耶稣的教诲

Full Text

\ — *

•

t

TO

THE CHRISTIAN PUB^I^^,/^

IN DEFENCE OF THE

" PRECEPTS OF JESUS:

BY

RAMMOHUN ROY.

CALCUTTA :
PRINTED AT THE UNITARIAN PRESS, DHURMTOLLAH.

Hontom,

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. S3, THREAD-
NEEDLE STREET.

:

GEORGE SMALLFIELD, Printer, Hackney.

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.

3O$ ' fc

'

.

•'

'
.

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 principally upon
native superintendance for the completion of the greater
part of this work. This must form an Apology to the
Public 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 of 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 are 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
I, 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 diffusing 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 righteousness, 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-
fied 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 all."

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 ib.

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 • ib.

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 ib.

The Editor's ironical remarks on the success of the Author in
scriptural studies, noticed '...-• 358

334

Page

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 our God is one
Lord," referred to • • » • • • ib.

Matthew vii. 24, " Whosoever heareth these sayings of
mine," referred to * 363

John xv. 10, " If ye keep my commandments," &c., and
ver. 14, referred to •••.•• ^ • i&-

Matthew xxv. 3 1, et seq., referred to • • #•

The argument adduced by the Editor to depreciate the
weight of the passage, "• This do, and thou shalt live,"
examined * • * *'£»

The Editor's question, " Did Jesus regard the lawyer as
sinless ?" answered ,..«•%•»•, 365

The verse <f If righteousness came by [the] law," &c. ex-
plained * %<»* *•« 366

The Editor's omission to notice those passages that repre-
sent repentance as a sufficient means for procuring pardon ib.

Luke v. 32, xxiv. 47, xiii. 3, referred to 367

The Parable of the Prodigal Son, referred to • ib.

Psalm li. 17, " The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,'* &c.,
Ezekiel xviii. 30, referred to • • • • 368

Prov. xvi. 6, " By mercy and truth iniquity is purged," &c.,
Isaiah i. 18, referred to* • • « • &.

Human justice referred to • •»• •••• «» #.

CHAPTER II.
Inquiry into the doctrine of the Christian Atonement.-~A

change of arrangement by the Editor •••• 370

Genesis iii. 15, "I will put enmity between thee and the

woman/' &c. examined «.«««••••.•• * ib.

335

Page

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 .... ,'#.

Hebrews xi. 26, noticed • 3 74

Hebrews xi. 4, referred to ,'£.

How far sacrifices are divine institutions 3/5

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-, Eccles. v. 1, referred to •• id.
In what sense such expressions as " This man after he had
offered one sacrifice for sins," and others like them, should

betaken 377,378

Common notions of justice • 380

Exodus xx. 5 ; Matthew xviii. 8, referred to ib.

Numbers xiv. 19, 20 5 2 Chronicles xxx. 18 — 20; Psalin

cvi. 23, xxxii. 5, referred to 380, 381

Psalm cxli. 2 j Isaiah Iv. 7j Jeremiah vii. 21 — 23, referred

to 381,382

Hebrews x. 4, " It is not possible that the blood of bulls,"

&c., examined * ib.

Genesis xxii. 3, [13,] referred to 383

Hebrews x. 5, is referred to 384

The death of Jesus was a spiritual and virtual sacrifice .... ib.
Snch terms as " sacrifice/' " atonement for sin," &c., being

familiar to the Jews, were adopted by the apostles #.

Priesthood without sacrifice exists under the Christian dis-
pensation • 385

1 Peter ii. 4, 5, quoted in proof of spiritual 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, and his quoting Job, [xix. 25,] " I know-
that my Redeemer liveth," &c., examined 386, 387

z 2

336

Page

Matthew v. 3—1 1 ; Luke xi. 28, referred to • • • 387

Isaiah Ixiii. 16, Ix. 16, referred to 388

Job xix. 24— 26; referred to 389

The sense in which the application of the term "Lamb" is

made to Jesus, discussed • • • • t*5.

John xxi. 15 j Luke x. 3 ; Genesis xxii. 7, 8 ; Jeremiah

xi. 1 9, " But I was like a Lamb," &c., referred to 390

The account of the scape-goat examined 39 1

Exodus xxviii. 38, referred to ib.

Psalm ii. 1, compared with Acts iv. [25, 26,] and Psalm xvi.
8—11, compared 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," &c., ex-
amined ib.

Jesus' s aversion to death like many other prophets •••••• 396

Matthew xxvi. 36, [37 — 39,] 42, referred to ib.

Mark xiv. 36 ; Luke xxii. 42—44, referred to 396, 397

The assertion of the Editor that "This iniquity, if it be

such, the Father willed," examined ifi.

The Editor's objection to the application 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

The orthodox divines, like 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

Isaiah xi. [3], " And he shall make him of quick under-
standing," &c. examined « • • • ib.

Isaiah xix. 19, 20, noticed •• * •• ib.

337

Page

The Editor's attempt to prove the atonement from the appli-
cation of the term " Saviour" to Jesus, examined . . 402—404

Matthew ix. 8, John v. 24, vi. 63, xv. 3, referred to • • •• id.

Answer to the question, " When previously to Christ's

coming, did the Egyptians cry to Jehovah ?" &c. 16.

Isaiah xxxv. 10, " The ransomed of the Lord," &c. ex-
amined • • « • • ib.

Isaiah xlii. [2,] 21, " He shall 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 V*

&c. 406

Jer. xxiii. [5], xxxi. [31, 33] ; 1 Cor. i. 30, examined 406, 407

Ezekiel xxxiv. 23, examined • ib.

Daniel ix. 26, examined • • • • • • ib.

Hosea iii. [5] 5 Joel ii. 28 5 Amos ix. [11] 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, [11 >] noticed 410, 411

Haggai ii. [6, 7, 9], examined ib.

Zechariah iii. 8,9, vi. 12, 13, noticed 412

Malachi iii. 1, noticed 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,referredto 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

Page
Reference to a few texts explaining the terms <e sacrifice,"

" ransom," " offering," &c. 419

Of a two-fold nature in Christ • ib.

Allusion to the three-fold nature of a Hindoo incarnation . . 420

Solemn denial of ridiculing Christ's intercession • • • ib.

The Editor's assertion, that " the blood of no mere crea-
ture could take away sin," noticed • • ib.

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 5 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 xvii. 8, xlix. 26 ; Habakkuk Hi. 6, referred to • • • • ib.

CHAPTER HI.

Inquiry into the doctrine of the Trinity 426

The term Trinity not found in the Scriptures id.

Genesis xlviii. 1 6, " The angel which redeemed me j'' xxxi.

13, " I am the God of Bethel •" Exodus iii. 2, " In a

flame of fire," examined • • • •* ib.

Judges ii. 1, " I brought you out of Egypt 3" Genesis xxii.

12, " Thou hast not withheld thy son," examined ...... ib.

Isaiah Ixiii. 9 3 Ruth iv. 14 j Nehem. v. 8, referred to, 427, 428

An allusion to a three-fold nature of Christ ib.

Psalm xcvii. 7 3 Judges xiii. 21, 22 3 Job i, 6, " The sons

of God," &c., referred to «•• • • 429

Judges xiii. 16 ; 2 Samuel xxiv. J6, referred to •• ib.

339

^^^ Page

Isaiah x. 4 — 7, xxix. 1., [1 — 3,] referred to «^»« 430

Micah iv. 13, v. 1, referred to • 431

Exodus iii. 14, " Thus shalt thou say, I am that I am 5" John

viii. 24, " If ye believe not that I am," ver. 58, examined id.
Matthew xxiv. 5, " I am Christ/' and John iv. 25, 26, re-
ferred to • • • 432

John ii. 1 9—21, referred to 433

Psalm Ixxxix. 27, referred to 436

[I] Chronicles xiv. 8, xviii. 1 — 8, referred to id.

[1] Chronicles xx. 2, 3, referred to 437

2 Kings v. 26, 27 ; Exodus xxiii. 21, referred to 439

Prophets performing miracles sometimes without oral ad-
dresses to God ••••••••• • « • id.

John xi. 41, 42, referred to ••• id.

The phrase " To trust in him," examined • • * • • 440

Proverbs xxxi. 1 1 ; Isaiah xiv. 32, referred to id.

Jeremiah xvii. 5, explained * • id.

Psalm xxiv. [I, 2] " The earth is Jehovah's," &c., compared

with John i. 3, examined id.

Hebrews i. 2 ; Ephesians iii. 9, referred to -, 1 Corinthians x,
25, 26, " Whatsoever is sold," &c., compared with Psalm

xxiv. 1, examined ••••••••••••••••••••• 44 1, 442

Hebrews i. 2 j John iii. 35, referred to 443

1 Cor. x. 22, " Do we provoke the Lord ?" &c,, examined id.

1 Kings xix. 1 0, referred to •••• •••« 444

Psalm xxiv. 8, compared with Ephesians iv. 8, examined • • id*

Psalm Ixviii. 18, referred to ••••* •••••••••••••• 445

Locke's note quoted ••••«••••••• 446

Psalm xxxvi. 6, " O Jehovah, thou preservest," &c., com-
pared with Colossians i. 17} Hebrews i. 3, examined •• 447
John xvii. 2, v. 30, and xiv. 24, "The word which ye hear,'*

&c., Matthew xxviii. 18, referred to • 449

Psalm xiv. 6, as quoted in Hebrews i. 8, " Thy throne, O
God," &c., examined id.

340

Page
The Editor's substitution of the term " Jehovah" for " God'*

noticed • 449

Direct application of Psalm xlv. to Solomon, illustrated . . 451

Psalm cii. 25—27, referred to 452

Hebrews i. 10—12, " Thou, Lord, in the beginning," &c.,

examined ••• ib.

