early-
acquired human opinions. 4th. " How, then, can
he be the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever?" My
reply is, he has been the same in like raanner as
David has been, in "keeping the law continually _/br
ever and ever." {Psalm cxix. 44.) Sth. '* Does our
author need to be told that this meant the writings of
Moses and the Prophets ?" I reply, that this expres
sion means their words preserved for ever by means
of writing as the statutes of God. Psalm cxix. 152 :
" Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old
that thou hast founded them for ever." Ver. 89 :
" For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."
And Deut, xxxii. 1, Moses exclaims, " Give ear, O
ye heavens, and I will speak, and hear, O earth, the
words of my mouth ; my doctrine shall drop as the
rain, my speech shall distil as the dew," &c. 6th.
" Did Jesus mean that they had his writings with
them ?" I reply, he meant, of course, that they had
his lowly spirit, and his words, which were afterwards
published and preserved in writing. 7th. " Where
were the writings of Jesus at that time ?'' I said not
a word of his writings in my Second Appeal. Why

626
the Editor puts this question to me, I know not. It
is, however, evident, that Jesus himself, while on
earth, like other prophets of God, never omitted to
express his doctrines and precepts, which have been
handed down in writing up to this day.
SECOND POSITION.
The Editor quoted Matthew xi. 27, " No man
knoweth the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth
any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom
soever the Son will reveal him," to shew that Jesus
ascribes to himself a knowledge and an incompre
hensibility of nature equal to that of God. I conse
quently asked the Editor in my Second Appeal, " If
he, by the term ' incomprehensible,' understands a
total impossibility of being comprehended in any
degree, or only the impossibility of attaining to a
perfect knowledge of God ?" If the former, we must
be under the necessity of denying such a total incom
prehensibility of the Godhead ; for the very passage
cited by the Editor declares God to be comprehen
sible not to the Son alone, but also to every one
who should receive revelation from the Son ; and in
John xvi. 16, 17, Jesus ascribes to his disciples a
knowledge of the Holy Ghost, whom the Editor
considers one of the persons of the Godhead, pos
sessed erf the same nsiture with God. But if the
Editor understands by the passage he has quoted, the
incopiprehensibiUty of the real nature of the God-

627
head, I admit the position, but deny his inference
that sucli an incomprehensibility proves the nature of
the object to be divine, as being peculiar to God alone,
for it appears evident that a knowledge of the real
nature even of a common leaf, or a visible star, sur
passes human comprehension. The Editor, although
he filled one page (610) in examining that part of
the reply, yet made no direct answer to the foregoing
question, but repeats his inference from these passages,
" that Jesus himself can comprehend the nature of
the Father, and that his own nature is equally inscru
table ;" but the verse in question does not convey one
or other of these positions. As to tfie first, we find
the latter part ofthe sentence (" rieither knoweth any
man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever
the Son will reveal him") declaring an exception to
the general assertion made in the former part of it ;
(" neither knoweth any man the Father ;") that is,
the Son, and those to whona the Son reveals God,
were the only individuals that knew the nature of the
Father. Would not this exception be distinctly
contrary both to the sacred. authorities, and to com
mon sense ; as the spripture declares positively that
the nature of Gpd is incomprehensible to men ? Job
xxxvi. 26 : " God is great, we know hira not ;" and
common sense teaches us every moraent, that if the
real nature of the works of God; is incomprehensible
to the human intellect, hPW much more must the
nature of Qod.himself be beyond human understand
ing ! As to the second, if the circumstance of the

628
Son's declaring himself (according to the Editor) to
be inscrutable in nature, be acknowledged as equal
izing him with God, similar declarations hy his
apostles would of course raise them to the same
footing of equality with the Deity. 1 John iii. 1 :
" Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it
knew him not," corroborated by John xvii. 25, " O
righteous Father, the world hath not known thee,"
&c. It is, therefore, evident, that neither can an
impossibility of comprehending God, in any degree,
be meant by this passage, the apostles having known
God by revelation ; nor can the comprehension of
the real nature of God be understood by it, as such a
knowledge is declared to be unattainable by mankind.
The verse in question must be thus understood, as
the meaning evidently is, " that no one but the
Father can fully comprehend the object and extent
of the Son's commission, and no one but the Son
comprehends the counsels and designs of the Father
with respect to the instruction and reformation of
mankind. It is impossible that Jesus can be speaking
here of the person and nature of the Father, for this
he did not, and could not reveal, being essentially
incomprehensible. Neither, therefore, does he mean
the nature and person of the Son. What Christ
knew and revealed ' was the Father's will;' corre
sponding to this, ' that which the Father, and the
Father only, knew, was the nature and extent of the
Son's corrimission.'" Improved Version.

629

THIRD POSITION.

As the Editor expressed his opinion that " Jesus
exercised in an independent manner the prerogative
of forgiving sin, which is peculiar to God," founding
this opinion upon the authority of Mark ii. 5, Matt.
ix. 2, " Thy sins be forgiven thee," I inquired in my
Second Appeal, " Does not this passage, (' But when
the multitude saw it, they raarvelled, and glorified
God who had given such power unto men,' Matt.
ix. 8,) convey an express declaration that Jesus was
as much dependent on God in exercising the power
of forgiving sins, and healing the sick, as the other
prophets who came forth from God before him ?"
To which the Editor replies, " We answer, only in
the opinion of the multitude, who knew him not,
but took him for a great prophet."
I feel surprised at the assertion of the Editor, that
it was the ignorant multitude, who knew not the
nature of Jesus, that made the following declaration,
" who had given such power to raen ;" since it is the
Holy Spirit which speaks by the mouth of the
evangelist Matthew, saying, " when the multitude
saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had
given such power unto men."
I wonder how the Editor could allow his zeal in
support of the Trinity so far to bias his mind, that
he has attempted to weaken the authority of the holy
evangelist, by ascribing his words to the ignorant

630
multitude of Jews. I wonder still more, to observe,
that notwithstanding the Editor declares the apostles
and primitive Christians, (whom he does not esteem
as persons of the Godhead, but admits to be mere
men,) to have been possessed of the power of par
doning sins through the influence of Jesus ; yet he
maintains the opinion, that none, except God, can
forgive sins even through the gift of the Deity
himself. The Editor says, " Not, however, in the opinion
of the Scribes, who were better acquainted with their
own scriptures, and who, although they glorified him
not as God, could not restrain themselves from ac
knowledging the display of his Godhead by accusing
him of blasphemy on that very account."
The Jews were so ill-disposed towards Jesus, that
this is not the first instance in which they sought a
pretence for destroying him under the charge of
blasphemy ; for in John v. 16, they resolve to slay
him merely on pretence of his having healed a
man on the sabbath day, as I noticed before ; and,
in chapter xii. 10, 11, they came to a determination,
under the cloak of religion, to kill him and Lazarus
also, whom Jesus raised after death, though they
knew that many of their prophets raised the dead,
without offending God or the people. And they
also very frequently mistook his meaning. But
Jesus often forbore to repel their charges, some in
stances of which I have already pointed out in page
562. As to Jesus's knowledge of the human heart.

631
as far as it respects his divine comraission and future
judgment, and his power of performing miraculous
deeds, even sometimes without verbal reference to
God, having often noticed these matters in pp. 439
and 536, I shall not recur to them here.
The Editor denies the apostles having been im
pressed with a belief, that it was the Almighty Fa
ther that empowered Jesus to forgive sins and to
perform miracles. I therefore refer the Editor to
the very phrase, " Who had given such power unto
men," and to Acts v. 31, " 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."
xiii. 38, " Through this man (meaning the Saviour)
is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." Do
not these verses shew, beyond a doubt, that Jesus
received from God the power of forgiving sins on
sincere repentance ?
The Editor makes no direct answer to Luke xxiii.
34, in which Jesus prays to the Father for the par
don of the murder perpetrated by the Jews upon
him, nor to Luke xi. 4, Matt. vi. 14, which I
quoted in my Second Appeal, page 184. The Editor
alludes to the importance of the expression, " That
thy Son may glorify thee." But by referring to the
Scriptures, he wiU find, that similar terms are as
common in the language of the Jews, in their ad
dress to God, as any other expressions of reverence
for the Deity.

