Page images

Difficulties attending it, differences in the manuscripts and different translations. Reasons for not translating it as in the common version. No doctrinal point to be established upon such a basis ; inuch less so stupendous and impro bable an one, that a person who appeared as a man in every respect, was the Supreme Being, especially when there is another translation obvious, easy, an: anattended with any such difficulty. p. 127.-It is not correct to say, that "the Jews never used the term a God, but by way of reproach. Proofs from Scripture, that they used it otherwise, applying it in its inferior sense to prophets, judges, rulers, priests, and angels. p. 129,- The Gods of the Egyptians not alluded to in the 7th chap. of Exod. p. 131.--Reply to the obserration that the Jews considered the name of Jehovah as incommunicable, and that passages spoken of Jehovah in the Old Testament are applied to Christ by the apostles in the New, shewing the superstition of the Jews about the name Jebovah, which they did not draw from their Scriptures, thus shewing it not only to have been communicable, but to have been actually communicated to persons, places, and things, and why. P. 132.--Instances of this from the Old Testament. p. 133.-Supposing Joshua to have been a type of Christ, as its communication to the type does not prove him to have been more than man, neither does its communication to the antitype prove any thing more. p. 134.-It was never intended to identify the persons, places, or things, to which it was communicated with Jehovah himself. p. 135. Difficult for Trinitarians to give up their preconceived opinions upon this subject. p. 136.-Jer, xxiii. 6, 7, and ls. xlv. 24, 25, respecting the Lord our righteousness,' and, in Jehovah have we righteousness,' furnish no proof of our Lord being Jehuvah, supposing the first prophecy to apply to him, the same things being affirmed of different persons,

sor imes in the same sense, and sometimes in different senses, illustrated by 1 Chron. xxix. 20. Exod. xiv. 31. Id. xx. 2. Id. xxxii, 7. and xxxiii. 1. Deut. v. 6. 1 Sam. ji. 12. The same as to John the Baptist going before Jehovah, and also going before Christ. -'I'he ar. gument that persons must be the same, because the same things are affirmed of them, would be held wretched reasoning for any other purpose than to prore the Trinity. Effect of similar reasoning in astronomy. p. 138.-Further remarks on Jer. xxiii, 6, 7, and Is, xlv. 24, illustrated by Jer. xxxiii. 15, and 2 Cor. v. 19. shewing that Jehovah and Christ are different persons. p. 140. -The Divine produces no proofs of his assertion, that passages spoken of Je. hovah in the Old Testament are without scruple applied to Christ in the New; nor does he invalidate the author's former arguments against his assertion; that every divine name, title, attribute, &c. is ascribed to Christ in the Scrip. tures, shewing that some of the most important are not only never ascribed to bim, but upon his own authority do not exist in him ; notwithstanding which, he repeats the same assertion with as little ceremony as at first. p. 142.-As names and titles seem to be still relied upon, an additional list is furnished of names given to a variety of persons, from which it might be proved, that each of them was God, and possessed of divine attributes, precisely as the Divine proposes to prove from the ascription of such names to Christ, that he

is God. p. 144.—The names given to different persons, calling them Jehovah and God, and seemingly ascribing to them his divine attributes, many of them as high and lofty as any given to our Saviour, shew that all of them to gether, if all had been conferred upon him, would not have proved him to have been really Jehovah. p. 145.—The title IIarroxgarwe never given to our Lord, but to the Father only, and the fathers of the three first centuries considered it as his peculiar and exclusive designation: p. 146.Answer to the observation, that our Lord speaks of himself in such terms, as bivught upon him alone, of all the inspired messengers of Heaven, the charge of blasphemy for making himself equal with God. Nothing shews the weakness of the Trinitarian cause so much, as endeavouring to prove what our Lord is, by the charges of his enemies against him. p. 146.--He was as free from the charges made against him by the Jews, as from the Trinitarian sentiments imputed to him in subsequent times by his own mistaken followers. He never claimed, however, equality with God, nor did the Jews charge bim with it, but only with justifying his violation of the Sabbath by the example of God; in that respect making himself like God: but if the Jews had designed to impute the former to him, his reply, acknowledging the most marked inferiority, shews it to have been a false charge. p. 147.--Observations on John v. 20.-Explanation of the meaning of all things which the Father doeth, and which he shewed to the Son, exemplified by 1 John ii. 20, must be limited, for he was to be shewed greater works than these. What these greater works were, stated by our Lord in terms strongly expressive of inferiority and subjection ; acknowledging that the future judgment had been committed to him, and therefore that the authority was not originally his own; that he was to be honoured as the Father was honoured, only because this authority was com mitted to him. p. 148.--He states that his having life in himself, and having authority to execute judgment, were his Father's gifts, consequently they might have been withheld ; that this authority was not given to him because he was the divine Logos, but because he was the son of man, adding, that of hiniself he could do nothing. John v.:30. p. 150.-Plain, that if the Jews meant to impute to him the making of himself equal with God, the charge was a false charge, and his answer a complete refatation of it. What it more probably was, p. 151.-What he represented himself to be, not to be proved by the charges made against him by false accusers, who were his enemies, but by what he said of himself.--In John X. 33, they did charge him with blasphemy, for making himself God, or a God; but there also it appears to have been a false charge, and would not have amounted to blasphemy had it been true. Had these false accusations even proceeded wholly from ignorance, we are not to take the ignorant for our instructors. Our Lord's opinion of them and their leaders. p. 153.-The law of blasphemy, as understood by the Jews, of a very undefined character. Not necessary for a man to make himself God, or to speak against God, to incur it; nor was our Lord the only inspired messenger who did incur it. p. 154.-It is admitted, that to understand the evangelists and apostles, we should consider them as men full of