Deuteronomy xxxii. 10 j Isaiah xlix. 16; Psalm xlvii. 3,

referred to 453

Matthew xxii. 45, referred to #•

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

1 Corinthians xv. 24, 25, 28, referred to #•

Application of the term " shepherd," examined 456

Isaiah Ixiii. 1 1 ; Jeremiah xxiii. 4, " I will set up shep-
herds over them," &c., referred to 456, 457

Ezekiel xxxiv. 23, " I will set one shepherd,*' &c., examined to.
Ephesians iv. 18, compared with Psalm Ixviii, 18, " Thou

hast ascended on high," examined •• 459

Alquoran, ch. i. quoted • .•«.... •• 46 1

From a Jewish book of prayers, " Sabbath Morning Service,"

quoted ib.

" Jewish Morning Service" quoted to.

Alquoran ii. 5, quoted •• 462

Hoseaii. 15 — 17, 19, referred to to.

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," &c., noticed • • • • 465

Luke ii. 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 j Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Philippians ii. 8, referred to, 465, 466

341

Page
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. 1 7 5 John xx. 17; Psalm xlv. 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, 11, 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 j 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,"

deferred 478

Hebrews iii. 3, 4, noticed • ib.

Ver. 6, referred to 479

SECTION SECOND.

On the Prophets 479

ProTerbs viii. 1, "Doth not wisdom cry?" &c., ver. 22,
27, 30, examined • • • • • • • • ib.

342

Page

Psalm cxxx. 7, Ixxxv. 10 ; Numbers xvi. 46, referred to .. 482
Uotm iv. 8 ; John i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 24, 30 5 2 Cor. v. 21 ;

Deut. xxviii. 37 ; Zech. viii. 13 j Gen. xii. 2 ; Zech.

ii. 5, referred to « j#.

Isaiah vi. 1,10, compared with John xii. 41, examined .... 483

The context of ver. 41, referred to ib.

Romans xi. 7, 8 j Isaiah Ixiii. 17, referred to 484

Verse 4 1 , compared with John viii. 56 • •••••» 485

Deut. xxviii. 28, xxix. 4 ; 1 Kings xviii. 37, referred to . . 487
Isaiah vii. 14, " Behold, a virgin shall conceive," compared

with Matthew i. 22, 23, examined ib.

The term " shall conceive," considered •• 488

Genesis xvi. 11, 4, 5 5 Jer. xxxi. 8 ; 2 Sam. xi. 5, and Isaiah

xx vi. 17 j Genesis xxxviii. 24, 25, referred to 488, 489

Exodus xxi. 22 j 2 Kings viii. 12 j Amos i. 13, referred to ib.

Isaiah vii. 1 6, referred to* • ib.

Micah iv. 10 j Isaiah xxiii. 12, referred to ••• 490

The inconsistency between Christ's being possessed of all

power in his human capacity, and his not knowing good

from evil in that very capacity • • • • 491

Luke ii. 46 — 50, referred to •• ib.

The context of Isaiah vii. 14, compared with 2 Kings xvi. 5,

et seq., referred to • • • • «492 — 494

Matthew's reference to Isaiah vii. 14, in his gospel, compared 405

Dr. Campbell's authority quoted* • • • • #.

Hosea xi. 1, 3, noticed • • 497

Isaiah ix. 6, " For unto us a child is born," examined .... ib.
The context of the verse in question, compared [with]

2 Kings xv. 29, &c., xviii. 7, &c., referred 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 • fot

Verses 1, 2, of Isaiah ix. applied in an accommodated sense

to Jesus * * • • • ib.

343

Page
Matthew i. 23, " And they shall call his name Iminannel,"

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. 1 6, compared with Isaiah viii. 1 3 j 1 Peter

ii. 7, 8, " The stone which the builders," &c., examined 506

A proof of Christ's changeable nature 508

Isaiah xl. 3, " Voice of him/' &c. and Mai. iii. 1, examined id.

Reference to Mark i. 2, 3 id.

The verse in question in the original Hebrew 510

Luke i. 69 ; John i. 29, 30, referred to id.

Isaiah xl. 10, compared with Revelation xxii. 12, examined 511
Acts xvii. 31 j John viii. 28 ; xvii. 1, 2 j 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 513

Isaiah xliv. 6, compared with Revelation i. 8, and xxii. 13,

examined ••• ».... 515

Joshua v. 14 j Numb. xxii. 31 3 Dan. ii. 46, referred to 515, 516
Revelation iii. 14; Col. i. 15 3 1 Cor. xv. 24, referred to 517
Prophets and apostles represented as the searchers of hearts 518

Revelation xxi. 5, explained • 520

Revelation xxii. 6 — 13, noticed •• 521

Phrases in Revelation i. 1, and xxii. 6, compared 522

Jesus calls himself a servant of God, addresses Christians as

his brethren, &c. 524

Several questions put to shew the inferiority of the Lamb . . 525
A query in reply to one of the many insinuations of the

Editor's « • 526

Isaiah xlv. 23, " Unto me every knee shall bow," compared

with Romans xiv. 10 — 12, examined ••••• ••• \n.

John iii. 29 ; Ephesians v. 23, compared with Isaiah liv. 5,

examined • • « • « 529

Jeremiah xxxiii. 1 6, examined . •••• •••• 532

1 Corinthians xi. 3, referred to • 533

344

Page
The simple term " Jehovah" exclusively applied to God. , . . 534

Jeremiah v. 22, examined 535

The Editor's position that Jesus " exercised absolute do-
minion in no name beside his own,*' examined 536

John x. 25, referred to • » ib.

Jeremiah x. 1 1, 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

The 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," &c.,

examined • ib.

The terra " first-born" explained • 566

Exodus iv. 22, [Jer.] xxxi. 9 ; Psalm Ixxxix. 27, referred to 567

Romans viii. 29 j 1 John iv. 7, referred to id.

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 <c he in God, and God in him," " God

dwelleth in him, and he in God," noticed id.

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

The phrase " for ever" again noticed 593

346

Page

John xx. 17, acribed to Jesus in his human nature 593

According to the Editor, one part of the same sentence

spoken by Jesus in his divine, and another in his human

capacity id.

John xx. 18, " My Lord and my God," examined 594

John i. 1, " In the beginning was the word," &c., examined 595
Hindoo Polytheism compared with that maintained by the

Editor 604

John xvi. 30, " Now are we sure that thou knowest all

things," examined ib.

Paul, " God our Saviour j" 1 Peter, " The righteousness

of God 5" Jude, " To the only wise," &c., quoted by the

Editor, noticed 605

Perishable nature of fictitious gods, noticed 606

Answers to the Editor's queries #•

The will of God the Father sometimes 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 iii. 13, " No man hath ascended up," &c., examined. . ib.

Translation of this verse by Dr. Campbell, quoted • • • 621

Parkhurst'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 to him-
self a knowledge and an incomprehensibility of nature

equal to 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 -f Matthew ix. 2, examined • • V).

Matthew ix. 8, referred to • ib.

Acts v. 31, xiii. 33, referred to 031

The Editor's Fourth Position, respecting almighty power

being claimed by Jesus, discussed • • 632

John v. 1 9 — 36, explained • • • ib.

The work of judging men is not peculiar to Jesus 635

John v. 23, separately examined • 036

Gal. iv. 14 j Matt. x. 25, xix. 19 f Gen. iii. 22, referred to 637

Matthew xx. L4, noticed 638

Matthew xx. 23, referred to ib.

The Editor's Fifth Position, as to all judgment being com-
mitted to Jesus, discussed • 639

Mark xiii. 32, referred to 040

The Editor's Sixth Position, as to Jesus' accepting worship

due to God, discussed • • • ib.

The term " worship" denned 641

The ancient prophets' receiving worship in the same sense

that Jesus receired it • * • • • 642

Invocation by Stephen explained ib.

Christ's offering worship, prayers, and thanks to God, men-
tioned «•• 643

The Father, bis Christ, and the apostles, acquitted of the

charge of encouraging idolatry • • • • 644

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. 31 ; [2] Chronicles xx. 20 5 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 j Luke iii. 16, referred to 652

Such expressions as " The Holy Spirit will teach you," &c.,

noticed 653

Acts v. 3, examined ib.

Matthew x. 40 j 1 Corinthians viii. 12, referred to. ....... 654

Acts x. 20, examined ib.

Isaiah xlviii. 1 6, with its context, examined 655

2 Corinthians xiii. 14, examined 658

Zechariah xii. 10, " And I will pour upon the house of

David," &c., examined 659

Parkhurst's authority quoted 660

Exodus i. 1 j Genesis xliv. 4, iv- 1 ; Deut. vii. 8, referred to 662
Zechariah xiii. 7, (( Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,"

examined ib.

Romans ix. 5, " God blessed for ever," examined 664

1 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 ibt

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 the 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

2 A

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 from
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 from 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 from the English
into Sungscrit, 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 likely to
produce the desirable effects of improving the hearts
and minds of men of different persuasions and de-
grees 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 refuge 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 my 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 arguments already

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 from 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-
gages 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 of the doctrine of the 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 its-

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 cc 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 truths
and doctrines of Christianity, is to leave him till the
age of thirty or forty without any religious impres-

355

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 wise 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 tieo 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 is
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 scriptural 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 :
66 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 corruptions, 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 life, 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 to 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 refuge 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 of Greece,
Egypt, and India ? The passages in question are as
follow :

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 of the 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 will 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?"-f- 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
from 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. f Mark xii. 28—34.

365

own principle," as though they had been what they
vainly imagined themselves, sinless men, who needed
no Saviour, in directing them to his precepts, the
observance of which he knew utterly impossible,
and in holding out promises * of eternal salvation as
the necessary consequence of their obedience to those
sayings ? Were we to follow the mode of interpre-
tation adopted in this instance by the Editor, the
Bible would serve only to suit our convenience, and
would not be esteemed any longer as a guide to
mankind ; for, according to the same mode of inter-
pretation, would it not be justifiable to explain Matt.
xxviii. 19, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them," &c., that Jesus took his apostles
" upon their own principle," as firmly persuaded to
believe in the sanctification attainable by the baptism
introduced by John the Baptist, although he was
aware that immersion in water could produce no
effect in changing the state of the heart ?