632

FOURTH POSITION.

With a view to substantiate his fourth position,
that alraighty power is claimed by Jesus in the
most unequivocal manner, the Editor thus com
ments on the passage, John v. 19 — 36, quoted by
me in my Second Appeal : " Jesus, when persecuted
by the Jews, for having healed a man on the sab
bath day, said, ' My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work.' This provoked the Jews still more, because
he had now said, that God was his Father, making
himself equal with God." The Editor adds, " This
observation shews us, that not only the Jews, but
John himself, understood Christ's calling God his
Father, to be making himself God" It would have
been a correct translation of the original Greek, if
the Editor had said, " making hiraself equal with,
or like God," instead of " making himself God"
(vide the original Greek). It is obvious, that one's
calling another his Father, gives apparent ground
to understand that there is an equality of nature or
likeness of properties between them, either in quan
tity or quality of power in performing works. But
to know what kind of equality or likeness should be
meant in ch. v. 18, we have luckily before us the
following texts, in which Jesus declares, that his
likeness with God consisted in doing what he saw
the Father do, and quickening the dead; avowing

633
repeatedly, at the same time, his inferiority to and
dependence on God, in so plain a manner, that the
Jews who heard him, abstained from the measures
of persecution that they had intended to adopt,
although the Saviour continued to call God his Fa
ther, through the whole of the remaining chapter,
in the hearing of the Jews. Nay, further, from the
whole of his conduct and instructions, so impressed
were the Jews with his dependence upon and con
fidence in the Father as his God, that when he was
hanging on the cross they fixed upon this as a ground
of taunt and reproach, saying, " He trusted in God ;
let him deliver him now, if he will have him, for he
said, ' I ara the Son of God.' " Matt, xxvii. 43.
The Editor then proceeds to say, "This (charge
of equality) Jesus neither denies nor corrects, but
adds, ' The Son can do nothing of hiraself, but what
he seeth the Father do,' which must necessarily be
the case, if, as our author affirms, the Father and
the Son are one in will and design." I ask the
Editor, whether this be the language of one who is
almighty? If the Father and the Son be equally
almighty, why should the Son wait until the Father
acts, and then imitate him ? If a subordinate officer,
having been accused of equalizing himself with his
superior, thus declares, " I cannot march a single
step myself, but where I see him march, I do
march," — would this be considered an avowal of his
equality with his superior? My readers will be
pleased to judge. The Editor then says, that " Jesus

634
adds further, ' For whatever things he doth^ these
also doth the Son likewise ;' a more full declaration
of equality with the Father cannot be imagined.
How could the Son do whatsoever the Father doth,
if he were not equal to him in power, wisdom, truth,
mercy?" &c. The Editor here omits to quote the
very next line, " FOR the Father loveth the Son,
and sheweth him all things that himself doth," in
which the preposition " for" assigns reasons for the
Son's doing what the Father doth ; i. e. since the
Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him his works,
the Son is enabled to do what he sees the Father
do. To the Editor's query, " What finite being
could understand all that God doth, if shewn him ?"
I reply. Divine wisdom will of course not shew any
thing to one whom it has not previously enabled to
comprehend it. How could the following passages
escape the memory of the Editor, when he put the
question : Amos iii. 7, " Surely the Lord God will
do nothing, but revealeth his secret unto his servants
the prophets ;" Psalm xxv. 14, " The secret of the
Lord is with them that fear him, and he will shew
them his covenant" ? Did not they understand all
that was shewn and revealed unto them ? If they
did, were they, in consequence, all infinite beings,
as the Editor argues, from this circumstance, Jesus
is? The Editor proceeds to say, " Jesus adds, ' For as
the Father quickeneth the dead, even so the Son
quickeneth whom he will.' Here, then, he declares

635
himself equal with the Father in sovereignty of will,
as well as in almighty power." The Editor again
omits a part of the sentence which runs thus : " So
the Son quickeneth whom he will ; FOR the Father
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son." Does not the latter part of the sen
tence shew clearly, that the power which the Son
enjoyed, in quickening those whom he chose, was
entirely owing to the commission given him by the
Father ? In order to weaken the force of verse 22,
the Editor says, " The Father, however, whose it is
equally with the Son, commits all judgment to the
Son, as the incarnate mediator between God and
man, because he is the Son of Man." My readers
may observe, that if Jesus received all power of
judging men in his human nature, he must have
quickened whom he pleased, as the consequence of
that power, in his human capacity ; how, then, could
the Editor infer the deity of Jesus from one circum
stance, (quickening the dead,) which entirely de
pends upon another, (the power of judging,) enjoyed
by hira in his huraan nature? Lest it should be
supposed that individual instances of the dead being
raised by Jesus is here meant, I may just mention
that he exercised this power in common with other
prophets. As to his assertion, that the work of judging man
kind belongs, by nature, equally to the Son and to
the Father, I only refer the Editor to Matt, xix. 28,
and Luke xxii. 29, 30, in which the apostles are re-

636
presented as invested with the power of judging the
Twelve Tribes of Israel, and to 1 Cor, vi. 2, which
ascribes the power of judging the world to righteous
men ; and I hope that the Editor will be con
vinced, from these authorities, that the " work of
judging mankind" does not " belong, by nature, to
the Son and to the Father." He introduces, in the
course of this argument, John viii. 58, and Rev. i. 8,
which I have often examined in the preceding pages
611,475. He at last comments on verse 23, " That all men
should honour the Son as they honour the Father,"
saying, that " to this glorious declaration of the Son's
Godhead, our author merely objects, that this means
likeness in nature and quality, and not in exact de
gree of honour. But what are the nature and quality
of the honour paid to God the Father ? Divine ho
nour of the highest kind, and such as can be given
to no creature ?" The phrases, " to honour God,"
and " to adore God," are used in quite different
senses; the latter being peculiarly applicable to God,
but the former generally implying only such mani
festation of reverence as one may bestow on his
father, or on another worthy of respect. Mai. i. 6:
" A son honoureth his father, and a servant his
master: if then I be a Father, where is mine ho
nour?" &c. Here God requires the same kind of
honour to be paid him as is due to a father. Does
God here bring himself, in consequence, to a level
with a parent? 1 Sam. ii. 30: " But now the Lord

637
saith, Be it far from me ; for them that honour me,
I will honour." — Here the manifestation of honour
between God and men, is reciprocal; but in any
sense whatsoever, no worship can be reciprocally
offered by God and his creatures. The Editor again
advances, that " the fact is, that this phrase ' as,'
really refers to degree as well as to nature ; see
Matt. XX. 14: 'I wiU give unto this last even as
unto thee,* that is, precisely as much as one penny."
I deny the accuracy of this rule of the Editor, since
*' as," in almost all instances, refers either to degree
or nature, or to some kind of resemblance, a feW of
which I shall here notice. Gal. iv. 14, Paul says to
the Galatians, " But received me as an angel of
God, even as Christ Jesus." Did Paul permit the
Galatians to receive him with precisely the same
kind of honour, both in kind and degree, as was due
to Christ Jesus ? Matt. x. 25 : " It is enough for
the disdple that he be as his master, and the servant
as his Lord," &c. Did Matthew mean here, precise
equality in kind and degree, between a disciple and
his master, and a servant and his Lord? xix. 19:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Did
the Saviour mean here, that precisely the same qua
lity and degree of love, which one entertains towards
himself, should be entertained towards others ? Gen.
iu. 22: " Behold the man is become as one of us."
Did Adam then become, both in nature and degree,
equally wise with the Omniscient God ? Now, my
readers will judge whether or not such a phrase as
2t

