answer.

But to enter fully into this, he must also study the same work, Part II. chap. i. of the Importance of Christianity; chap. iii. the Credibility that a Revelation must appear liable to objections; and chap. v. on the Appointment of a Mediator, and the Redemption of the World by him. When my reader has studied with care and candour this work, I do not fear his being affected by the ill-applied and petulant sarcasms, and the shallow objections of infidels or sceptics; or of those who, under the pretext of trying revelation by the test of their own reason, reject what they please, and distort Scripture until it suits their own opinions, instead of conforming their opinions to the doctrines of holy writ.

For the application of this principle to most of the texts which are quoted, as opposing the true Godhead of Christ, I beg of my reader to consult Jones on the Trinity, chap. i. from No. XXIV. to the end; and again, in his third chapter, on the Plurality and Trinity of Persons, particularly from No. XIX. to the end. Some of the arguments of this able writer I have selected; for others I would refer to the work itself. These notes are already swelling to an extent inconsistent with the object I proposed to myself that of supplying a selection of the clearest proofs of this great truth, sufficiently strong to satisfy those who have not leisure to study longer and more elaborate treatises.

NOTES TO DISCOURSE IV.

NOTE XIX. PAGE 90.

Every feeling and affection which can be conceived to form part of the honour paid to God, has also Christ for its object; and every kind of obedience and submission required as due to God, is also required as due to the Redeemer."

Since I wrote the above, I have been highly gratified to see the same idea clearly and impressively expressed by the late Mr. Bowdler, jun. in his " Essay on the love of God," which occurs in the second volume of his Select Pieces-a work, the religious part of which I strongly recommend to every Christian reader. It occurs in page 215-"The love which we owe to our Redeemer seems, so far as it is possible for us to have accurate notions on such a subject, to be exactly the same with the love which we owe to God. It is difficult even to separate the idea, though the adorable persons to whom it is directed are (for purposes the most wise and gracious) presented to us separately in holy writ. Whatever is true of either, is true of both: the work of redemption was the work of God in Christ; and Christ is over all God blessed for ever.' The identity which the Scriptures attribute to God and Christ, both in perfection of nature, and the exercise of goodness towards us, is so complete, that the love which that perfection and goodness awaken, seems in like manner, scarcely capable of division; so that we seem to be justified in saying, that we must love God with all our hearts, and Christ with all our hearts; that we must love God above all things, and Christ above all things. The metaphysical embarrassment indeed is great, but there is no practical difficulty. However, though it seemed needful to touch upon this point, it becomes us all to think and speak upon it, with a modesty suitable to the dignity of the subject, and our exceeding weakness."

On the subject treated of in this Discourse, and particularly the connexion between the dignity ascribed in Scripture to the Son and Holy Spirit, with the parts they are declared to bear in the scheme of redemption, and the feelings and duties on the part of man arising from the relation to him which is thus revealed, consult Butler's Analogy, part ii. chap i. On the Importance of Christianity.

"Christianity, (says this profound and truly rational divine,) in addition to its being a clear and authoritative publication, and an external institution of natural religion, and a new promulgation of God's general providence, as righteous Governor and Judge of the world, contains also a revelation of a particular dispensation of Providence, carrying on by his Son and Spirit, for the recovery and salvation of mankind, who are represented in Scripture to be in a state of ruin. And, in consequence of this revelation being made, we are commanded to be baptized, not only in the name of the Father, but also of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and other obligations of duty, unknown before, to the Son and Holy Ghost are revealed. Now the importance of these duties may be judged of, by observing that they arise not from positive command merely, but also from the offices which appear from Scripture to belong to those divine persons in the Gospel dispensation, or from the relations which we are there informed they stand in to us. By reason is revealed the relation in which God the Father stands in to us; hence arises the obligation of duty which we are under to him. In Scripture are revealed the relations which the Son and Holy Spirit stand in to us; hence arise the obligations of duty which we are under to them. The truth of the case (as one may speak) in each of these three respects being admitted, that God is the governor of the world on the evidence of reason, that Christ is the mediator between God and man, and the Holy Ghost our guide and sanctifier upon the evidence of revelation; it is no more a question, why it should be commanded that we be baptized in the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, than that we be baptized in the name of the Father."