In reply to his question, " Did Jesus, who knew
the hearts of all, regard this lawyer as perfectly sin-
less, an exception to all mankind?" (page 9,) I must
say, that the context seems to me to shew that nei-
ther Jesus considered the lawyer to be a sinless,
perfect man, (as is evident from his directing him
to the Scriptures for a guide to salvation — " Do this,
and thou shalt live," and " Go and do thou like-
wise,") nor did the lawyer vainly imagine himself

• Matt. vii. 24, 25.
  2B

366

" a sinless man 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 in 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 : (f 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 pardon, knowing the inability of

2u 2

368

men to give entire obedience to his precepts ; and
that Jesus would have recommended the lawyer,
whom he directed to righteousness, to have recourse
to repentance " had he gone and sincerely attempt-
ed" to obey his precepts, " watching his own heart
to discern those constant neglects of the duty he
owed to the Creator and to his fellow-creatures,"
and then applied to Jesus for the remedy of his dis-
cerned imperfections.

I find abundant passages in the Old Testament
also representing other sources than sacrifices, as
sufficient means of procuring pardon for sin. Psalm
li. 17 : " The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit :
a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not
despise." EzeMel xviii. 30 : " Repent, and turn
yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity
shall not be your ruin." Prov. xvi. 6 : " By mercy
and truth iniquity is purged, and by the fear of the
Lord men depart from evil." Isaiah i. 18 : " Come
now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.
Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as
white as snow ; though they be red like crimson,
they shall be as wool."

To shew the inefficacy of repentance to procure
pardon, the Editor appeals to human justice, which,
as he says, " inquires not about the repentance of the
robber and murderer, but respecting his guilt. The
law, indeed, knows no repentance." (Page 506.) I
therefore wish to know whether or not human jus-
tice suffers an innocent man to be killed to atone 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 privilege of shewing mercy,
should forgive the crimes of those that truly feel the
pain and distress of mind inseparable from 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 of the 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 cause 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

• VDD, composed of two words, t» aud ^:>; i. e, out of all.

372

thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Do not
the phrases, " Thou art cursed above all cattle"
and " above every beast of the field," shew clearly
that the serpent thus addressed was really no spirit
in borrowed form, but the animal so denominated ?
Does not the circumstance of the serpent being con-
demned to move upon its belly, and to eat dust all
the days of its life, evidently imply that the serpent
thus cursed was of the same class that we now see
subject to that very malediction to the present day ?
The sins of fathers are declared in the Scriptures to
have been visited by God on their posterity ; would
it not be, therefore, more consistent with scriptural
authorities to attribute the misery of serpents to the
heinous conduct of their first origin, than to Satan,
of whom no mention is made throughout the chapter
in question ?

But, in fact, has the power of Satan over the seed
of the woman been destroyed ? The consequences
of the sin which our first parents committed by the
ill advice of the reptile, and which they implanted
in the nature of their posterity, have been, that
women bring forth children in sorrow, and are ruled
by their husbands, and that the earth brings forth
thorns also and thistles to men, who eat the herb of
the field with labour, and return at last to dust.
(Gen. iii. 16 — 19.) If Jesus actually atoned for
sin, and delivered men from its consequences, how
can those men and women who believe in his atone-
ment be still, equally with others, liable to the 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-
crifice 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 via. 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 f c 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, f{ 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 loc., " that Moses looked upon the contempt and indignity
  which 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 of Photiws,
  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 rendering 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 Egyptian 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 men

376

pardon and eternal salvation. They seem, in fact,
intended for men unaccustomed to the worship of
God in truth and spirit. The following passages
suffice to illustrate this beyond doubt. Micah
vi. 7, 8 : " Will the Lord be pleased with thousands
of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ?
Shall I give my first born for my transgression ; the
fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? He hath
shewed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth
the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love
mercy, and to ivalk humbly with thy God ?" Here
Jehovah, while shewing his displeasure at mere
animal sacrifices, enjoins just actions 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, and not sacrifice,
and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.'
Isaiah 1—11, [i. 11, 16—18,] " To what purpose
is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the
Lord. I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and
the fat of fed beasts ; and I delight not in the blood
of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. — Wash
you, make you clean ; put away the evil of your
doings from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ;
learn to do well ; seek judgment, relieve the op-
pressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the
Lord ; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be
as white as snow," &c. Does not Jehovah here
substitute good works alone for sacrifices, as real

377

means of taking away sins ? Psalm 1. 8 [8 — 15] : " I
will not reprove thee 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. I know all the
fowls of the mountains : and the wild beasts of the
field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell
thee ; for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of
goats ? Offer unto God thanksgiving ; and pay thy
vows unto the Most High ; and call upon me in the
day of trouble : I will deliver thee, and thou shalt
glorify me." Jehovah, who protests against the idea
of the flesh of bulls being supposed his food, and the
blood of goats his drink, cannot be supposed to have
had delight in human blood, the blood of his beloved
Son. Sam. xv. 22 : " And Samuel said, Hath
the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and
sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord ? Be-
hold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken
than the fat of rams." Prov. xxi. 3 : " To do jus-
tice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord
than sacrifice." Eccles. v. 1 : " Keep thy foot when
thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready
to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools. For they
consider not that they do evil."

It is now left for us to ascertain in what sense we
should take such phrases as, " This man, after he
had offered one sacrifice for sins ;" " Christ hath 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 urged that 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, that the perfection 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 infinite punishment for
their finite guilt, as Jesus declares in Matthew
xviii. 8.? Even in the present case, would it be con-
sistent with common notions of justice to afflict 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-
tion of divine justice, mercy, and wrath, unless from
what is revealed to us ; and as we find in the sacred
books, that sins have been pardoned in consequence
of the intercession of righteous men, without any
sacrificial atonement, we should, therefore, be con-
tented with those authorities, and should not enter-
tain doubt as to pardon being bestowed upon those
who have had the advantage of the intercession of
Jesus, exalted as he was by God over all prophets
and righteous men that ever lived.

Numb. xiv. 19, 20, Moses prayed to the Lord,
" Pardon, I beseech 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 word." 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 offer 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 blood-offerings?
Psalm cxli. 2 : " Let my prayer be 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 him ; 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 flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor
commanded them in the day that I brought them
out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offer-
ings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded I
them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be 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 offering thou wouldest
not, but a body hast thou 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

o

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 from 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, that 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 the 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 thti future sacrifice of a
being far superior in excellence to Isaac, whose life
he mercifully preserved ?

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 terms,
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
effusion 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 the]
might render themselves worthy of the Divin<
mercy ; by his death he qualified himself to be theii
intercessor at the heavenly throne, when sincere r<
pentance was to be offered by them instead of per-
fect duty. We may easily account for the adoptior
by the apostles, with respect to him, of such term!
as sacrifice and atonement for sin, and their repi

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,
sacrifice 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 may
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 they 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 order 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 coming out of the ark ;" whence he
concludes, that all the genuine religion of the new
world 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 blessing 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., cc 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 oifering 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, Luke xi. 28, " But, said he, (Jesus,)
Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of
God, and keep it."

Could not Job, or any one, call another his re-
deemer or deliverer, without having allusion to his

388

blood ? Cannot one being redeem another without
sacrificing his own blood ? How is it, then, we find
Jehovah, the Father of all, called redeemer, though
in that capacity not considered even by Trinitarians
to have had his blood shed as an atonement? Isaiah
Ixiii. 16: " Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Re-
deemer." Isaiah Ix. 16 : " Shalt know that I, Jeho-
vah, am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer."

I wonder at the assertion of the Editor, that " the
Messiah is not termed a redeemer merely on account
of his teaching or his example. These," he says,
" could be of no value to Job, who lived so long before
the appearance of Christ in the earth." I wish to
know whether Job, an inspired writer, is to be con-
sidered as possessed of a knowledge of future events
or not ? as, in the former case, the circumstances of
Christ's atoning for sin, according to the Editor, and
the nature and import of his divine instructions, were
equally known to him, and he could call the Messiah
redeemer in either view. In the latter case, (i. e.
if he was unacquainted with future events while
writing this passage,) then the doctrine of the atone-
ment, and the saving truths inculcated by Christ,
were, of course, equally hidden from him, and nei-
ther, consequently, could be of any value to Job,
" who lived so long before Christ's appearance in
the earth." The fact is, the verse of Job quoted by
the Editor has no such obvious reference to the
Messiah, that any one can be justified in applying to
Jesus the term " Redeemer," found in the same

889

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

• pnrm 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 applied 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 where 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 Acts iv., the apostles
lifted up " their voices with one accord to God in
the very words of the Psalms ;" adding verse 27,
cc For of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, whom
thou Jiast 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 ly, Psalm xxxi. 5, while he repeats Psalm xl.
6 — 8, comparing them to Heb. x. 4 ; 5thly, Psalm
xlv. 6, 7, comparing it [them] with Heb. i. 8 — 12;
6thly, Psalm Ixviii. 18, applying it to Ephes. iv.
8 — 11 ; 7thly, Psalm Ixix. 1, 2, comparing them
with John ii. 1 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, Psalm 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 thy faithful-
ness and thy salvation : I have not concealed thy
loving-kindness 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 iu becoming
man was that of being a sacrifice," 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 oifered 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 thinks 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 affirma-
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 lavs
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 mention 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,
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, 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, falling
down to the ground."