Old Testament ideas. In the Old Testament, however, we find every where clear, plain, and numerous declarations of the divine unity, but not a syllable about the Trinity. Enumeration of passages, in which Old Testament ideas concerning the nature of the Supreme Beiug are conveyed; such as " Hear; O Israel! Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah,” &c. p. 154.-Sach are the declarations of the Supreme Being, the Great Jehovah himself, clearly and repeatedly inculcating the divine unity; and such are the Old Testament ideas, of which the evangelists and apostles must have been full, and not of Trinitarian ideas, which are no where to be found in the Old Testament. Those are some of the most important things, which God spoke to the Jewish fathers, by the prophets; and as the apostle informs us, Heb. i. 1, 2, that it was the Father who spoke to them by the prophets, this excludes the Son and the Holy Spirit. It appears, that be, the Supreme FATHER, has declared, that he is one Jehovah, that he is God, that there is none else beside him, that besides him there is no Saviour, that there is none like him, none equal to him, none to be compared to him ; whilst the Tripitarians must contend, that there are two others like bim and equal to him; that there are two other persons who are God beside him ; that there is another Saviour beside him, who is more strictly a saviour than himself. p. 157.Unfortunately for the Trinitarian cause, these are ideas no more to be found in the New Testament, than in the Old. p. 158.–The Divine appears to sbrink from further reference to the Greek Fathers, on finding their evidence unfavourable. Being his witnesses, however, the author puts some questions to them by way of cross-examination, and means to propose more. p. 158.But the reason why sds is anarthrous in John i. 1. is not because the Greeks thus expressed the predicate of a proposition, in distinction from the subject wbich has the article. p. 159.The evangelist knew of no such rule, having only three verses lower written as an utter stranger to, and directly contrary to it, if any such existed, John i. 4. He had another and a better

He did not make the distinction without a difference. He knew full well, when he wrote the first chapter, that our Lord himself had made the distinction in the discourse, which he has recorded in his 10th chap. and followed bis example. p. 160.-This supposed rule unknown also to St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 3, and to the author of the book of Revelations. Rev. xix. 10; also to Eusebius, who says, that the apostle might have prefix d the article to 80s, as well as Giov, if he had thought the Father and the Son to be one and the same, and the Son to be God over all. p. 161.-Origen expresses similar sentiments. p. 163.Doing this would not have made it an identical proposition, for the terins of the subject and predicate would have differed. Trinitarianism not to be benefited by appealing to the rules of logic. p. 163.-Texts quoted by the Divine to shew that ó Joos is applied to Christ, namely, John xx. 28. Heb. 1. 8. Rom.ix. 5,2 Pet. i. 1, Tit. ii. 13, and iii. 4. The author had only said in his former Letter; that he did not know where ó Iros was applied to Christ. He still does not, the texts quoted by the Divine nut proving it. In consequence of fur. ther investigation, he thinks himself entitled to say, that ó Scos used absolutely


