said, "My Father is greater than I," which is evidently contrary to the doctrine of your Athanasian Creed, (according to which none of the three persons is greater or less than either of the other two,) they say that he spake of his human nature only, and not of his whole self; his divinity being at the same time fully equal to that of his Father. But if a person may thus speak of any part of himself, as of his whole self, he may say the most contradictory things, and puzzle and confound his hearers, so that language shall be of no use whatever.

If Christ may speak of his human nature as of his whole self, he may, no doubt, also speak of his divine nature as of his whole self, and, consequently, he might say that he never suffered or died, and that he never rose from the dead. But would not this be a miserable equivocation, unworthy of any man, much more of our Saviour? It would be no better than any of you saying that you were not able to speak, secretly meaning that you could not do it with your hands or feet. Yet this ridiculous and contemptible proceeding the Trinitarians ascribe to our Saviour. Mr. Burn sees nothing amiss in this supposed conduct of our Saviour, which is only calculated to deceive, and must necessarily do so; and yet he thinks him "degraded to the rank of a sophist" by the idea of his arguing with the Pharisees on their own principles. How innocent is the one, and how wicked the other! But so are men blinded by their prejudices.

There can be no doubt, but that when our Saviour spake of his Father as greater than himself, he meant what any other good man would do, when, on bidding adieu to his friends on his death-bed, hê should say, (as is very pious and natural,) that he left them to the care of one who could do more for them than he could, meaning God; and he was then comforting his apostles under the prospect of his departure from them by death.

But one of the most curious reasons for ascribing equal honour and worship to God the Father, and to Christ, is that which is alleged by Mr. Burn, in his last Letters to me, from Rev. v. 13: "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever." From this passage he

* Letters, p. 62. (P.)

infers, that "the same essential adoration which is here offered to him who sitteth upon the throne, is, by the consent of heaven, ascribed also to the Lamb," and hence, he concludes, that "Christ is either the proper object of divine worship, which no creature can be, or that the first commandment is continually violated in heaven." He adds, "whether it appears from this, that in no sense whatever is Christ so much as called God in the New Testament, I leave to the common sense of mankind to determine."*

Now, my friends, I cheerfully join issue with Mr. Burn, in this appeal to your common sense. Please to read over the passage once more, and see whether in it Christ be called God, or not. He certainly is not, but only the Lamb, which is no name of God, any more than lion or bear, and what do you see ascribed to him in it, but such "glory and power" as all Christians acknowledge to be his due, because in many passages of Scripture it is expressly said that God gave it to him. "All power," he himself says, (Matt. xxviii. 19,)" is given unto me in heaven and on earth.-He received from God the Father, honour and glory," 2 Peter i. 17. And the reason of this power and glory being given to him is expressly said to have been his humiliation unto death. Phil. ii. 8-11: " He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." How clearly does this passage explain that which is quoted by Mr. Burn from the Revelation; and yet, how clearly do you see that in it Christ is distinguished from God, and represented as subordinate to him! Heb. ii. 9: "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels" (the very phrase which the Psalmist uses to denote men in general) "for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour." Now, I appeal to your common sense, whether the person receiving this honour and glory, can be of the same rank with him that gives it to him. Can he be a God who receives from another, and especially as a reward for suffering and dying? Can God suffer and die?

That blessing and honour and glory and power" should

* Letters, p. 57. (P.)

be given to God and to Christ at the same time, does not prove that they were ascribed to them in the same sense. We are commanded to "honour all men," and, also, to honour God, and we may do both at the same time, but surely not in the same sense. By this curious argument of Mr. Burn, I can clearly prove to you that king David was God, as well as Jesus Christ: for we read, (1 Chron. xxix. 20,) "And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king;" that is, they paid each of them suitable homage, but, surely, not the same kind of homage, though Mr. Burn's argument would prove as much. But the one being God and the other man, there was no occasion for the writer to point out the difference between them, it being such as no reader could overlook. The same, no doubt, was the case with the writer of the book of Revelation. Considering Christ as a man exalted by God, he could never imagine that any person would place him on a level with God, who had exalted him.*

You see in all these passages, though Mr. Burn does not, that God and Christ are spoken of as quite distinct persons, and of very different ranks; and if you look through the whole New Testament, you will find that they are never confounded; that the one is an humble worshipper, and the other the great Being who is worshipped by him; that God is always the giver, and Christ the receiver, and a receiver on account of services done, and duties discharged; and therefore it is that his example is proposed to us; that, like him, we may do what God requires of us, and be rewarded for it, as he was.