Now, let the Editor find out a set of verses, or
even a single passage, which 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 of the 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
place, like that of many preceding prophets, by the
unsearchable will of God, who hath ordained that
all the sons of men shall die, some by a violent and
painful death, others by an 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, declared by Jesus in his agony
in the garden, that his sufferings, in particular, were,
like those of mankind in general, conformable to the
will of God. But I cannot find any thing in these
words that warrants an inference so contrary to our
ideas of justice, as, that the pain thus suffered by
Jesus was inflicted on him, though innocent, by
God, as an atonement to himself for withholding
merited punishment from the truly guilty. And
this is the real point in discussion. The Editor will
admit that the ways of God, in bestowing happiness
on some and leaving others, in our eyes more worthy
of divine favour, to wretchedness and misery, are in-
scrutable ; 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
beheaded? Was it for this that Zechariah was
slain ? Was it as an atonement for the sins of the
rest of mankind, 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 to
mankind, and that he loved him for the devotion
with which he fulfilled his divine commission, re-
gardless of the comfort or safety of that body, and
his readiness to lay it down when it suited the pur-
pose of the Maker.

The Reverend Editor expresses his indignation at
the mode of reasoning adopted by me, in the pas-
sages above quoted ; saying, " Should not a creature,
a worm of the dust, who cannot fully comprehend
the mysteries of his own being, pause before he
arraign his Maker of gross injustice, and charge him
with having founded all religion on an act of palpa-
ble iniquity?" (Page 529.)

There appears here a most strange mistake on the
part of the Editor. It is he who seems to me to be
labouring to prove the absurdity that God, the al-
mighty and all-merciful, is capable of a palpable
iniquity — determined to have punishment, though
he leave quite unpunished ; inflicting the marks of
his wrath on the innocent for the purpose of sparing
those who justly deserve the weight of its terrors.
If he mean to object to the rashness of applying the
limited capacity of the human understanding to

2D2

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 clearly appear, if we refer to
human laws, imperfect as they are." " Apply this
to the divine law." " For him, therefore, to be re-
warded as one who had kept the divine law, would
be directly contrary to righteousness." " Human
judges inquire not [about the] repentance of the
robber or murderer, but respecting his guilt."

From these passages does it not appear as if the
Editor were of opinion that it is quite right and pro-
per to apply human reason as a standard, by which
to judge what must be the will of God, when he
thinks it supports his views of the ways of Provi-
dence ; but that, on the contrary, it is blasphemous
and rebellious against the Divine Majesty, to deduce
from 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 of 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 perfectly ready and willing to do the same.

402

The Editor now refers to the prophets, (page 533,)
saying, that Isaiah, in ch. vii., " predicting the birth
of Christ, identifies his divine and his human na-
ture." As Isaiah vii. 14, and ix. 6, have no relation
whatever to the doctrine of atonement, I deem it
proper to defer the notice of them to the subsequent
chapter on the Trinity.

The Editor, in his next 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 attempt 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 of quick understanding," and " in
the fear of the Lord," 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 prove the doctrine of the atonement from
the application of the term " Saviour" to Jesus, I
noticed, in my Second Appeal, that " we find the
title Saviour applied frequently in the divine writings
to those who have been endued with the power of
saving nations, whether in a spiritual sense, by the
imparting of the Divine will, or by aifording tempo-

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 ; that is, as Christ and
others, who saved people at different times in their
capacities, were dependent themselves upon God,
and only instruments in his hands ; is it not pos-
sible for God, who could raise, as the Editor con-
fesses, personages to save men, by their miraculous
strength, from the grasp of their enemies, to raise
one to save mankind from sin through his divine in-
structions ? If not, how should we reconcile such
disavowal of the power of God to the following as-
sertion of the Evangelist Matthew, that the people
" glorified God, who had given such power to men"?

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 to 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" OVID or s^*» is often used to express extreme
attachment or obedience, without implying an actual
sacrifice as an atonement for sins.

405

He again quotes Isaiah xlii. [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
repented sincerely 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 which 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
only two passages of Jeremiah, viz. ch. xxiii. [5],
" Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will
raise unto David a righteous branch," &c., and ch.
xxxi. [31, 33], 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,
righteousness, 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. xxxiv. 23.
He says, 6 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
favour of the atonement? He afterwards quotes
Dan. ix, 26, " Shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself." There is no term in the original Hebrew
passage answering to the words " hit" or " himself"
found in the English version. We find in the He-

408

brew> i^ p«i, " no person or nothing for him ;" that
is, " Shall Messiah be cut off, 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»DT tV p«, " No blood be shed for him." Numb.
xxvii. 4, u iV p«, " He hath no son." Psalm Ixxii.
12, i^> "iw PHI, " And him that hath no helper."
Dan. xi. 45, iV in* p«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 oif, but not for himself,"
would, to my mind, convey nothing more than that
the Messiah should be cut oif, 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 : e 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 i^jn, " 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 fn», 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 triune 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 modern Hindoos, I cannot
reconcile it to my understanding to find plausibility
in one case, while the same notion is of acknowledged
absurdity in another. The Editor admits (p. 536)
the application of the term Saviour to human indi-
viduals, as pointed out by me, (Second Appeal, pp.
289, 290,) yet he is anxious to prove the doctrine of
the atonement by the application 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, out of
thee shall he come forth unto me — whose goings
forth have been of old, from everlasting.' The tes-
timony 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 cited
in the subsequent part of this discussion, when we
come to the subject of the Trinity.

He quotes again 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
atonement ;" and he then quotes the passage, " The
just shall live by faith," as corroborated by Paul, Rom.
i. [17], and Gal. iii. 2 [11 ?] ; and « the earth shall
be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah," &c. 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 respecting
both the atonement and 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 evident, from its context in the
prophecy, was alone in the contemplation of Haggai,
we must be persuaded to believe that the latter tem-
ple was more 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 slightest mention 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 of
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 to 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.
  2E

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 ;' c This
is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed
for many for the remission of sins ;' c 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 in 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, e I lay down my life for you.' This
interpretation is fully confirmed by the following
[passages] . Luke iv. 43 : c 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, / have Jinished the work
which thou gavest me to do.' Had his death on
the cross been the work, or part of the work, for
the performance of which Jesus came into this world,
he, as the founder of truth, would not have declared
himself to have Jinished the work prior to his death."
— I now beg that the Editor will be pleased to re-
concile all the above passages to his position that the
death of Jesus on the cross was the sole object of
his appearance in this world, and that his precepts

2E 2

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 (Sa>gsav, gratis} by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus." So Rom. viii.
32, 15, 16, 18, confirms the idea of justification 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 propitiatory, or mercy-
seat, in his own blood, for the manifestation of his
(God's) righteousness, by passing over their trans-
gressions, formerly committed, 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 believe St. Paul's words, Titus
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 : " *IXa<r-
TYjgiov signifies propitiatory, or mercy-seat, and not
propitiation, 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 551) 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
examining those passages separately, especially as I
have already noticed some of them in the course of
the examination 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 Editor, as I have previously re-
jected the idea of a mixed nature of God, man, and
lion, (tffjf^ftrsts) 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 composed 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 sacrifice.

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 whicli 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 does it" (the
scripture) " give us the least hint that God ever has
imparted any one infinite perfection to a finite crea-

422

turc. 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, u that the effects of Christ's appearance
on earth, whether with respect to the salvation or
condemnation of mankind, werejinite, and therefore
suitable to the nature of a finite being to accomplish,
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 observing, that an avowal
of the beginning of creation, and of its end, amounts
to 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 sword of the
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 of the 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 Philistinesybr^ 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 with the perfect nature of the just God,
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 aicoviog, being derived from a/cov, denotes,
frequently, duration or ages ; that is, " durable fire/'
or " durable punishments." Besides, they may find
the term " everlasting," when applied 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.
Hob. 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.

INQUIRY 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 writings 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 Gen. xlviii. 16, to have redeemed
Jacob, was Jesus himself, as he appears, (C 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, u 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., (Judges 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 afflicted, 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*

• 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.*' Neh. 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
its 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
angels, 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,

of 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 kinsman," cannot have reference to the child then
born. Besides, the synonymous term, " restorer of thy life," used
in verse 15th for the child, sufficiently determines the meaning.

429

" gods," and " sons of God," in a metaphorical sense,
we should not wonder if we find the term " redeemer"
applied to any angel of God, in an inferior sense.
Psalm xcvii. 7: " Worship him, ye gods." Judges
xiii. 21, 22: "Then Manoah knew 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 came 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 Abra-
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 idiom and use of the
Hebrew language,) and thereby might attempt to
substantiate the identity of one angel with the other.
He would, however, in this case, soon perceive his
own error, if he should refer to Judges xiii. 16, where
the angel (with the definite article in the common
version) says to Manoah, " Though thou detain me,
I will not eat of thy bread : and if thou wilt offer a
burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the Lord,"
declaring himself unworthy 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 instrument in the

2 F

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 God, 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 of 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. Howbeit 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-
strous 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. iii., and that of Jesus, in

2 F2

432

John viii., are precisely 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 children of Israel,
n»rw ittN rrnK* e 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 -f" very correctly, syco sipi
o CM, " I am the being." But in the Gospel of
John (viii. 24) the words are, " I am," (he or Christ,)
and in the original Greek, syoo stpi, " I am," with-
out the addition of 6 ow, " the being," as is found
in the Septuagint. In the Hebrew translation of
John viii. 24, «in »j«, or " I he," is found. So, in
ver. 58, we find only sym eipi, " I am." In John
viii. 24, the word Xg*fO£ is of course supplied in
comparing with Matt. xxiv. 5, " I am Christ," and
with John iv. 25, 26. I would then ask, is i»« n»rm
rrrm, or " the being who is being," a phrase precisely
the same with £yo> sipi, or " I am" ? If so, it must

• rpiiN is the future tense of rrn to be, which literally implies
  " I shall be," and is used for " I am," that is, " I am and shall
  be j" equivalent to the " eternal being." The Jews consequently
  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, because we find in the Septuagint,
the term n»n«, rendered ° M, or the being, in one instance, and
eyu SMI in lieu of the same term n»n« iu the other.