638
** men should, or may, honour the Son as they
honour the Father," equalizes the Son, in nature
and degree, with the^ Father. As to the verse above-
quoted, {Matt. XX. 14,)i it implies sameness in de
gree, and not necessarily sameness in kind,, for the
same sum may be given in different currency. The
Editor quotes Heb, iii. 3, 4, in order to shew " in
what sense the Prophet to be sent was like Moses."
As I examined this verse in page 478, I will not re
cur to it again. I only remind the Editor oi Deut.
xvui. 15, 18, where he will petceive in what sense
Jehovah himself drew a likeness between the Savi^
our and Moses, which passage is repeated in Acts
iii. 22, and also of St. Matthew xvii. 3, as well as of
Markix. 4, wherein they express a wish to manifest
the same reverence to.the Saviour as to Moses and
Elias; but it is quite opticmal with the Editor to treat
Moses in any manner he pleases.
In answer to his inquiry, " Why should it offend
our author^ that when the Son, for the suffering of
death, took Upon him the form of a servant?" &c.
My reply is, that it does not offend me in the least;
butl must confess, that such an expression as when
God, "for the suffering of death, took upon him the
form of a servant," seems to me very extraordinary,
as- my idea of God is quite at variance with that, of
a being subjected ta death and servitude.
The Editor ovetiooked , several other passages,
quoted by me, among whidi there was Matt, xxw
23, "To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is

639
not mine to give, hut to tliem for whom it is pre
pared of my Father."
He perhaps hesitated to rely on the sophistry used
by the orthodox, that Jesus denied being possessed
of almighty power only in his human capacity. The
Editor, it is possible, perceived, that as the gift of
all power to Jesus, mentioned in Matt, xxviii. 18, is
explained by the orthodox of his human capacity ;
the denial of almighty power could not, therefore,
be understood of that very human nature in which
he is said to have possessed it.
FIFTH POSITION.
The Editor says, that " our author's objections to
the fifth position, that Jesus's having all judgment
committed to him, proves his omriiscience, have been
so fully met already, that scarcely any thing remains
to be added."
In answer to Which, I have only to say, that the
arguments adduced by the Editor having been pre
viously noticed, it is therefore left to my readers to
examine them, and to come to a deterriiination whe
ther they tend to prove the omniscience of the Son
or not. The Editor, however, adds here, that omni
science is essential to the act of judging niankind.
As I have already dwelt much on this subject' in the
preceding position, pp. 634, 635, and also in p. 511,
I beg to refer my readers to them, Whetein they will
find that the Son's knowledge of the events of this
2t2

640
world extends no farther than as respects the office
of judging mankind ; that others are declared to be
vested with the power of judging the world as well
as the Son ; and that the Son positively denies his
omniscience in Mark xiii. 32. The Editor concludes
by saying, that " his (Father's) giving him ' to have
life in himself,' refers wholly to his being the medi
ator in human flesh." It settles thequestion at once,
that whenever and in whatever capacity Jesus is
declared to have had life, he had it as a gift of the
Father; and the object of our inquiry and reverence
is the Son endowed with life, and not one destitute
of it. SIXTH POSITION.
The Editor begins by observing, that " to the
sixth position, that .Jesus accepted worship due to
God alone, our author objects, ' That the word
' worship,' both in common acceptation and scrip
tural writings, is used sometimes as implying an
external mark of. religious reverence paid to God,
and at other times as signifying merely the token of
civil respect due to superiors; that, those who wor
shipped Jesus did not believe him to be God, or one
of the three persons of the Godhead ; and Jesus, in
his acknowledged human capacity, never prayed to
himself, or directedhis followers ,to Worship or pray
to him.' Granting that .'worship' in English, and
'n-^Qo-xuvim in Greek, are sometimes used to denote

641
civil respect, and that the worship paid by the ser
vant to his master. Matt, xviii. 26, and by the
people to David, meant merely civil respect, still the
position is not touched in the least degree." The
reason which the Editor assigns for this position not
being touched, is, that " whether the blind man,
the lepers, the mariners, and others, knew what they
did in worshipping Jesus, is not so much the ques
tion, as whether Jesus knew ; for if he suffered them,
even through ignorance, to yield him divine worship,
when Peter did not suffer it in Cornelius for a mo
ment ; unless he were God, he must have had less
discemment, or less piety and concern for the Divine
honour, than his own disciples." P. 618.
As the Editor agrees that the term " ' worship' in
English, and Trpo<rxrjvim in Greek, are sometimes used
to denote civil respect," it is of course necessary to
ascertain whether the blind man, &c. knew what
they did in worshipping Jesus ; that is, whether they
meant to bestow civil respect, or to offer religious
reverence. But from all the local circumstances
which I pointed out in the Second Appeal, page
193, it is evident that they, as well as Jesus, knew
that they were manifesting civil respect only by
worshipping him, in the same way as it is evident,
from the circumstances of David's not declining to
receive worship from the people, and Dariiel from
king Nebuchadnezzar, that the people and king in
tended merely civil respect to them. As to Peter's
rejection of the worship offered him by Cornelius, it

642
may easily be accounted for, since, as Jesus was
endowed with the power of knowing things con
nected with his divine commission, so Peter had the
knowledge of secret events concerning his apostolic
duty. From the language which the blind man
and others used, and from his knowledge of their
thoughts, the Sayiour, like other ancient prophets,
gave a tacit consent to the worship (or, properly
speaking, civil reverence) offered by them ; while
Peter rejected the worship offered him by Cornelius,
knowing that he meant it as an external mark of
religious reverence, which was due to God alone, as
is evident from the language of Peter, " I myself
am a man." Having already noticed the exclama
tion of Thomas in page 594, and Heb. i. 10, in page
452, 1 shall not recur to the subject in this place.
The Editor says, " Was Stephen (ignorant) when
he comraitted to him his departing soul in language
similar to that in which Christ on the cross had
committed his spirit to the Father ?"
The language of Stephen alluded to by the Editor,
and that of Christ, bears little resemblance. Among
the many expressions attributed to Jesus on the
cross, none of them resemble the invocation of Ste
phen, except that given Luke xxni. 46, " Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit;" which is
natural for every human being having any idea of
God, or feelings of devotion on the approach of
death. Stephen's exclamation (Acts vii, 59, "Tuord
Jesus, receive my spirit" ) was merely an application

643
to Jesus in preference to the angels of death, whom
he expected to receive his soul, and convey it to the
bosom of the Divinity. The notion of angels of
death receiving and conveying away the spirit at the
time of dissolution, is familiar to the Jews, in com
mon with other Eastern natioris, as appears from
their traditions, and from Prov. xvi. 14, " The wtath
of a king is as messengers" (in the Hebrew, properly
" angels" ) " of death" — i. e. in a despotic country,
the displeasure of the tyrant is equivalent to death.
From Stephen's saying, that he saw " the Son of
Man standing on the right hand of God," we may
easily perceive the notion which he had formed of
the nature of Jesus Christ.
As to Christ's offering prayers and worship to the
Father, and directing his apostles to do so, the Editor
attributes them to the " state of humiliation in Which
his infinite love to sinners had placed him." If Jesus
deemed it necessary, in his human .capacity, to offer
up prayets, thanksgiving, and worship, to God the
Father alone, notwithstandirig he was filled bodily
with God the Son, {according to the Editor,) and
[to] direct his apostles to follow his example, is it not
incumbent upon us also, iri following his patterrii to
thank, pray to, and worship the Father alone^ as
long as we are human ? But the truth is, that the
assertion of the Editor, attributing Christ's devPtion
towards God to his human nature, is ehtirely unsup
ported by scriptural authority.
The Editor further says, that if Jesus were riot