This point the bishop goes on to state more fully, and he observes, "that the essence of revealed religion, as distinguished from natural, consists in religious regards to the Son and the Holy Ghost. It may be asked, what are these inward religious regards? I answer, the religious regards of reverence, honour, love, trust, gratitude, fear, and hope. In what external manner this inward worship is to be expressed, is a matter of pure revealed command, as perhaps the external manner in which God the Father is to be worshipped: but the worship, the internal worship itself, to the Son and Holy Ghost, is no farther matter of pure revealed command, than as the relations they stand in to us are matter of pure revelation; for the relations being known, the obligations to such internal worship are obligations of reason, arising out of these relations themselves. In short, the history of the Gospel as immediately shows us the reason of these obligations, as it shows us the meaning of the words Son and Holy Ghost."

And again" The dispensations of the Gospel being admitted, gratitude as immediately becomes due to Christ, from his being the voluntary minister of this dispensation, as it is due to God the Father, from his being the fountain of all good; though the first is made known to us by revelation only, the second by reason.' The bishop adds a remarkable observation here, to which I call the attention of the reader :"Positive institutions come under a two-fold consideration: they are either institutions founded on natural religion, as baptism in the name of the Father; though this has also a particular reference to the Gospel dispensation, for it is in the name of God, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: or they are external institutions founded on revealed religion, as baptism in the name of the Son and Holy Ghost.'

"

The bishop concludes this interesting_discussion with the following remark, most important in our present argument :-"To these things I cannot forbear adding, that the account here given of Christianity, most strongly shows and enforces upon us the obligations of searching the Scriptures, in order to see what the scheme of revelation really is, instead of determining from reason beforehand, what the scheme of it must be. Indeed, if in revelation there be found any passages, the seeming meaning of which is contrary to natural religion, we may most certainly conclude such seeming meaning not to be the real one; but it is not any degree of presumption against an interpretation of Scripture, that such interpretation contains a doctrine which the light of nature cannot discover, or a precept which the law of nature does not oblige to."

I shall here add a few words, to show how powerfully these observations of this profound reasoner establish the conclusiveness of the argument in the fourth Dis

course. The bishop argues, "that if Christ is the mediator between God and man, that is, if Christianity be true, if HE BE INDEED OUR LORD, OUR Saviour, and our GOD, certain religious regards of reverence, honour, love, trust, gratitude, fear, and hope, are due to him; and no one can say what may follow, not only the obstinate but the careless disregard of him, in these high relations." And from his argument it would follow, that if he were declared to bear the above divine character, these religious regards would be due, though not expressly claimed for him.

The argument of the fourth Discourse goes to show, that revelation does not stop at declaring the divine nature of Christ, and his relation to us, but that it goes further, and expressly claims for him and directs to him, all the religious regards above stated, in the most clear and forcible terms. Can there be a stronger proof that Christ does really possess that dignity, and stand in that relation to us which alone would justify such regards? Does it not follow, that here is as it were, a second mode of revealing to, and impressing upon us, that Christ is indeed the mediator between God and man -that he is indeed our Lord, our Saviour, and our God?

NOTE XX. PAGE 98.

'Religious affections are in the Scriptures declared due to the Redeemer, of which it is impossible to conceive any being should be the legitimate object in such a degree, and to such an extent, except God himself.

The texts brought forward in this Discourse, to show the high degree in which all the religious affections are directed towards our Saviour, are as far as I have seen, not questioned as to their authenticity, or their general meaning and import: but it is attempted to overturn the inference derived from them, as to the divinity of Christ and the atonement. First By making great deductions from their force, as appearing greater than was really meant, because "of the Easterns being accustomed to employ metaphors and allusions, to give quick and vigorous conceptions of truth or facts, and to dwell, as all persons of lively imaginations do, on the most striking train of causes, as what produced the important effects in contemplation;" and also by observing, "That the Mosaic ritual and scriptural phraseology were a fertile source of metaphors well suited to soften the prepossessions of the Jews against the Gospel, to heighten the conviction of the believer, and to give impressive views of its importance." How far the texts here adduced can be thus considered as metaphorical and figurative, the reader must judge for himself. To me they seem most literal; and I observe that Unitarian writers seldom attempt to show how far they are to be understood literally, how far figuratively; at least they seldom apply this distinction to particular passages. This idea is rather brought forward as a general counterpoise to balance their collective weight, and not directly applied to each separately.