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 Abraham, 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
fully 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 to 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 jnrm, 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 carefully out of sight. I therefore
deem it proper to cite the preceding verses here,
that the public 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 dash 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 of the earth ! Serve the
Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss

436

the son, lest he be angry," &c. Here Jehovah, in
verse 7, calls David, " my son, this day have I 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 of the 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 all lands ; and the Lord brought the fear of
him upon all nations" And ch. xviii. 1 — 8 : " Now
after this it came to pass, that David smote the Phi-
listines, and subdued them, and took Gath and her
towns out of the hand of the Philistines. 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 hundred 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 of the 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 vcr. 9 of the above

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, ef 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, whose 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 them 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 scripture 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. xxni. 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
corroborates his opinion by Jer. xvii. 5, forgetting
that this term, though it is often used with reference
to God, yet is applied sometimes to created beings.
Prov. xxxi. 11 : " The heart of her husband doth
safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need ot
spoil." Isaiah xiv. 32: " The Lord hath founded
Zion, 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 arm, 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
he draws from this comparison is, that " In creating
power, Christ is equal to Jehovah." Were we to
overlook the mistranslation of this verse* in the

• All things were done by him.] " All things were made by
  him, and without him was riot 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 spoken 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 instrument 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 c-ymro will not admit, rwou.au occurs upwards of seven
hundred times in the New 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 j also, to
be done or transacted. Chapter xv. 7, xhc. 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 j i. e. by his autho-
rity, and according to his direction ; and in the ministry committed
to his apostles, nothing has been done without his warrant. See
John xv. 4, 5 : " Without me ye can do nothing." Compare
vers. 7, 10, 16 j John xvii. 8; Col. i. 16, 17 ; Cappe, ibid.
(Improved Version.)

442

the Editor may, perhaps, retract his assertion, that
ce 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 further 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
illustration 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 oifered 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, Si:. 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 apostle may,
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 himself 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 disposed 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 down 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 my reader may perceive how
violently prejudice can operate upon the human
mind. He says, (p. 561,) that " in verse 8th, one is
about to enter heaven as the king of glory ; who is
called ' Jehovah,' mighty in battle." In Eph. iv.

445

cc 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
Psalm. 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 Jirst into the middle of
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 of
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 5 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 many
other Trinitarian writers : " Thou hast ascended 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
Epheslans with the last-mentioned Psalm, though
both contain almost the same words that he dwells
upon ; perhaps in consideration of the latter phrases
of the Psalm being inconsistent with his object.
(e Thou hast received gifts for men, that the Lord
God might dwell among them" which clearly shews
the subordination of the Son to his heavenly Father.
In further explanation, I repeat the note of Mr.
Locke, on verses 9 and 10 of Ephesians, in his pa-
raphrase of this Epistle, page 477. Note on verses
9, 10 : " St. Paul's argumentation, in these two
verses, is skilfully adapted to the main design of his
Epistle. The converted Gentiles were attacked by
the unconverted Jews, who were declared enemies
to the thoughts of a Messiah that died. St. Paul,
to enervate that objection of theirs, proves, by the
passage out of the Psalms, (ver. 8,) that he must die
and be buried. Besides the unbelieving Jews, seve-
ral of them that were converted 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 of 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 con-
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 himself
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.
1 7, " 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 Jehovah 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

2c2

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 ; for 1 st, He does not say, that by
  him were created heaven and earth, but things in heaven and
  things on earth j 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.,
  which 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-born of the whole creation, be-
  cause he is the first who was raised from the dead to an immortal
  life j 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. 103
  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," TOL Travra, 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 Fathers" 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 xlv. 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 OTT^K, " Thy throne, O
God," and also the original Epistle to Hebrews, in
Greek 0eo£, " The throne of thee, O God." I now
beg 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
opinions, 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 xlv., omitting entirely to
notice my remarks on it in the Second Appeal. I
am, therefore, induced to repeat them, in the hope
that he may reply to them, and adopt a regular
mode of argumentation. After stating that Moses was
also called God in [the] Scriptures, I thus proceed :
" On what principle, then, can any stress be laid in
defence of the deity of the Son, in the prophetic
expression, quoted in Hebrews from Psalm xlv. 6,
c Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever' ; especi-
ally when we find, in the very next verse, words
that declare his subordinate nature, ' Thou lovest
righteousness and hatest wickedness, therefore God,
thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows9 ?" (Page 170.) " But it deserves
particularly to be noticed, in this instance, that the
Messiah, in whatever sense he is declared God, is,
in the very same s^nse, 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 xlv. directly 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 : therefore 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 2* 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 application 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 of the 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 apostle, 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? 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."
Were we to admit the first interpretation, upheld by
the Editor, and to consider the passage, " Thou,
Lord, in the beginning," &e., 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.
Either, therefore, the Editor must abandon the opi-
nion that God the Father addresses Jesus as Lord,
hi 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,"
&c., 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 Psalm cii. 25, and,
consequently, in the Greek passage, Heb. i. 10,
which is a quotation of the same verse of the above
Psalm, the term xvgie cannot be supposed to be
intended as a translation of the word Jehovah. So
in the English version the verse stands thus, " Thou,
Lord, in the beginning," &e. 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
original 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 creature, 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 feet." (Verse
28) : " And when all things shall be subdued unto
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto
him that put all things under him, that God may be
all in all." Here the apostle 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, unlimited 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 of the 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
of 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 compatible with an idea of unity
of nature between the Father and the Son, but which
is entirely inconsistent with that of coevality between
them ; and implies, that, as the difference of exist-
ence, &c., between man and man is the origin of the
plurality of mankind, so the difference of existence,
&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 observing, 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 servant 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 !" &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 !

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 the

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 among 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.,)
Cf commences with an address to God in the third
person. At verse 7th he is addressed in the second
person : the second person is retained till verse 1 1th,
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

461

that different persons of the Godhead are meant to
be therein addressed. Alqaran, 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 ; they shall 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
sabbath. Thy name, O Lord our God! shall be
sanctified.' " " Morning service. ' His words also
are living, permanent, faithful, and desirable for ever,
even unto all ages ; as well those which he hath
spoken concerning our ancestors, as those concern-
ing us, 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. Justin s, Barnet, and Joseph, and printed in London by
  E. Justins, 1803.

2n

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 speaking of himself. Alqaran, 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, arid 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 rne 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 argument 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 position on the ground of mere
imagination. To me, 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 removal
of the ark, which was done according to the instruc-
tions delivered 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 from the Egyptians, and leading
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 dcsiretli 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-
lious also, that the Lord God might dwell among
them ;" — the very reason to which, in the book of
Exodus, the construction of the ark, whose removal

2n2

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 under the necessity
of inferring that the application of the term " God"

465

to them is figurative, and that it is by no means rea!3
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
" kingdom 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 following, 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 of 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 Mm." (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.)

• la the original Hebrew, the word »J1, signifying sons, is
  found, instead of nV», or children, as found in the English version.

466

tf And when he had looked round about on them
with anger, being grieved." (Mark iii. 5.) " Jesus,
therefore, being weary with his journey." (John iv.
6.) " Now is my soul troubled:9 (xii. 27.) " And
began to wash his disciples' feet." (xiii. 5.) " He
was troubled in spirit" (Ver. 21.) " And being in
an agony, he prayed more earnestly" (Luke xxii.
44.) " And (Jesus) saith unto them, My stful is
exceedingly sorrowful, unto death" (Mark xiv. 34.)
" Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud 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 Editor from inquiring,
" What creatures of a superior nature are here termed
Gods ? Those (Israelites) that die like men ?" For
if the circumstance of being men, and dying like
men, must preclude the chiefs of Israel from being
supposed 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 argument fail of proving
the common humanity of Jesus, who was, like them,
in the shape of a man, 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 Enoch, one of the sons of men, and Elijah, a
Jewish prophet, never tasted death at all, like other

467

men;* that the dead, who happened to touch the
body of Elisha, revived and stood up ;^ and, that a
dead boy also was raised by him ; J 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 mode 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 of 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 alleging that Jesus
was possessed of such two-fold nature ? A question
which, indeed, I took upon myself to put to the
Editor in the Second Appeal, (page 252,) but which
he has avoided to answer. Are not Moses and the
chiefs of Israel termed, in like manner, gods§ as
well as men? || Did not they perform wonderful
miracles, as raising the dead and commanding wind
and water,^[ as well as the sun and moon ? ** Did

• 2 Kings ii. 11. f 2 Kings xiii. 21.

J 2 Kings iv. 34, 35. § Exod. vii. 1.

|| Deut. xxxiii. 1 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 31.
^[ 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 44, 45, and 2 Kings ii. 22.
** Joshua x. 12, 13.

4618

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, because
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 xlv. 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 supposed, 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, without
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 inconsis-
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
  blasphemcst j 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 apostle'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 for-
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 another 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 own
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 manifestation 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 power
on one occasion, and asserts it on another ? But, 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 become a desolation, a re-
proach, a waste, and a curse, and all the cities thereof
shall be perpetual wastes." And also the whole of
Obadialis 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 of the 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 spririkling
their blood upon his garment, came to reconcile 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. Ixiii. 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 he 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 yon,
and peace from him which is, and which was, and
which is to come ; and from the seven spirits whicti
are before his throne ; and from 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 him 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 commenced : " I am Alpha
and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the
liord ; which is, and which was, and which is to
€onie, 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 th'e
term " Jehovah," is once ascrihed 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,"
&e. 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
choosing this passage, as being applicable to Jesus,
oh 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-

9 T

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
find 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 Father are
one," to shew that God and Jesus, though they are
two beings, yet are one, without any attention to 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 proper
place. I thank the Reverend Editor for quoting
such passages as Psalms 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 that no other being except him, is
worthy to be called Jehovah.

In the course of the quotation from the Psalms,
the Editor cites Heb. iii. 3, 4 : " For this man was
counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch
as he who hath builded the house is worthy of more
honour than the house. For every house is built by
some man ; but he who built all things is God."
Upon which he comments, that it was Christ that
built the house understood, (as he supposes,) from

479

the phrase " all things" in the verse in question. I
will not prolong the discussion by pointing out the
errors appearing in the English version. I only
repeat verse 6, explaining what the apostle meant by
the house of Christ, which the Editor omitted to
mention ; to wit, " But Christ as a son over his own
house, whose house are we." Hence it is evident,
that the house which Christ built by the will of the
Father is the Christian church ; and that God, the
Father of Jesus and of the rest of the universe, is the
author of all things whatsoever.