644
God, the apostles, the primitive saints, and the angels
in heaven, would be guilty of idolatry, and the Eter
nal Father of encouraging it.
To quit the Father and Jesus Christ of the charge
of encouraging idolatry, and the apostles, and the
saints, and the angels, of the sin of idol worship, it
suffices to quote Matt. iv. 10, Aarm [MVa> Xarpsutrsig,
" Him only shalt thou serve." This commandment
of the Father of the universe, to be found in Deut.
vi. [13], repeated and communicated to Christians by
the most exalted among the prophets, (who enjoins
religious adoration to be offered to the Father alone,)
sufficiently vindicates God and his Christ from the
above charge. The apostles so strictly observed this
divine communication through their Master, under
the Christian dispensation, that, throughout the whole
New Testament, they appUed exclusively to God
alone this verb, Xargsoa), (rendered in the English
version " to serve,") and not once to Jesus, or to
any other being in any book ofthe New Testament;
while, on similar occasions, they used for him or
others the verbs SooXsoa» or Sjaxoi^so), rendered also in
the English version " to serve," which tends no less
to vindicate them. They further pronounce those
who serve (from the verb XaTgeow) any one except
God, to be rebels and idolaters, — Rom. i. 25 ; Acts
vn .42. I now entreat the Editor to examine the
subject, and, by following the example of the apos
tles and primitive saints, glorify a religion intended
to be raised far above the debasement of idolatry.

645

THE SEVENTH AND LAST POSITION.
The Editor having attempted to prove the deity
of the Son, and the personality of the Holy Ghost,
from the circumstance of their names being associ
ated with that of the Father of the universe, I ob
served in my Second Appeal, that " a profession of
belief in God is unquestionably common to all reli
gions supposed to have been founded upon the au
thority of the Old Testament ; but each is distin
guished from the other by a public profession of
faith in their respective founders, expressing such
profession in a language that may clearly exhibit the
inferior nature of those founders to the Divine Being,
of whom they declare themselves the messengers."
" The Jews claim that they have revelation render
ing a beUef not. in God alone, but in Moses also,
incumbent upon them. Exod. xiv. 31 : ' The people
feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his ser
vant Moses' (to which Jesus also refers in John v.
45, ' There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in
whom ye trust'). If baptism were administered to
one embracing Christianity, in the name of the Fa
ther and Holy Spirit, he would thereby no more
become enrolled as. a Christian than as a Jew or a
Mohummudan ; for both of them, in common with
Christians, would readily submit to be baptized in
the narae of God, or his prevailing influence over the
universe." I afterwards added, in the discussion re-

646
specting the Holy Spirit, that " God is invariably
represented in revelation as the main object of belief^
receiving worship and prayers that proceed from the
heart through the first-born of every creature, the
Messiah, (' No man cometh unto the Father but by
me,') and leading such as worship him in spirit, to
righteous conduct, and ultimately to salvation, through
his guiding influence, which is called the Holy Spirit
(' When he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will guide
you unto all truth'). There is, therefore, a moral
obligation on those who avow the truth of such reve
lation, to profess their belief in God as the sole object
of worship; and in the Son, through whom they, as
Christians, should offer divine homage ; and also in
the holy influence of God, from which they should
expect direction in the paths of righteousness, as the
consequence of their sincere prayer and supplication.
For the same reason also, in publicly adopting this
religion, it is proper that those who receive it should
be baptized in the name of the Father, who is the
object of worship ; ofthe Son, who is the mediator;
and of that influence by which spiritual blessings are
conveyed to mankind, designated in scripture as the
Comforter, Spirit of Truth, or Holy Spirit." And
to prove the error of the idea that the association of
names of individuals with that of God, in a religious
profession or belief, which is more essential than any
external mark of profession, could identify or equal
ize those individuals with God, I quoted Exod. xiv.
31, which I have just repeated, and 2 Chron. xx.

647
20, " Jehoshaphat stood and said. Hear me, O
Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem ; believe in
the Lord your God, so shall ye be established ; be
lieve his Prophets, so shall ye prosper," — wherein
the names of Moses and the Prophets of God are
associated with that of the Deity. Besides, I ob
served to the Editor, that " fire- worshippers, for in
stance, insisting on the literal sense of the words, in
example of the Reverend Editor, might refer to that
text in the 3rd chapter of Matthew, repeated in Luke
iii. 16, in which it is announced that Jesus ' will
baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire;' and
they might contend, that if the association, in the
rite of baptism, of the names of the Son and Holy
Ghost with that of the Father, be supposed to prove
their divinity, it is clear that Fire also, being associ
ated with the Holy Ghost in the same rite, must
likewise be considered as a part of the Godhead."
He keeps all these arguments out of view, and, ac
cording to his usual mode of reasoning, repeats again
in his reply what he thought the purport of Heb. i.
10, Rev. ii. 29, and has recourse again to the angel
of Bochim, &c., which, having no relation to the
subject in question, and having been often examined
in the preceding pages, I shall pass by here. His
only remark concerning this last position is, that
" had the passage" (respecting belief in God and his
servant Moses) " quoted from Exod. xiv. 31, been
that formulary, instead of being a part of a narrative,
the omission in the baptismal rite of the clause ' his

648
servant,' would have been fatal to his objection. If,
then, the phrase 'his setvant,' marks the inferior
nature of; this messenger of God, the omission of it
in , the circumstances just mentioned, unavoidably
proves the equality of the Father and the Son," &c.
In the first place, it is too obvious to need proof,
that (every circumstance mentioned in the Sacred
Scriptures,' even in the form of narrative, if approved
of God,. is worthy, of attention, though not stated in
the forrhulaty of a religious rite. But, in the second
place, the passage quoted by me from 2 Chronicles,
is a commandment enjoining belief in God and his
Prophets, { even with the omission, so much desired
by our Editor, ofthe term "his servants" Does
this formulary, I askj with the omission of the term
" his servants" prove the equality of the Father and
the Prophets,- from the circumstance of their being
associated with God in a solemn religious injunction?
Inithe third place, the term " Son," equally with
the word "servant," denotes the inferiority of Jesus
as plainly as any expression intended to denote in
feriority can possibly do. But the Editor says, that
"never was there a more humble begging of the
question than the assertion that the epithet ' Son'
ought to be understood and admitted by every one as
expressing the created nature of Christ ; — why ought
it thus to be understood and admitted?" I answer,
because common sense tells us that a son, as well as
a servant, must be acknowledged to be inferior to his
father or master. Again, we find David called the

649
son of God, Solomon the son of God, Adam the son
of God, and, in short, the whole children of Israel
denominated sons ofGod ; yet represented in scrip
ture as inferior to God their Father ; nay, moreover,
Jesus the Son of God positively declares hiraself to
be inferior to his Father,—" My Father is greater
than I."
Our Editor puts again another query, (p. 622,)
" Can he even prove that among men a son must
be of a nature inferior to his father ?" I reply by
putting another question to him : Can the Editor
ever prove, that among men a servant must he oi a
nature inferior to his master ? If he^cannot^ are we
to suppose Moses, a servant of God, equal in nature
with the Deity? The fact is, that among men a
servant, a son, and a grandson, are of the same nature
with their masters, or fathers ; but when creation is
not effected in the ordinary course of nature, there
need not be, and is not, an identity of natute between
one who is called father, and another called son ; so
when service is performed; by me« to others not of
their own kind, oneness of nature is not necessarily
found between the servant and the person sei-ved.
The Editor concludes the proposition, saying that
" Our author declines renewing the subject relative to
Christ's declaration, ' Lo, I am with you always, even
to the end of the world,' which, however, we are not
aware he has ever yet discussed." The feet is, in
examining Matt, xviii. 20, " For where two or three
are gathered together in my name, there am I in the