Another mode of undermining this argument is, to speak of the indispensable necessity of Christ's death, as confirming his truth and doctrines, and thus establishing the acceptance of repentance, and the certainty of a future retribution. It is certainly difficult to speak too highly of the importance of his death in this view; but how does this go to explain the texts which speak of our Lord's humiliation from a former state of glory, or of the amazing powers to be exercised by him after his death? And even the importance of his death in that view, does not seem so much greater than that of others who suffered in support of truth and piety, as to set it so infinitely higher than the testimony and the sufferings of all other martyrs, whether separate or united; and so as to ascribe to him exclusively the title of Saviour of man, because his part in attesting the truth of the Gospel doctrines was of more importance or efficacy than that of any other individual, and that he was clearly the first agent in the Christian scheme.

Let me ask, if, when the eleven apostles were brought before the high priest and Sanhedrim, and commanded “not to speak at all, or teach in the name of Jesus,”2 if

1 Carpenter on Unitarianism, page 306.

2 Acts, iv. 18,

they had suffered themselves to be terrified into submission, so as to obey this command would not this have stopt the progress of the Gospel as effectually as if the facts they attested had never taken place? Yet are the eleven apostles, singly or collectively, spoken of in Scripture, or to be thought of by us, as entitled not merely to gratitude and reverence, but faith, obedience and adoration; in a word, to any share of those feelings which have Christ for their object?

I shall not here pursue this suggestion further; the serious and pious reader must judge of the force of the proofs and the inferences, in the fourth Discourse, for himself. I shall now close these notes, which have already swelled beyond what I expected or wished. If I were to attempt to defend the translation of every text, and the inference I draw from it, against the glosses of the Unitarians, I must form a large volume indeed.

The reader, conversant in the works written on this important subject, will see that I have declined using many passages of Scripture, and many modes of argument, in order to simplify the controversy, and to leave the grounds on which I argue as little disputable as possible; and especially where any authority, which persons not Unitarians would be disposed to respect, has translated the passages different from the received version, or expressed any serious doubts as to the conclusiveness of the inferences derived from them.

Did I find it necessary to vindicate the translations or applications of Scripture in these Discourses, more largely than I have done, I would do so by presenting the passages in the original language, with the rival translations in collateral columns, taking care to introduce as much of the scriptural context as would show the real bearing and meaning of each important text, as it stands in the original, and adding notes to vindicate my own meaning and application, and show the errors of the contrary. This mode is certainly the most convincing to the reader, and tends to repress in the writer, the effort to produce pointed sentences and replies, when he ought only to wish to speak plain and unadorned truth. On such a subject as the divine word, and divine truth, we can never be too warm, and zealous; but we can never too carefully guard against the intrusion of vanity and anger. The difficulty of preserving a due medium is great indeed. Perhaps no man ever yet engaged in religious controversy, who had not reason to confess and lament the intrusion of such unworthy feelings on himself. I hope I have not offended in this way; if I have, it was certainly unintentionally; I wish sincerely to avoid it.

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO DISCOURSE IV. page 90.

"On the adoration paid to Christ."

Doctor Carpenter, following Dr. Clarke, quotes from Bishop Bull the following words:"In the first and best ages, the churches of Christ directed all their prayers to God only, through the mediation of Jesus Christ." Bull's answer to a query of the Bishop of Meaux, p. 295.

Doctor Carpenter also quotes Dr. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, as saying, in his Comment on the Church Catechism, p. 130, 131" The Lord's prayer teaches that we should pray to God only, and to him as our Father, through Jesus Christ our Lord." And in his Index he marks both Bishop Bull and Archbishop Wake, “as bearing TESTIMONY TO THE SOLE WORSHIP OF The Father.”