SECTION II.

The Prophets.

IN introducing the Prophets, the Reverend Editor
commences with Proverbs ; saying, " If in this book
Christ be represented under the character of wisdom,
as divines have thought, and as seems implied in
Christ's saying, Matt. xi. 19, e But wisdom is justi-
fied of her children ;' and Luke xi. 49, ' Therefore
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 Prov. viii. 1, 22, 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 heavens, I was there. I was

2i 2

480

by him, as one brought up* with him : I was daily
his delight, rejoicing always before him." It isr
indeed, astonishing to me how the strong prejudice
of other learned divines, 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 been
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 to 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 Lord 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 in possession of Jehovah, just as his
other attributes are. If Jesus, then, be meant here
by wisdom, he must, so far from being esteemed as
Jehovah himself, be supposed to have been possessed

• flDN in the original Hebrew does not signify " brought
  up.'* It means " steadied," stabled, or established, as qualities
  with substances. See 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 doctrine ? We
find that, consistently with the same prophetical
language, the inspired writer of Proverbs directs us
to call wisdom a sister, and understanding kins-wo-
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 to
Jesus. In fact, the book of Proverbs meant only to
urge, in the usual poetical style of expression, the
necessity of adhering to wisdom, both in religious
and social life, strengthening 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 profane
Asiatic works in common circulation, were to be
noticed, a separate voluminous work would, I am
afraid, fail to contain them. And if the abstract
attributes of God, such as wisdom, mercy, truth,
benevolence, &c., are to be esteemed as separate
deities, on account of their being sometimes 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 God, but
would not be precisely favourable to the doctrine of
the Trinity, as it would certainly extend the number
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
are 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 love.
John i. 1, Jesus is called word, or revelation. 1 Cor.
i. 24, 30, Christ is represented as power and wisdom,
&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. But
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 further remark seems necessary on
the passages quoted by the Editor, from Matthew

483

and Lnke, where, as in many other passages in
which the word Wisdom is to be found, the sense
neither requires, 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 commission, 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
testimony 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 John. We find in the verse a personal
pronoun used three times. The first, " he," in the
phrase " when he saw," though understood in the
Greek verb etie ; the second, " his," connected with
the word "glory;" and the third, "of him," after
the verb " spoke ;" thus — " when he saw his glory
and spoke of him." 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 preceding 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 of the
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,) u These things, said Isaiah, when he
saw his glory, and spake of him" 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 of 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 further 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 of him," are applied to Jesus, the passage in
the evangelist would be, in that case, more correctly
explained by referring it to John viii. 56, " 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 command given to the prophet on that occasion,
as I observed in the Second Appeal (page 286).
With a view to invalidate this interpretation, 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,) hy 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." However, 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 prophets, 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 rne, O Lord,
hear me, that this people may know that thou art
the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their
heart back again" Isaiah Ixiii. 17, as noticed
before.

The Editor refers to 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, from its con-
text, and from the sacred history. He rests his re-
jection entirely upon the phrase, " A virgin shall
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 about
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, and
Hezekiah began to reign when he was five-ami-

488

\

twenty years old. 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. of 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 mrr, " 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 term 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 llth.
" He went in unto Hagar, and she conceived ;
and when she saw she had conceived," &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^n, 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 mrr, 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, nD^jm,
signifying " the virgin," which, if not referred to a
particular person before-mentioned, implies, 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
mrr 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 j and twenty years old was Ahaz when he
  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 have been 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
daughter of 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 no^m * " 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 5" in ch. liv. 1, it is once styled
  " barren," mpr j " a harlot" in Ezekiel xvi. 35, and in other
  instances.

491

ever, was obliged to do so, knowing that n in He-
brew, before a noun, as .1 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 believe that one being at one time should be

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 of the same chapter speaks
of the king of Syria and the king of Israel having
besieged Jerusalem ; verses 3 and 4, of 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, of the 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 become 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 of the birth of a
son to Isaiah, the prophet, and of the depredations
by the Assyrians on the land of Damascus, the capi-
tal of Syria, and on the land of Samaria, the head of

493

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 of the army of Rezin, and of
the son of Remaliah, 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 f( Shiloah,"
  herein mentioned as signifying rivers: in Genesis, nW; in
  Isaiah viii. 6, n^iy.

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
Remaliah, 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-Pileser, 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 horn 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 of
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 of 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. ii. 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 apostle 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:
c 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 public 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 that 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 to prove the application of the verse in
question to Hezekiah. It may be of use, however,
to call 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 of the king of Assyria,
when he invaded Lebanon and Naphtali and Galilee
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 Hazor,

499

and Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land of Naph-
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 Samaria, the enemies of Hezekiah and
his father. So we find in 2 Kings xviii. 10, 11,
that the people of Samaria were defeated and made
prisoners by the Assyrians in the sixth year of Heze-
kiah. Verse 11, 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, of the boasting of the 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

' O

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 application 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,
" 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. of 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 everlasting 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 Naphtalim and Galilee, from the darkness of sin,

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 application of the term Immanuel
to Jesus, I offer the following observations. The
sum total of their argument is derived from 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," u us ; " el," <?K
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
e^ 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 V«»js, Penie/; for I
have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Here the place is called the face of el, (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 more Jacob, but Israel ; for as a prince hast thou
power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."

504

As Jacob in wrestling with the angel, shewed him
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,
" Gabrie/," " mighty God ;" 1 Chran. xv. 18,
" Jaazie/," " strong God ;" Ver. 20, JemW, " living
God ;" 1 Sam. viii. 2, " The name of his first-born
was Joe/," 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 referring 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* f?« el, o»nf?« 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. 11 : cm ^« " The mighty one of the Hea-
  then." Exod. xv. 15 : INID »!?N " The mighty men of Moab."
  1 Sam. xxviii. 13 : >n»fcO o»nf?K " I saw God/' that is, Samuel.
  Exod. xxii. 8 : DT^Nrr ^« " 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 SALTATION. Also I will
make him my first-born." Ver. 35 : " Once have
I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto
DAVID." 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 all 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 delivered
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 ward delivered to
them by Jesus in his divine commission. Jesus is
liere 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

ci As to his being made the head of the corner 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 come into his temple, even the messenger of
the covenant, whom ye delight in ; behold, he shall
come, 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 delight 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 messenger of the covenant, in the
third person, by the Deity, prove the unity of that
messenger 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 writings. It is worth ob-
serving, that in the original Hebrew, " the mes-
senger of the covenant" stands as nominative to the
verb «a 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 Jesus 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 Jesus, Ze-
chariah gives us to understand, (Luke i. 69,) that
God " hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in
the house of his servant David." In the evangelical
writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we find Jesus
represented 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
shi 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 divines 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 notice, (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 come in the glory of his Fa-
ther, with his angels, and then he shall reward every
man according to his works." To weaken the force
of my argument, the Editor says, (p. 573,) " These
passages, however, do not in the least affect the
question, which is not, by what authority Christ re-
wards, but whether he be the person described as
rewarding; and this, these very passages confirm,
particularly Rev. xxii. 12." If in the administering
of judgment and of reward, as well as in the per-
formance of miracles, the authority by which these
things are done should be considered 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 worthy

2L 2

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 of the Most High, or independently of the
Almighty power? But if we consider it incumbent
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 (Jeern 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 of 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. 31:
" 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 of 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 ,-f- even for a season. To my understanding,

• John xvii. 5, 22. t 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 nature and godhead.'* It is true
that God's committing to the Son the authority of
judgment, bestowing on the sun the power of cast-
ing light upon the planets round him, and enabling
superiors to provide food and protection for their de-
pendents, do not imply any 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-
standing.

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 of that publication,
page 189.

I will also refrain from noticing, in this place,
Heb. i. 12, alluded to by the Editor, as I have

515

already considered that passage as fully as possible
in the preceding chapter, pp. 452, 453.

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 ;" comparing it with
Rev. i. 8, and xxii. 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 from 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 which
John describes the two elders and the two angels in
a distinct manner ; but I cannot find that he adduces
even a single instance where the " grand speaker" is
" introduced 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 Editor, How the angel
could forbid John to worship him, while he knew
that other angels of God, and even human beings,
had received worship from fellow-creatures ? Joshua
v. 14 : " And Joshua fell on his face to the earth,

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 Editor'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 to Jesus, he refused 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, merely a
mark of reverence, which neither identifies those to
whom it is offered with the Deity, nor raises them
to a level with their Creator, the Most High. My
readers will observe, that the author of the book of

517

Revelation declares himself, 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 Lamb; 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 Lamb ; 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 from John ?" I do not wonder at the Editor's
entirely neglecting to notice my remarks on the
terms " 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 applicable to Jesus," — when
I find him regardless of the explanation given by
John himself 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 of the creation of God: I
know thy works," &c. Col. i. 15 : " The first-born
of every creature." 1 Cor. xv. 24 : " Then comcth
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
(«od 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 peculiarly
applied to God five times in the book of Revelation,
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
applied 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 of the 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 phrase found

519

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," implies 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 overcometh 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 Thcss.
  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-
cometh shall inherit all things, and I will be his
God, and he shall be my son'9

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, e 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
me, 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 come 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
of the 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 him be filthy still : he that is
righteous, let him be righteous still ; and he that is
holy, let him be holy still. And behold, I come
quickly, and my reward is with me, 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,
xxii. 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, $£il;ai TOI$ SouXo/£ avrou d $

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 mind 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 come to 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 come quickly," found elsewhere in
the book of Revelation, is used expressly by Jesus as
speaker in five different instances, (ii. 5, 16, iii. 11,
xxii. 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 of the 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 will confess his name before
my Father, and before his angels," (ver. 5) ; " Him
that overcometh 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 overcometh 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 of God, and of the testimony of 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 : cc And hast
made us unto our God kings and priests." Ch. xi. 15 :
" The kingdoms of this world are become the king-
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 commandments 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 Larnb 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 Lamb) is Lord of lords, and King
of kings." The apostle never once declares him to
be « God of Gods," the peculiar 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 xlv. 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 the Father has 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 author, 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 my paraphrase are 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

2M 2

528

my interpretation, I hope to convince the Editor
himself, by referring 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:
te All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to
himself by Jesus Christ." John v. 22 : " For the
Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg-
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 _Isalah xlv.] 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
him shall men come ; and all that are incensed,
against him shall be ashamed."