650
midst of therii," which the Editor quoted to establish
the ubiquity of the Son, I inquired in my Second
Appeal, " Is it not evident that the Saviour meant
here, by being in the midst of two or three of his
disciples, his guidance to them when joined together
in searching fpr the truth ? We find similar expres
sions in the Scriptures, wherein the guidance of the
Prophets of God is also meant by words that would
imply their presence." Luke xvi. 29 : " Abraham
said unto him. They have Moses and the prophets,
let them hear them." And upon the Editor's quoting
Matt, xxviu. 20, " I am with you always, even to
the end of the world," in all probability to establish
the ubiquity of Jesus, I said in my Second Appeal,
(p. 199,) " I will not renew the subject, as it has
been already discussed in examining the first posi
tion ;" having shewn there that by the presence of
Christ, and that of other Prophets that may be
observed in any part of the Bible, their spiritual
guidance should be understood. My readers, there
fore, may judge whether or not the purport of the
last-mentioned verse is connected with the subject
discussed in examining the first position. I entreat
the Editor, however, to reflect on the last phrase of
the verse in question, i.e. "always to the end of
the wPrld," which, so far from evincing Christ's
eternal existence, implies that his influence over his
disciples extended only to the end of the world,
when he shall be himself subject to the Father of
the universe. (1 Cor. xv. 28.)

651

CHAPTER VI.
On the Holy Spirit and other Subjects.
I EXPRESSED my surprise, in my Second Appeal^
p. 227, at the Editor's having " noticed, in so short
and abrupt a manner, the question of the personality
and deity of the Holy Ghost, although the Editor
esteems the Son and the Spirit as equally distinct
persons of the Godhead." I feel now still more
surprised to observe, that the Editor, in his present
review also, has noticed, in the same brief manner,
the personality of the Holy Ghost ; as, while he fills
more than a hundred pages in support of the deity
of the second person, he has not allowed even a
single page to the question of the third. He, at the
same time, overlooks almost all the arguments I
have advanced against his feeble attempt to prove the
personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, from pp.
227 — 241, and in many other places of the Second
Appeal. The Editor^ however, first says, that " If
he, in whom dwelt all truth, has declared him (the
Holy Ghost, in Matt, xxviii. 19) to be as distinct in
person, and as worthy of worship and adoration, as
the Father and himself, no further evidence is needed
either to his personality or Godhead." Had the
Editor thought the quotation of a single verse a
sufficient excuse for avoiding the discussion of the

652
personality of the - Holy Ghost, he might have, on
the same ground, omitted to discuss the subject of
the deity of Jesus Christ, by noticing, in like man
ner, a single verse of scripture, which he considered
as a proof of the divine nature of the Son, and thus
saved me the trouble of a long controversy. If the
association of names, in a religious rite, were to be
admitted as a proof of the personality of the Holy
Spirit, the power of God, another divine attribute,
should be considered God himself, it being also
mentioned jointly with the Holy Spirit in the rite
of unction {Acts x. 38) ; and Fire also should be sup
posed to be a distinct person of the Godhead, be
cause we find Fire associated with the Holy Ghost,
in the same rite of baptism as I before observed
{Luke iii. 16) ; but I shall not recur to this subject,
having fully examined it in pp. 646, 647.
Notwithstanding my plain declaration, in the Se
cond Appeal, p. 239, that " with respect to the Holy
Ghost, I must confess my inability to find a single
passage in the whole Scriptures, in which the Spirit
is addressed as God, or as a person of God, so as to
afford believers of the Trinity an excuse for their
profession of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost;"
the Editor thought it advisable not to dwell on the
subject, and only observes, " Were it needful, in
deed, a rich fulness of scripture proof could be ad
duced respecting the Holy Spirit, as weU as the
Son; but the selection of a; few: passages, will be
quite sufficient." These are as follows : the first are

653
from the Gospel of St. John, xjv. 13, 26, xvi. 8, 11,
and the last are from Acts x. 20, and xii. 2. The
Editor here overlooks entirely what I stated in the
Second Appeal, on this very point ; that is, if from
the consideration of such expressions as, " God wiU
send the Holy Spirit," " The Holy Spirit will teach
you," « The Holy Spirit will reprove the world,"
" The Holy Spirit will glorify me," the Spirit be ac
knowledged a separate person of the Deity, what
would the Editor say of other attributes, such as
mercy, wrath, truth, &c., which are also, in a simi
lar manner, personified in various instances ? Psalm
Ivii. 3 : " God shall send forth his mercy and truth."
Ixxxv. 10: "Mercy and truth are met together;
righteousness and peace have kissed each other."
Ixxxix. 14 : " Mercy and truth shall go before thy
face." xciv. 18 : " My foot slippeth ; thy mercy, O
Lord, held me up." " Thy mercy, O Lord, is in
the heavens." " For there is wrath gone out from
the Lord." Numb. xvi. 46.
In the course of citing the above verses oi John
and Acts, the Editor quotes Acts v. 3, " Why hath
Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?"
[4,] " Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God ;"
whence he concludes, that he that lieth to the Holy
Spirit, lieth to God, and, consequently, the Spirit is
God, On this inference I have already observed, in
my former Appeal, that any sin or blasphemy
against one of the atfributes of God, is, of course,
accounted a sin or blasphemy against God himself.
Q n

654
But this admission amounts neither to a recognition
of the self-existence of the attribute, nor of its iden
tity with God. I then referred the Editor to Matt.
X. 40, " He that receiveth you receiveth me ;" and
now I beg his attention to 1 Cor. viii. 12, " But
when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound
their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." Do
these passages identify or equalize the apostles of
Jesus, with himself? Nothing but early-acquired
and long-'established prejudices can prevent any
Uterary character from perceiving such a gross errors
As to Acts X. 20, if the speaker be admitted, ac
cording to the Editor, as a separate person, he must
then be identified either with the spirit of Cornelius,
who had actually sent the three men mentioned in
ver. 19, as is evident from ver. 8, or with the angel
of God, who ordered Cornelius to send them to
Peter, (ver. 5,) a conclusion which would not, after
all, suit the purpose of the Editor. I entreat the
Editor to take notice, at least, of some of my argu
ments against the personality of the Holy Spirit,
mentioned in Chapter VI. of the Second Appeal,
pp. 231 — 234, or, if he declines adventuring on this
point of theology^ let him candidly reduce the sup
posed persons of the Godhead from a Trinity to
DuaUty, and this point being gained, I may then
continue my efforts with renewed hope of reducing
this Duality to the Everlasting and Indivisible Unity.
The Editor concludes his Essay with saying,
<p. 624,) " The deity and the personality of the

655
Son and the Holy Spirit, being estabUshed, the doc
trine of the ever-blessed Trinity needs no further
confirmation : it follows of course. We shall, there
fore, close our testimonies from Scripture, by laying
before our readers three passages, which bring the
sacred Three fully into view. The first we select
from Isaiah xlviii. [13,] in which one is introduced
who previously declares, ' My hand also hath laid
the foundation of the earth,' &c., and whom, there
fore, we are at no loss to recognize. He, however,
declares, verse 16, 'And now the Lord God and his
Spirit hath sent me.' " Now, supposing the person
who declares himself, in verse 16, to have been sent
by the Lord God and his Spirit, is one of the per
sons of the Godhead, whose hand hath laid the
foundation of the earth, according to the Editor ;
this admission would be so far advantageous to the
cause of the Editor, as respects the plurality of per
sons in the deity; but it would be totally fatal to his
grand object, since it would substitute Isaiah as a
divine person, in the place of Jesus Christ. I^iah
the Prophet is the grand speaker throughout the
whole of his book ; who declares himself often to
have been sent by God as a messenger to Israel.
He often speaks abruptly in behalf of God, as if
God were speaking himself in the course of his own
discourse, as I noticed in page 430, and sometimes
again he suddenly introduces his own sentiments,
while he is announcing the words bf Jehovah, with
out making any distinction. I mention here pnly a
2u 2