I

I confess I was startled at seeing two prelates, known to be the most strenuous defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus brought forward to give evidence against the most necessary and important practical consequence of that doctrine. therefore proceeded to examine their works. I find that Bishop Bull himself, inserts a prayer to Christ in his Defensio Fidei Nicena, p. 7; of which the following is a literal translation :-"You, O most Holy Jesus, co-eternal Word of the Eternal Father; I the greatest of sinners, and the lowest of your servants, supplicating implore to bless this my labour, undertaken (as I call you Searcher of hearts, to witness,) for your honour, and the interest of the holy church; and that you may deign to assist and help my weakness in this most important work, according to your infinite mercy and goodness towards those who love you." Where now is the

force of the bishop's testimony to the sole worship of the Father? most certainly, it meant the worship of God only, through the mediation of Christ, in opposition to the worship of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, and the multiplied mediators introduced by popery.

Archbishop Wake also, p. 55, of his Commentary on the Catechism, Ninth Edition, Dublin, 1787; thus speaks of Christ, stating, that he "finds the same evidences in the Scripture of the Godhead of Christ as of the Godhead of the Father, viz.-That he has the name of God, the attributes of God, and such works as can belong to none that is not God, ascribed to him. Add to this, fourthly, that he is there shown to be honoured as God, John, v. 23; Heb. i. 6. Prayer is made to him, Acts, vii. 59; 1 Cor. i. 2. Faith and hope are directed to him, John, xiv. 1; Psalm, ii. 12. Praises and thanksgivings are given to him, glory and honour are rendered unto him, Rev. v. 13, compare iv. 11; and no wonder, since lastly, the nature of God is therein also expressly ascribed to him, Heb. i. 3; Phil. ii. 6; Col. ii. 9, compare Col. i. 15-19." Surely then, when in p. 154, Wake says, “that the Lord's Prayer teaches us that we should pray to God only, and to him as our Father, through faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. iii. 26," he, under the name of God, includes Christ our Saviour; whom, in p. 54, he declares "to have had the same divine nature with the Father, and so to have been from all eternity God together with him.

I cannot, therefore, but caution the reader, who is not conversant with the writings of modern Unitarians, to be on his guard against the avidity with which they press authorities into their service, who are often in reality, most opposite to their opinions; and for facts which render the same caution doubly necessary, I would refer to Dean Magee's Postscript to his Appendix, from p. 803 to 811; where it appears that Unitarian writers attempt to number amongst their supporters, many most eminent men, plainly without foundation. It is further shown that they have published Dr. Watts's Divine and Moral Hymns for Children, and a short Catechism and Prayers by Mrs. Trimmer, taking out of both the passages intended by their authors, to impress the doctrine of the Trinity, and making them appear to inculcate Unitarianism: and this is done deliberately, and without giving the readers notice of the artifice practised upon them. For the proof of these assertions, I refer to Dean Magee as quoted above.

The names of Bishop Bull and Archbishop Wake must now be added, to the testimonies brought forward, to support the leading tenets of Unitarianism; which, most certainly, they never held, nay most decidedly opposed.

The peculiar and limited object which I had in view, in the preceding Discourses and Notes, have obliged me to omit many topics and arguments, usually and properly considered whenever the doctrine of the Trinity is fully discussed, I think it right, for the satisfaction of the students attending my lectures, to point out some of the most approved authors, whose works it is probable, they may be able most easily and most usefully to consult, on the different topics as to which they may seek for information.

I would here again refer for information on the entire subject, to Dr. Hales on the Trinity, two volumes, and his work on the Prophecies attesting the divine and human character; to Dean Magee's Work on the Atonement and Sacrifice; to Bishop Burnet, the Bishop of Lincoln, and Mr. Welchman, on the Thirty-nine Articles; all works of distinguished ability, and extensive learning; to Jones on the Trinity, which I so often have had occasion to quote and to approve; to Mr. Burgh on the Trinity, in answer to Lindsay, a most excellent collection of scriptural proofs clearly and strongly enforced; to Bishop Pearson on the Creed, in which not only scriptural proofs, but also the testimonies of antiquity, are selected with judgment, and applied with clearness; to Bishop Bull's "Defensio Fidei Nicenæ;" his "Judicium Ecclesiæ Catholicæ 3ium primorum Seculorum de Necessitate credenti quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus sit verus Deus contra Episcopium ;”