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, Eph. 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 \isfollowers : 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 am 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 church ?" 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
<e thy Maker," in Isaiah liv. 5, in preference to
others, and its true force, could escape the notice of
the Editor, as the phrase " thy Maker is thy hus-
band" implies in a general sense that whosoever is
the maker is also the preserver, and, consequently,
God is the husband, or the preserver, of all his crea-
tures, including 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.

Some 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 made unto us wisdom and righteous-
ness," &c.,) I replied, in my Second Appeal, (page
286,) that u I only refer my readers again to the
passage in Jer. xxxiii. 16, in which Jerusalem also
is called c THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,' and to
the phrase, c is MADE unto us of Godj 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 580) : " 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

532

throne and exaltation which Jesus was possessed of,
was but the free gift of 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 f 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 ground, 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 may observe,
that it is the church of Christ, the holy Jerusalem,
who 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 from 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 woman 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
xlviii. 1; Gen. xliii. 6; Hosea xi. 8, 9; Exod. xxiii.
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 name 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 further 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 same phrase, " The Lord
our righteousness/' found in Jer. xxiii. 6, referred to
the Messiah ; that is, the application 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 am glad to observe, that he differs
from 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 mentions (page 583) a few more
passages which, he thinks, tend to " illustrate, not so
much the name as the divine nature of the Son. In
Jer. v. 22, we have this expostulation ; ' Fear ye
not me ? saith the Lord. Will 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 dominion 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 common 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 Fathers 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
xvii. 1, xviii. 44, 45 ; 2 Kings ii. 21 ; sometimes
without verbally expressing the name of God ; ch.
v. 8—13, 27, ch. ii. 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. 11 : e The gods that have not made the
heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from
the earth, and from under these heavens ;' which
declaration sweeps away not only the gods of the
heathen, but all magisterial gods, and even Moses
himself, as far as he aspired to the godhead : but
from this general wreck of our author's gods, Christ
is excepted, he having made 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. 17, 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 accomplished as an instrument 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,

538

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 him 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 here.

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 judge 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.
xxviii. 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
immediately preceding verse, the word of God, or
revelation, while figuratively represented as a two-
edged sword, &c., is in the same 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 him through whom 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 EzeUel
xxviii., God says, respecting a man who arrogated
to himself the honours of Godhead, f Son of man,
say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord

540

; — 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 : c 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 purposes of God,
and attributed divine favour towards himself to his
entire obedience to the Most High. Rom. v. 19:
" For as by one man's disobedience, many 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 from 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
simplj 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. i. 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." 1 Cor.
vi. 2, 3 : " Do ye not know that the saints shall
judge the world ? And if the world shall be judged

2N

542

by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest mat-
ters ? Know ye not that we shall judge angels ?"
&c. Here Christian saints are declared to be judges
of the deeds of the whole world, and of course 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 wonderful than that of
past things or present secrets of hearts ; yet we find
all the prophets of God were endued with the former.
1 Kings xx. 22 : " And the prophet came to the
king of Israel, and said unto him, Go, strengthen
thyself, and mark, and see what thou doest ; for at
the return of the year the king of Syria will come
up against thee." So we find the same gift of future
knowledge granted to righteous men in numerous
instances.

He then cites Daniel i. and vii., and founds upon
them the following question : " If, then, by nature
he was not God, by nature the creator of heaven and
earth, he and his kingdom must perish from under
the heavens." To this my reply is, that we find
Jesus subjected to the death of the cross while on
earth, and, after the general resurrection, to Him
that put all things under him. (I Cor. xv. 28.)
The Son, therefore, is not by nature God, the cre-
ator of heaven and earth. As to the sophistry that
attributes the death and subjugation of Jesus only to
his human capacity, it might be applicable to every
human individual, alleging that they, being the chil-

543

(Ircn of Adam/ the son of God, (Luke iii. 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 subjected
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 :
" 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
have I. called iny son,') plainly shews that it referred
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 pleased him."
This assertion of the 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, like Christ, entirely devoted to
the will of the Father of the universe. Deut. xxxii.
18 : "Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmind-
ful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee." Exod.
iv. 22 : " And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus
saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my Jirst-
bom" He then quotes Hosea iii. 5 : u Afterward

2 N 2

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 Bought 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 assigned 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. Lei: us refer
to the text of Hosea iii. 4 : " For the children of
Israel shall 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 their 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 lias 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, applies to Jesus Joel ii., whereby he iden-
tifies Jehovah witli him : but we find Peler here
quoting only a part of Joel ii. 32 : " And it shall
come l.o 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 :
<•' Ve men 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 even place, call on the name of Jesus Christ our
Lord." (1 Cor. i. 2.) I therefore quote Locke's
paraphrase on this verse, as well as his note on
Roni. x. 13, with a view to shew the Editor, that the
phrase, " call on the name 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

Christ, 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. x. 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 ; and if.
this be the meaning of ' calling 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 Christianity, 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 8th 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 will
perceive, that calling on the name of Jesus, as being
the Messiah sent by God, is an indirect call on the
name of God ; 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 of the king as if he had yielded directly }
to the sovereign.

The Editor then quotes Amos iv. 13, perhaps on
account of its containing the phrase, " declaring
unto man what is his thought." As I have noticed
this subject already, ofteher than once, pages 518
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 Lord of hosts. After '
the glory hath he sent me/ and ch. xiii. 7, f Awake,
O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who
is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts,' forms another
three-fold testimony of the distinct personality of 'the '
Son, and his equality with the Father." I am un-
able to discover exactly what the Editor intends by
his two first quotations. With respect to the former,

548

that " Jehovah said nnto Satan, Jehovah rebuke
thee," &c., the Editor must be well aware that God
speaks of himself, very frequently, throughout the
f?ac?'cd books, in the third person, instead of the first.
!$&{'!:•• li. 1 : 4; Hearken to me, ye that follow after
righteousness, ye that seek the Lord," cvC. 15 :
c- Bui; I am the Lord thy God, tliat divided tlie sea,
whoie waves roared : 'ILc Lord of hosts is Itis name."
EVCJI in this very bool: of ZecJwtriah, v/c find that
the prophet speaks of himself Form-times in the
third person. &ct>h. L 7: u In i-ie eeeo:H< yoar of
l^i fiu:_, a : « \7orc! o'' Jehovah unto ZcelK.riah,"
c': Ai?d t??c \rord ov tho Lord a.n-^ ?«nto
snying," &c. iXcither God'o ??cr Zceha-
riai^' rpcaLi-rir-' of iiinisclii in the thinl person, in
poetical language, LL ^ bj constri/cd into r proof of
tl>, plurality o" cither ot ihur person?, o?- of the
eqiialiiy of either v.itli soiv^e other being. The fact
is, tlirl Zcchariaji prophecies, in tL»o eccoiid year of
Dalits, ?:i?ig of Pcrcia, of tlic Lord's \vill to build
the second temple of Jerusalem, by Joshua, Zernb-
foabel, and Semnl? ; and to rebuke Satan, v» ho would
discourage Joshua, tlio high-priest, from that un-
dertaking : as i^ evident from the following passage.
Zech. i. 1 : 6: In the eighth month, in the second
year of Darius, cainc the word of the Lord to Ze-
chariah," &c. 10: " Therefore, thus paith the Lord,
I arn returned to Jerusalem 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 t» And he said
unto inc, To measure Jerusalem," &,e. iii. 1, 2:
" And he shelved me Joshua the high-priest stand-
ing before the angel of ilie Lord, and Satan standing
at his right haml «,o 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 p, brand plucked out of the fire r" As to
Zcrubbabel, the prophet says, iv. 9, c; 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 name is Se-
muh ; and he shall grow up out: of his place, and yc
shall build the temple of the Lord : l^ven 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, mentioned i»i 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 commentators choose to apply the
name 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 touchcth
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 haw 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 o in the original Hebrew, signifies " that," as
  well as " for." See Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon.

551

CHAPTER IV.

On the Editors Replies to the Arguments contained
in Chapter II. of 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 of a servant;' and may discern, whether it
is jiot 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 lie 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 the«r mode of expression,) is
possessed of the attributes of perfection, such as
mercy, justice, righteous-ness, truth, &c., yet he re-
presents them so diftemxV as to ascribe (o the
Father strict justice, or rather vengeance; and to the
Son, unlimited me-'cy and forgiveness, that is, the
Father, the first person of the Godherd, 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 mere) 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 himself, without any

553

sacrifice, offered to him as an atonement for their
sins? It is then evident, that, according to the
system of TViuitarians, the Son had a greater portion
of mercy tha-i t'.'e Father, io oppose to his justice, in
having his sinful creatures pardoned, without suffering
them »o experience individual punishment. Are
these the doctrines oil which genuine Christianity is
founded ? God forbid !

If the first person be acknowledged to be pos-
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 di-vctly 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 deatli 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, 1 only
beg to remind him of a few sacred passages among
many of a similar nature. John iii. 3d : " The
Father loveth the Son, and hath GIVEN all things
into his hand." Oh. xvii. 22: "And the glory
which thou GAYEST 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 life in himself,"

554

Luke i. 32: "And the Lord shall GIVE UNTO him
the throne of his father 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 enjoyed 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
attributes 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 tvVir by which the supreme Deity is dis-
tinguished above all gods, is not found once ascribed
to Jesus, though invariably applied to the Father
throughout the scriptural writings. 2ndly. Jesus
was never called almighty, or »iu> a term peculiarly
used for the Deity. Nay, moreover, he expressly
denies being possessed of almighty power, Matt.