656
few instances. Isaiah Ixiii. 6: "I will tread dowrt
the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in
my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the
earth." (7.) " / will mention the loving-kindness
of the Lord, and the praises of the Lord, according
to all that the Lord hath bestowed on us." Does
not the Prophet introduce himself, in verse 7, most
abruptly, while speaking himself in behalf of GPd,
in verse 6? Ch. I. 3: "I clothe the heavens with
blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering."
(4.) " The Lord God hath given me the tongue of
the learned, that I should know how to speak a
word in season to him that is weary," &c. Here
the Prophet introduces himself, in verse 4, in the
same abrupt manner, without intimation of any
change of person.
I now cite the context of the very verse of Isaiah
quoted by the Editor, to enable my readers to judge
how far " it brings the sacred Three folly into view."
(14.) " All ye (the inhabitants of Judah) assemble
yourselves, and hear; who among them (Israel) hath
declared these things? The Lord hath loved him
(Cyrus* of Persia, the conqueror of Babylon). He
(the Lord) will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his
* Isaiah xliv. 7 : " And who, as I, shall call and shall declare
it ?" Sec. (28.) " That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and
shall perform all my pleasure." xlvi.- 11: " Co/Zm^j- a ravenous
bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far
country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I
have purposed it, I will also do it.'-'

657
arm shall be on the Chaldeans." (15.) " I, even I,
have spoken ; yea, I have called him, (Cyrus,) I
have brought him, and he shall make his way pros
perous." (16.) " Come ye near unto me, (says the
Prophet,) hear ye this, I have not spoken in secret
from the beginning ; from the time that it was,
there am I : (that is, from the first time of these
events :) and now the Lord God and his Spirit hath
sent me." (17.) Expressions similar to the phrase,
" From the time that it was, there am I," are often
used by the Prophets. Vide Jer. i. 5:" And before
thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee,
and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the nations."
And so Isaiah xlix. 1. T^o one, I presume, that
ever read, even with common attention, the book of
Isaiah, (in which speakers are introduced without
any distinction, more frequently than in the other
scriptural books,) would attempt' to prove the Trinity
or the Deity of Jesus Christ, from the passage quoted
by the Editor, unless he is previously biassed by
some human creed, and thereby absolutely prevented
from comparing impartially one passage with the
other. The Editor perhaps means the personality and the
deity of the Holy Spirit by the phrase, " The Lord
God and his Spirit hath sent me,"* (verse 16,)
* In the original Hebrew, the last phrase stands thus : " The
Lord Jehovah hath sent me and his Spirit," which bear two con
structions ; first, " The Lord Jehovah hath sent me, and hath

658
seemingly representing the Spirit of God as a co-
operator with himself. He might, in that case, on
the same ground, endeavour to establish the per
sonality and the deity of Righteousness, another
attribute of the Deity, as being represented with God
as an agent in Isaiah lix. [16,] " Therefore his arm
brought salvation unto him, and his Righteousness,
it sustained him." And he might also attempt to^
prove the personaUty and deity of the breath of
God, which is, in like manner, represented as a co-
operator with the Spirit of God. Job xxxiii. 4:
" The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath
of him hath given life." Is this the best of the
proofs of the Trinity wkh which the Editor closes
his testimonies? If such be his proofs, I am at a
loss to guess what his illustrations will be. The
second passage, quoted by the Editor, is what I
have just examined in pp. 646 — 648, The third is,
2 Cor. xiu. 14, " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God, and the communion of the
Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen." Here the
apostle prays, that the guidance of Jesus Christ, the
love of God, and the constant operation of the holy
influence of God, may be with Christians, since,
without the guidance of Jesus, no one can be tho
roughly impressed with the love of the Deity under
the Christian dispensation, nor can that love of God
sent his Spirit." The second is, " The Lord Jeliovab aji(l his
Spirit hath sent me."

659
continue to exist unless preserved by divine influ
ence; a fact which I have demonstrated, pages 651
— 653, in examining Matt, xxviii. W. But what
has this passage to do with the proof of the deity of
Jesus and the personality of the Holy Spirit ? Does
not Paul call the Philippians partakers of his own
grace? Phil, i, 17. Is not every man pure in heart
declared to be possessed of the grace of his lips ;
that is, verbal instructions? Prov. xxii. 11. Is not,
in Psalm xxiii. 6, the communion of goodness and
mercy desired for all the days of life? Can such
expressions be also considered as proofs of the deity
of Paul, or of the personality of these attributes ? I
hope and pray the Editor may take all those circum
stances into his serious consideration.
I now examine the remaining few of those pas
sages which I intended to notice in a subsequent
chapter of this Essay. The first is, Zech. xii. 10,
" In that day they shall look upon me whom they
have pierced," corapared with John xix. 37, " They
shall look on him whom they pierced." To shew
the error in the translation of the verse in the En
glish version, I quoted in my Second Appeal, the
verse in the original Hebrew, and a translation
thereof from the Arabic Bible, and another from the
Septuagint, with a Uteral English translation, which
I repeat: "And they shall look toward me on ac-^
count of him whom they have pierced." But in
order to destroy the vaUdity of the Arabic Bible. and
that of the Septuagint, the Editgr says, that " the

660
Greek and Arabic versions are nothing to the origi
nal text itself" I perfectly agree with him in this
assertion, but I am convinced, that the Editor must
be better acquainted than myself with the prevailing
and continued practice among Christian theologians,
to have recourse to the versions, especially to the
Septuagint, when a dispute arises in the interpreta
tion of any text of the Old Testament, and to give
preference to the authority of the Septuagint, even
over that of Jerome's, which the Editor quotes in
opposition to the Arabic and Greek versions.
As to the original text, the Editor first observes,
that " as to the particle r« eth, which the best He
brew grammars define a particle marking the accu
sative case governed by active verbs, or an emphatic
particle denoting the very thing itself." I therefore
think it proper to quote Parkhurst's opinion on the
particle n« eth, fi-om his Hebrew Lexicon, that my
readers may judge Whether or not the above rule,
laid down by the Editor, is founded upon good au
thority. Parkhurst (p. 48) : " The Lexicons say,
that when joined with a verb. It {eth) denotes the
accusative case, if the verb be active; see Gen. i. 1,
and al freq., but the nominative, if the verb be pas
sive or neuter. Gen, xxvii. 45; Deut. xx. 8; Josh.
vii. 15, &c., al freq. But, in truth, it is the sign of
no particular case, that distinction being unknown in
Hebrew. See Josh. xxii. 17; Ezek. xxxv. 10;
Numb. X. 2; 1 Sam. xvu. 34; 2 Sam. xv. 23; Neh.
ix. 19, 34 ; 2 Kings vi. 5." Parkhurst gives also