The writer of the book of Revelation expressly calls his prophetic vision, (Ch. i. 1,) "The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him."† Moreover, whatever power, or authority, Christ receives from God, the Scriptures teach us that he holds it in subordination to God, who gave

• As I hope I shall always be willing to help a neighbour in distress, and even to lift an enemy's ox or ass out of a pit, when I find him unable to help himself, I shall, in this case, suggest to Mr. Burn an answer to this argument of mine, which he may not think of himself, but which will suit his purpose and ideas quite as well as any other argument in either of his two performances. It is, that David being a type of the Messiah, the congregation of Israel (who, according to Bishop Horsley, so much admired by Mr. Burn, always expected the second person of the Trinity in that character) worshipped the antitype in the presence of the type; so that this adoration was in reality paid to the two first persons in the Trinity, viz. God the Father, and God the Son. In Mr. Burn's next publication, I shall expect some acknowledgment for this assistance. (P.)

† See Vol. XIV. p. 443.

it, and that it is to be surrendered up to him, as the apostle Paul says, (1 Cor. xv. 24-28,) "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power; for he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted who did put all things under him; and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all." This, being part of your funeral service, you must very well remember; and I am persuaded you must frequently have been struck with it, as exceedingly unfavourable to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the proper divinity of Christ.

So far is Christ from being represented as God, that in all the New Testament he is never called any thing more than a man, even in his state of greatest exaltation, after his resurrection and ascension. How, for example, does Peter characterize him in his address to the Jews, at the feast of Pentecost, when he is shewing his auditors how great a person they had rejected? Even at that time, when he would naturally speak of his master in the highest terms, he only calls him (Acts ii. 22)" Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him." Paul uses the same language when he says, in his speech to the Athenians, (Acts xviii. 31,) "He" (that is, God)" hath appointed a day in the 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." In 1 Cor. xv. 21: "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." Again, giving as it were the creed of all Christians, he says, (1 Tim. ii. 5,) " There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." And again, (1 Cor. viii. 6,) "To us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."§

Is not Christ here spoken of as entirely distinct from God, and could the apostle consider the title of God as at all applicable to Christ, when, in the plainest language possible,

• See Vol. XIV. pp. 112, 113. See Vol. XIV. pp. 126, 127.

+ See Vol. XIII. pp. 395, 394. § See ibid. p. 80.

he thus gives it exclusively to the Father: "To us there is but one God the Father"? It is not one God the Trinity, consisting of "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," according to the strange, uncouth language of your litany, but "God the Father" only. Can any language respecting the person of Christ be plainer than this of the apostle? And yet our adversaries are continually, but most impudently, reproaching us with departing from the plain and literal sense of the Scriptures, and with putting figurative senses upon them. Judge now for yourselves, whether this be the case or not, and whether they must not have recourse to strange subterfuges and perversions of scripture language, to find their doctrine of the Trinity in such passages as these, or hold it in any consistency with them.

I do not wish to tire you by enlarging on so very plain a subject as this. Only read the Scriptures for yourselves. Though they are often ill translated, by persons who, believing the doctrine of the Trinity themselves, have represented them as more favourable to it than they ought to have done, yet their general sense is still sufficiently clear in favour of the proper unity of God, and the proper humanity of Christ. He is every where spoken of as our brother, a man, "in all things like unto his brethren;" so that when we are called "heirs of God,” (Rom. viii. 17,) we are said to be joint heirs with Christ."+ Does such language as this at all agree with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ? Would it not be a strange degradation of a God, to represent him as receiving an inheritance in common with men?

If you wish to read the reasoning of others on this subject, and particularly the tract so much recommended by Mr. Burn, which he says has gone through three editions, do me, do yourselves and the argument, the justice to read at the same time that piece of mine to which it is one of, I believe, not less than twenty answers, all of which have not prevented the spread of the doctrine which I contend for in it, and of which I believe not less than thirty thousand copies have been sold. It is entitled, "An Appeal to the serious and candid Professors of Christianity on the following Subjects: viz. 1. The Use of Reason in Matters of Religion. 2. The Power of Man to do the Will of God. 3. Original Sin. 4. Election and Reprobation. 5. The

* Heb. ii. 17. See Vol. XIV. p. 355.

+ See ibid. p. 226.

↑ Letters, p. 70.

(P.) See Vol, XVIII. p. 344.