23 : " But to sit on my right hand, and on my

555

loft, is NOT MINE TO GIVE, but to them for whom it is
PREPAREP of MY FATHER." Ch. xxvi. 53 : "Think-
cst 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, more especially, one subjected to the
transitions of birth and death, .must, however highly
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
Creator 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 identical in nature with God, who has
given to the sun all the heat," £c, ; to which the

55G

Editor replies, " What is the sun to his Maker ?" —
I wish he had also added, " bat that which a son
and creature is to his Faiher and Creator ?" When
he again inquires, saying, -( If the sun has no claim
to godhead, bos its Ma key no^c ?" (a1 1 rid '^3 to Chrisc,)
he nrgH have roo Recced i\<.ii no!thr»?: the sun nor
Jesus has ever arrogrted to {)in?celf go^'iead, but
that it is their worshippers that lirve pJvaocod doc-
trines ascribing godhead and i-iiioice perfection 10
these iviite oojects. Nbiririth$tan<ftng ihtii; v;e daily
witness the power of the glorious sun * \ bringing
into Jife, and |).'eserving 1o maturity, nn iniinite va-
riety of vcgeta»>ie arcl animal objcds, yci: c>;ir grati-
tude and admiration recognize in him only ? bein<>
instrumental in the hands of God, and we oifer wor-
ship ard duty to liim a1 one, vviio has given to the
sun all the JJght and animating warmth which he
sheds on our globe. On the same ground, whether
we understand from scriptural authority, that the
supreme .Deity made u»-w>'h Jesus Christ all the
things bekn?£fag vo the (;nvistian diepensat'on, or
every thing relating to this? visible world, (as inter-
p-'eted by the wwskippers of Jesus,) we must not, in
either case, esteem him as the supreme Deity, in
whose hand he i? 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.'

557

Supposing Jesus alone had the power of effecting
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-
ment 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 not 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 possession 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 sec 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. Vcrs. 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 Elisha. 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 not
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 influ-
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 heal 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
distinction ?" On which the Editor thus remarks :
" It is in reality 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, (pages!57, 158,) I selected
nineteen passages out of many, in which Jesus dis-
tinctly disavows the divine nature, and manifests his
subordination to Go.d ; 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 of the Son, or (in the words of the Editor) a
complete 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." " All that the Father giveth me shall
come to we." " As my Father hath taught me I
speak these things." To my Father and your Father,

2o2

560

and to my God and your God." " Beholcf my servant
whom I have chosen." If these declarations 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
hi 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, 1 Cor. xv.
24, 25 ; but as I have examined the former in
page 452, and the latter in page 455, I will not
revert to the consideration of them in this place.
At page 589, the Editor thus censures me : " To.

561

say that m the mouth of the Father, ' for ever 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 in the mouth of the
Father, which contain the term u 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 an everlasting
possession." 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 of the 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 Cor. xv. 24, 28.

The Editor in the course of this discussion notices
Philipp. ii. 6, whence he concludes that Jesus was in
the form of God, and thought it not 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: ce Who being in the form of God, did not
think it robbery to be like God." So John Park-
hurst, M. A., the author of a Greek and English
Lexicon to the New Testament, 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 swan ura. 0eo>, to be as God. So i<ra Seat
is most exactly rendered, agreeably to the force of
f<ra 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 urov ra> ®so>, which
is used John v. 18: ' 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.' " (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 praedae 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 of the New* Testament.

123

3dly. The original Greek runs thus : €O$ sv popfyy

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12*

0eot> u7rap%a)V,ov% dpTra.'yfji.ov TJyrjcraTO TO swat ura®ea>.

1234 56 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

564

being in 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, but even made himself of no reputation. It
would be absurd to point out one's own opinion of

• We find the verb yyeopai implying to esteem as well as to
  think, with a simple accusative, [2] Pet. iii. 9 : «s Tives ppativTyTo,
  jyoZvrai, fe as some men count slackness" (properly speaking,
  " think of slackness").

565

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.) " Mop^rj,
perhaps from the Hebrew n*n» appearance, and HQ
aspect. Outward appearance, form, which last word
is from the Latin forma, and this, by transposition,
from the Doric popfya, for |u,op

j. 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-
anity,) 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 eveiy authority,
insist upon it& implying real essence in the phrase,
" being in the form of God," he must receive it in
the same sense in the following verse, " took upon
himself the form of a servant ;" and he must then
admit and believe that Christ was possessed 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 ;" " And 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, justly 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 Socinianism has never
been answered, — ' It is not said Christ is TrpcoroxTizoSy
Jirst-created, but Trpcororoxos, the Jirst-barn ; 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 so 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-born" 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 when obviously
not relating to natural birth. Exod. iv. 22, we find
in the mouth of Jehovah himself, Israel designated
by the terms, (e my son, even myjirst-bom." Again,
Jer. xxxi. 9 : "I am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim
is myjirst-born" 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. viii. 29 : " For whom God did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed
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 born
of God." Vide 1 John iv. 7 : " Beloved, let us love
one another : for love is of God, and even/ one that

568

toveth is born 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 Heb. 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, who is
represented as styling the poor and helpless his bre-
thren. Ch. xxviii. 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 of the Lord and Cephas." Heb. ii. 11:
66 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 of the 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 means,
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 examined it in pages 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, c 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 divine? 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 time 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? In Heb. x. 5 — 7, the apostle declares, that
Jesus, at the time of his coming to the world, saith,
that God had prepared 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 Heb. i. 12,
es Thou art the same." This I have fully noticed in
page 452.

The Editor disapproves highly of my assertion, in
the Second Appeal, " Christ was vested with glory
from the beginning of the world." I therefore beg to
quote one or two scriptural passages, which, I hope,
will justify that assertion. 1 John ii. 13: " I write
unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that
is from the beginning." Rev. iii. 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 world," 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 there 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-
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 had it (the same glory) with the Fa-
  ther before the world was, that is, in the Father's purpose and
  decree. In the language of scripture, what God determines to
  bring to pass, is represented as actually accomplished -, thus, the
  dead are represented as living, Luke xx. 36 — 38. Believers are
  spoken of as Already glorified, Rom. viii. 29, 30. Things that are
  not, are called as though they were, Rom. iv. J7. 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 j
  Rev. xiii. 8 -, Heb. x. 34. (Improved Version.)

572

fore his coming into this world, (according to the1
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
not 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
some years past, and do now seriously reflect, on the
divine nature, but I find it inconsistent with any
idea I can admit of the eternal and unchangeable
Almighty, that he should empty himself 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 other self 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 come 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 aby

i O

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, " obx and oViy are used both as
nouns and participles, for time hidden and concealed
from man, as well indefinite, Gen. xvii. 8, 1 Sam.

2p

574

xiii. 13, 2 Sam. xii. 10, and eternal, Gen. in. 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, Jos/L
xxiv. 2, Pstt/flt xli. 14, cxiii. 3, Prov. viii. 23, as
future. It sciems to be much more frequently used
for an indefinite, than for infinite, time. Sometimes
it appears particularly to denote the continuance of
the Jewish dispensation or age, Gen. xvii. 13, Exod.
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) gives the translation of the
term oVir found in Micah v. 2. In the course of ex-
plaining the force of the word «v» says he, " Micah
v. 1, or 2, VDNYIDI and his (the Messiah's) goings
forth have been from of old, o^w »»»» from the days
of antiquity." 3dly, from the English version, Isaiah
Ixiii. [11], " Then he remembered the days of old"
or o^iy »»», exactly as is found in Micah v. 2. 1 Sam.
xxvii. 8, " Those nations were of old," for the same
Hebrew term oViy. Deut. xxxii. 7, " Remember
the days of old" for the same Hebrew word. Gen.
vi. 4, " Which were of old, men of renown," for the
same term o^ir. Psalm Ixxvii. 5, " I have con-
sidered the days of old, and the years of ancient
times." Here the term Dip which is rendered in
Micah v. 2, " of old" and the terjn oVitf translated

575

in the same verse " everlasting" arc 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 travailed) 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
of the Lord9 in the majesty of the name of the Lord
his God," &c. Can the phrases, " his God" " in
the strength of tJte 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 as his bj-etliren, and
looking up to another superior, who is designated
by <e his God" ? If a body of men, distinguished for
their talents, learning, and situation in life, from
time to time, be determined to support their long-
established inventions, in de6ance of scripture, rea-
son, and common sense ; how can truth make its
appearance, when so violently resisted ? In fact,
verse 2d of MicaJi thus correctly stands : " Out of
thee (Bethlehem) shall he (the last expected Mes-
siah) come forth unto mo 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 God 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 thing comes. Job

2 p2

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 J 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 termed 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 5 in which last pas-
sage, NYia is used for that part of the heavens whence the solar
light NY' 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 him 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 myjirst-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 effect, 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

toss of his own life ; 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 in his image" and in the English
version^ " in his own 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 original 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 J^ws
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, Paul uses the expression, " Timothy, my

579

own son in the faith." Did he thereby exclude his
thousands of spiritual disciples from 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 Abraham had,
at that time, another son beside Isaac, namely, Jsh-
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.
1 7, we must discredit the express word of God, de-
claring Israel his begotten and first-born son, and
describing David to be his begotten son.

It is worth noticing, thai the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, applies the last phrase, " begotten
son," in an accommodated sense to Jesus, Heb. i. 5.
I say, in an accommodated sense, since, in Psalm ii.
7, it is David that declares, during the prosperous
time of his reign, " The Lord hath said unto me,
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 from eter-
nity, with consistency maintain 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 xvii. 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.