661
the second meaning of this particle — " 2, with, to,
towards, Exod. i. 1, Deut. vii. 8," which the Editor
also partially adraits.
The fact is, this particle denotes an accusative
case as well as other cases, and also stands for the
English prepositions, " with," " for," " towards," &c.,
and, therefore, the verse in question, as it is found in
our Hebrew copies of the Old Testament, should in
disputably be thus read, in consistence with its con
text, 31 : " And they shall look towards me for (or
on account of) him whom they have pierced," or
" They shall look upon me with him whom they
have pierced."*
The Editor quotes, to my great surprise, (in p.
546,) some verses in which the particle n« requires
an accusative case, and, consequently, no preposition
" for," " to," or " with," can be properly placed.
But I beg to ask the Editor, how he can turn the
following verses to his purpose, wherein no accusa-
* Newcome reads, " And they shall look on him whom they
pierced." His note on this translation is as follows : " On
him.J Thirty-six MSS. and two ed. read vh» -. three other MSS.
read so originally ; six perhaps read so ; six read so now ; and
eleven, have 1*^K in the margin, as Keri. And yet '7K on me,
may be traced in the ancient versions and Chald. V7K wa^ also
noted as a various lection by R. Saadias, who lived about the
year 900. See Kenn. diss. gen. § 43. ' Citant vh» Talmud et
R. Saadias Haggaion. Poc. Append, in Mai.' Seeker. Dr.
Owen shews that Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, TertuUian,
and Barnabas, favour the reading of vhv>. Inquiry— Sept. Version,
Sect, iv."

662
tive case after the particle n« can be at all admitted ?
Exod. i. 1 : " Now these are .the names of the chil
dren of Israel, which came into Egypt ; every man
and his household came with Jacob." Would the
Editor thus render the particle here requiring an ac
cusative case, — " every man and his household came
Jacob"? Would the verse in this case bear any
sense ? Gen. xliv. 4 : I'rn n« ikv qh " They were
gone out of the city." There the particle stands for
" out of," or " from." iv. 1 : "I have gotten a man
from the Lord." Here the preposition " from" is
substituted for this very Hebrew particle. In Deut.
vii. 8, we have c3Dn« mn' nin«D o literally, " on ac
count of the love of God for you," though thus ren
dered in the English version, " Because the Lord
loved you." *
In the course of examining this subject, the Editor
quotes, " Thy throne, O Jehovah, is for ever and
ever." I shall feel obliged, if he will kindly let me
know from what book of the Old or New Testament
he has selected this verse, containing the term " Je
hovah," in the first part of the text.
As to my remarks on Zech. xiii. 7, " Awake, O
sword, against my shepherd, and against the man
that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of hosts ; smite the
shepherd, and the sheep shaU be scattered," the
Editor agrees partly with me ; saying, " No one
* Archbishop Seeker, in Newcome, has the following remark :
" Potest 1ii>« n« notare eo quod, ut vertunt 6. ch. vei qnem.
Vide Nold. Et sic post Dativum adhibetur, Jer, xxxviii. 9."

663
doubts that the Saviour placed himself in subjection
to the Father, when he condescended to become
subject to death." He, however, wishes to prove
the deity of Jesus Christ by the application of the
word fellow (rroy) to him. He here quotes Micah
[v. 2], "Whose goings forth were from everiasting;"
and John [i. 1], " And the word was with God,"
which have no relation to the term n'Dj? or fellow,
found in the verse in question ; and as these quota
tions of the Editor have been examined in pp. 573,
595, I shall not recur to them in this place. He
lastly quotes Parkhurst, to shew that rrnj? "implies
a neighbour, a member of the same society." Is
not this quotation, defining the Hebrew word n>aj/
as " a neighbour," directly against the object of the
Editor ? If Christ is represented, either in a real or
figurative sense, as standing on the right hand of the
Deity, taking precedence of all those that believe in
him as the promised Messiah sent from God, would
it be inconsistent in itself, or an acknowledgment of
his deity, to use the word n»D» or neighbour, for
Christ ? My readers will observe, from the follow
ing quotations, that this very term n>Dj? which is
renderedye/ZoM) in the verse in question, is translated
" neighbour" by the very authors of the English
version, in many other instances. Levit. vi. 2, " or
hath deceived his neighbour." The last word is a
translation of the term n.'nr : xix. 17, " Thou shalt
in any wise rebuke thy ' neighbowr^ " or immeeth :
ch. xxv. 14, 15.

664
The Editor, in speaking of Christ, repeats, now
and then, the phrase, " God blessed for ever," per
haps alluding to Romans ix. 5. — Among all the in
terpretations given to this text, for or against the
Trinity, there is the Paraphrase of Locke, of whose
name the literary world is so justly proud, which I
here first quote : — " Had the patriarchs, to whom
the promises were made, for their (the Israelites)
forefathers ; and of them, as to his fleshly * extrac
tion, Christ is come, he who is over all, God be
blessed. Amen." Secondly, I shall cite here some
scriptural passages to shew that it was customary
with Jewish writers to address abrupt exclamations
to God while treating of some other subjects, that
my readers may be convinced that the sudden intro
duction of the phrase, " God be blessed for ever,"
in ver. 5, by St. Paul, was perfectly consistent with
the style of the sacred writings. Psalm Ixxxix. 51,
62 : " Wherewith thine enemies have reproached,
O Lord ; wherewith they have reproached the foot
steps of thine anointed. Blessed be the Lord for
evermore. Amen and amen" Psalm civ. 35 : " Let
the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let
the wicked be no more. Bless thou the Lord, O
my soul. Praise ye the Lord"
If St. Paul, in his First Epistie to the Corinthians,
and in that to the Ephesians, declares positively that
* Vide ver. the 3rd of the same chapter, in which Paul speaks
of his " kinsmen according to the flesh."

665
the Father is the only being who has the right to
the epithet " God," under the Christian dispensation,
he could not, as an inspired writer, be guilty of so
palpable a contradiction, as to apply this very epithet
to the Christ of God, on another occasion. 1 Cor.
viii. 6 : " But to us (Christians) there is but one God
the Father." Eph. i. 17: " That the God of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory," &c. iv. 5, 6 :
" One Lord, one faith, one baptism : One God and
Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in
us all."
Respecting 1 John v. 20, I beg to refer to the
rule laid down by Bishop Middleton, (of whom the
Editor speaks highly and justly, in p. 535,) in his
work on the Greek Article, p. 79 : " When two or
more attributives, joined by a copulative or copula
tives, are assumed of the same person or thing, before
the first attributive the article is inserted; before
the remaining ones it is omitted." In the passage
under consideration there are two attributives joined
by a copulative, and in order to ascertain whether
they are assumed of the same person, or of different
persons, it is only necessary to observe, that the
article is inserted not only before the first attributive,
but also before the second, and that, consequently,
" the true God" is one person, and " the eternal
Ufe" is another. This perfectly corresponds with
the preceding part of the verse, in which " he that
is true," and " his son Jesus Christ," are separately
mentioned."