and without any qualification, is never applied to Christ, or any other person than the Father. p. 164.-Examination of John xx. 28, “O my Lord, and O my God;" which is shewn not to answer the purpose it is cited for. p. 166.Even laying the qualification out of the case, it would be no authority for the application of • Joos to Christ. Reasons for believing é Isos in this text to be in the vocative, and Isos to be used in the inferior sense. p. 168.-Eminent critics have considered the passage to be a sudden exclamation, the former part of which only was addressed to Christ, and the latter to the Father. Instance of a transition still more abrupt, 1 Sam. xx. 12. p. 169.-Examination of Heb. i. 8. in the common version, “ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” This text still more unfit for the Divine's purpose than the for. mer. Different interpretations of it. Parallel passage from Ps. Ixxiii. 26. p. 170.-Examination of Rom. ix. 5, in the common version, “ of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever." This text still more exceptionable than either of the former, and why. Opinious of eminent critics, and quotations from the Fathers. p. 172.--Examination of Titus ii. 13,“ Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ :” and 2 Pet. i. 1, ". Through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ:” Both these texts fall short of the point in question, and why. Ambiguous passages to be construed by plain ones, and not obscura per obscuriora. The Scriptures not to be treated less fairly and rationally than other writings. p. 174.Mr. Sharp and Dr. Middleton's system relative to the Greek article considered. Not at all to be depended upon; and if it were, these texts might be classed among the exceptions. p. 176.—Another test applied to their rules, namely, the writings of the fathers. Origen, Eusebius, and Clemens Alexa andrinus, could have known nothing of theni. p. 178.-Further remarks on 2 Pet. i. 1. p. 179.-Examination of Tit. iii. 4, “But after that the kindness and love of our Saviour God towards mankind appeared.” The article pot prefixed to Oxos, and the words ‘God our Saviour' are spoken of the Father, as contradistinguished from the Son. Reasons why calling God our Saviour and Jesus Christ our Saviour is no proof of identity. p. 180.-The Divine has failed in every text he has produced as proof of • Joos being applied to Christ. p. 182. The author has no difficulty where to find bis proofs of : 2006 being applied to the Father; but has to select a few, out of multitudes, in every part of Scripture. 1 John iv. 6-16. furnishes a complete constellation of them, containing twenty-one clear, distinct, and undisputed instances in eleven verses, of the term being applied to the Father, and what is inore, as contradistinguished from Christ. The author also cites John iii. 16, 17, 34, Acts ii. 22, Id. 32, 33, Id. iii. 26, Rom. v. 10, Rom. viii. 3, 31, 32. p. 183.He challenges the Divine to produce a single instance where this term has ever been clearly, unequivocally, and absolutely, applied to the Son, as in those just quoted it is to the Father. p. 186.-The strongest part of the author's argument on the 10th chapter of John not touched, but left entirely unanswered, the Divine baving confined himself to a subordinate and collateral

point. p. 187.-The Divine's objections to the author's remarks on the sanctification of the Son by the Father, John X. 36, that it signifies "setting apart to a peculiar use.' Answer, that this must mean either a consecration to such use, or a separation from other persons or things for such uses ; the first of which is shewn to be inconsistent with the 'Trinitarian hypothesis, and the second impossible; whilst uport Unitarian principles neither the one nor the other occasions any difficulty at all.p. 188.–That the apostles do not apply to Jesus Christ what'Isaiah says, 'Sanctify the Lord of Hosts, and he shall be a stumbling block tu both houses of Israel.' No ground for the inference that Christ is the Lord of Hosts. Examination of Is. viji. 13, Id. xxviii. 16, Ps. Ixix. 22, Rom. ix. 23, 1 Pet. ii. 5-8.–Sanctifying' used by Isaiah in the sense of honouring or glorifying, in which it is used also Numb. xx. 12, Lev. x. 3. p. 190.-The same subject continued. Absurdity of concluding, if the Lord of Hosts had been called a stumbling block, and our Saviour also a stumbling block, that therefore they must have been one and the same, exemplified by applying the same rule to astronomy. p. 192.-Proof from Rom. ix. 33, Rev. ii. 14, that the Jews had other stumbling blocks. p. 194. The apostle Paul, if he had designed, Rom, ix. 31, 32, to represent Christ as the stumbling stone that was laid, designed to represent him as different from the Lord of Hosts who laid it. p.195.-If the apostle Peter, 1 Pet. ii. 6, considered Christ to be the stone he mentions, nothing more follows, than that Isaiah had said that the Lord of Hosts should be for a stone of stumbling to both houses of Israel; and the apostle Peter says, that Christ had become a stone of stumbling, which each might have been, the one under the old and the other under the new dispensation, without their being the same. In fact, the aposties say nothing about the Lord of Hosts. p. 195,- The Divine states, that our Lord stooped from a state of original dignity and glory, and placed himself in a state of inferior condition to the Father, which accounts for his saying 'the Father,' who never thus stooped, “is greater than l.' The author denies that there is any proof of this in the Scriptures. p. 197. These words of our Lord declare him to be then inferior, and there is no allusion to any antecedent or original dignity, much less equality. p. 199.--The words prove, that the Father was greater than our Lord, taking him as he then was, being, upon the Trinitarian hypothesis, a person consisting of a divine nature equal to the Father, and a human nature which must have made him something more. Inconsistency of this shewn. p. 199.--Still to be proved that he was ever equal to the Father in any relation. p. 200.--The Scriptures nowhere declare that our Lord had any original or underived glory. His own declarations prove the contrary, John v. 19, 22, 26, 27, 30, Id. vij. 16, Id. xii. 49, ld. xiv. 10. p. 201.-No proof furnished by John xvii. 5, that our Lord had original glory, or even that he preexisted. Construction of the Greek word rage. p. 202.-His glory not actually enjoyed before the world was, but existed in the conteniplation and counsel of God, proved by Joho viji. 56, Rom. iv.17, Gen. xvii. 5, Rev. xiij. 8, Luke xx. 38, John xvii. 12. p. 203.The passage Philipp. ii, quoted in favour of Trinitarianism, gives St. Paul's


« PreviousContinue »