666
Finding the practice of the primitive Christians,
during the first three centuries, unfavourable to his
sentiments, the Editor prudently keeps it out of view
altogether, merely observing, (p. 625,) into that
'^ we do not even inquire. Paul tells us, that, even
in his time, ' the mystery of iniquity' had already
begun to work; and John adds, that ' many anti
christs' had already gone out into the world." The
Editor must be well aware that those in whom the
mystery of iniquity was found, and who were detect
ed as antichrists, were not in the fellowship of true
Christians, and consequently church histories treat
of the practice of the latter entirely distinct from
that of the former ; and it is therefore evident, that
the practice and professions of primitive Christians,
who were, generally, the contemporaries of the apos
tles or their disciples, are worthy of inquiry for the
tegulation of the conduct of the Christians of these
days. As to Mosheim, the Editor says, " Even Mosheim,
suspected as he is Qf being unfavourable to the truth,
establishes their faith in Christ's deity in the very
passage quoted, p. 247, by our author against this
doctrine." It appears from this quotation, that they,
when baptized, " made solemn profession of their
confidence in Christ." The Jews, as well as almost
aU the Gentiles, professed their belief in God ; but
the thing which was required of them by the apos
tles was, that they should make profession of confi
dence in Jesus as the Christ of God in the rite of

667
baptism. If such a profession of confidence in Christ
is admitted by the Editor as a sufficient acknowledg
ment of his deity, why should he be so hostile to
those (whom he styles Unitarians) who are baptized
in the name of Jesus, and also profess their solemn
confidence in him ? Still further am I surprised that,
when the apostle John expressly wrote his Gospel
to prove " that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,"
(ch. XX. 31,) the Editor, so far from being satisfied
with those who receive Jesus in the character ex
pressed by these terms, (" the Christ, the Son of
God," ) in the sense which they uniformly bear in
the Scriptures, requires them, moreover, to believe
that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God, arid
thus not only defeats the object of the apostle, but
even contradicts hira in express language.
The Editor then proceeds to say, " Respecting
Locke and Newton, our reply is precisely the sarae ;
their opinions in divinity are nothing to us." The
Editor, elated by the general prevalence of the or
thodox system, effected only by perversions of the
sense of the divine writings, attempts to turn the
authorities of these great men also to his own pur
pose. " If" (says he) " Locke, as our author
affirriis, (p. 305,) really thought that the faith which
makes men Christians, includes their receiving Jesus
Christ for their Lord and King, Locke knew that
this included the belief of his omniscience and omni
presence, as, without this, his being their King was
only a solemn mockery," The Editor prudently

668
quotes here only a part of the sentence of Locke
quoted by me, which he thought might give him an
opportunity of making comments favourable to his
creed ; but it is fortunate for us that his works, being
written and printed in English, are not liable to much
critical perversion. Locke says, " that the believing
Jesus to be the Messiah, includes in it a receiving
him for our Lord and King, PROMISED AND
SENT FROM GOD." The phrase chosen by that
celebrated author, " sent from God," denies the
deity of Christ beyond doubt, since one sent by
another is of course different from him who sends
him. To avoid every misconstruction being thrown
upon his definition, Locke chose the term " God,"
instead of any other term in the above phrase, that
Jesus might be understood separately from God,
without the least room for the sophistry that might
represent him as God the Son, sent from God the
Father. We, however, are not at a loss to dis
cover what Locke meant by the terms " Lord and
King," when referred to Jesus, as he fully explained
them in his Paraphrase on the Epistles to the Corin
thians. As to the term " Lord," I refer to the note
on 1 Cor. i. 2 : " What the apostle means by Lord,
when he attributes it to Christ, vide viii. 6." Para
phrase on viii. 6 : " Yet to us Christians there is but
one God, the Father and Author qf all things, to
whom alone we address all our worship and service ;
and one Lord, viz. Jesus Christ, by whOm all things
come from God to us, and by whom we have access

669
to the Father." As to the term " King" I quote
his paraphrase on ch. xv. 24, which clearly repre
sents his sovereignty as finite : " After that shall be
the day of judgment, which shall bring to a conclu
sion and finish the whole dispensation to the race
and posterity of Adam, in this world : when Christ
shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the
Father, which he shall not do tiU he hath destroyed
all empire, power, and authority, that shall be in
the world besides."
The Editor says of Sir Isaac Newton, " His belief
of Christ's deity appears as clear as the light, from
our author's own quotation, when he said that Chris
tians of all ages are represented as worshipping God
and the Lamb." Newton was too circumspect to
leave his word liable to perversion by the popular
opinion. He explains the sense in which Christians
worship God, and also the sense in which they wor
ship Jesus — the one as directly opposed to the other
as the West to the East. Newton says, " God for
his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb
for his benefaction in redeeming with his blood ;
God as sitting upon the throne and Uving for ever,
and the Larab exalted above all by the merits of his
death." The worship offered to the latter is therefore
merely a manifestation of civil reverence, as I pointed
out in p. 640.
To equaUze a being exalted and worshipped for
his meritorious death, with the eternal Supreme
Sovereign of the universe, is only an attempt to bring
' 2x

670
the nature of the Deity on a level with a mortal
creature, and by no means serves to elevate that
creature to the rank of the Deity, If the Editor
consider these quotatioris from Locke and Newton
really orthodox, how inconsistent he must be in con--
demnihg those whose sentiments as to the persbn of
Jesus Christ ate precisely the same ; to wit, 'that he
is the anointed Lord arid King promised and sent
iroth God, is worthy of worship for his mediation
and meritorious death, but by no means as a being
possessed of a two-fold nature, divine and human,
perfect God and perfect Man !
As to my remarks on certain abstruse reasonings
resorted to by the ortllodox, the Editor further says,
that he needs them not, theteby avowedly relin
quishing reasoh in support of the Trinity; but, hap^
pily, he asserts at the same time, that " to us the
Scriptures ate sufficient." I therefore entreat him to
pPhit out a single sptiptural authority, treating of a
compound God of thtee persons, and pf a compound
Messiah, one of th^se three persons, constituted of a
twp^folti natute, divine atid human.
The Editor alludes to the term " antichrists,"
fotttid in the Epistle of John; but I am glad that
we most fprtUiirately are furnished with the definition
of this term by that inspii'ed Writer, which decides
at once the question who are the real subjects of its
appUfcatlon. 1 John iv. 3 : " Evety spirit that con
fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is
not of Gfod ; and this is that spirit of antichrist."

671
We accordingly rejpice to confess that Jesus Christ,
who came in the flesh, is OF GOD, and that not
only he, but his apostles also were of God (1 Jbhn
iv. 6, V. 19) ; but we feel sincerely for those who
violate this standard, either by falling short or going
beyond it, by denying that JeSUs Christ \% OF GOD,
or by affirming that JesUS Christ is GPd himself^
since both these assertions, — to wit, " Jesus Christ
is Not of Godj" and " Jesus Christ is God,"-=-are
equally incompatible With John's proposition^ that
"Jesus Christ is OF GOD." For example: The
prime minister, by the law of th@ land^ is apppinted
by the king;, and CPttseqUeHlly is acknowledged to
be OF THE kiKO ; tP gajj thifeforgj that he is not of
the king, Would be tP detract from the minister's
dignity; but to say that the prime minister is the
king, is not only incPHsi^tent with the assertion that
the prime minister is of the king, but Would be pro- ,
nounced high treason ; in like manner as deifying
the Christ of God, is both an affi"ont to God, and an
aytichfiristian doctrine.
t. Lastly, I tender my humble thanks for the Edi
tor's kind suggestion in inviting me to adopt the
doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; but I am sorry to
find that I am unable to benefit by this advice.
After I have long relinquished every idea of a plu
rality of Gods, or of the persons of the Godhead,
taught under different systems of modem Hindoo
ism, I cannot conscientiously and consistently em
brace one of a similar nature, though greatly refined

672
by the religious reformations of modern times; since
whatever arguments can be adduced against a plu
rality of Gods, stril^ with equal force against the
doetrin^.of a plurality of persons of the Godhead ;
and, on 'the other hand, whatever excuse may be
pleaded in favPur of a plurality of persons of the
Deity, can be offered with equal propriety in defence
of Polytheism.
I now c(5hclnde my Essay by offering up thanks
to the Supreme Disposer of the events of this uni
verse, for having unexpectedly delivered this country
from the long-continued tyranny of its former rulers,
and placed it under the government of the English, —
a nation who not only are blessed with the enjoyment
of civil and political liberty, but also interest them
selves in promoting liberty and social happiness, as
well as free inquiry into literary and religious sub
jects, among those nations to which their influence
extends.

FINIS.

Printed by G. Smallfield, Hackney.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 0806