APPENDIX.

A.

"WHEN Christ says,-The Spirit shall not speak of himself, the meaning is, that he shall not come with any absolute new dispensation of truth or grace; he was only to build on the foundation, Christ's person and doctrine, or the truth which he had revealed from the bosom of the Father; he was to reveal no other truth, communicate no other grace, but what is in, from, and by Christ."-Owen on the Spirit.

Ουδεν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ λαλήσει, οὐδὲν ἐνάντιον, οὐδὲν ἴδιον παρὰ τὰ ἐμὰ—τὸ δε “ ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ;” ἐξ ὧν ἐγὼ οἶδα ἐκ τῆς ἐμὴς γνώσεως μία γὰρ ἐμοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος γνῶσις. Chrysostom in loc, vol. viii.

B.

AN objection, something like this, is broached in the Fifth Unitarian Lecture. Mr. Martineau, quoting from Deut. xxix. 6, raises a difficulty upon the words, "I am the Lord your God," as admitting a question, whether Moses applies this great and glorious name to himself.

It would be well for the readers of Controversial Lectures, to refer to the original passages, from which extracts are made; whether the Word of God, or the writings of men, be the subject of comment. Whoever reads the Scripture from which this quotation is made, will be inclined to think, with reference to the manner of making the quotation, that something more than brevity has been consulted. For, in the context immediately connected, and interwoven with this quotation, the name of the LORD occurs no less than three times; and in a connection, which makes it evident that Moses was then speaking, not in his own name, but in the name of the LORD, whose covenant he had been commissioned to propose to the Children of Israel : thus leaving no real ground for doubting to whom the name is applied. And yet the Author of the Lecture ventures to assert that here, "Moses is called God with a distinctness which cannot be equalled in the case of Christ.” In order to judge how far Mr. Martineau is justified in this astounding assertion, nothing more is requisite than to place his quotation side by side with the unmutilated Scripture.

Scripture-Deut. xxix. 1-6.

"These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD COMMANDED Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb. AND Moses called UNTO all Israel, and said unto them, ye have seen all that the LORD DID before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharoah, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine nor strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God."

Quotation-Deut. xxix. 2, 5, 6.

"Moses called together all Israel, and said to them...... I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes have not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am the Lord your God.'

C.

SOME remarks have been made, in one of Mr. Martineau's published Unitarian Lectures, on this part of my Sermon. It will be seen by those who take the trouble to compare Mr. Martineau's representation with the passage itself, that he has not only given to it a colour, and construction, different from that which it really conveys; but as if to heighten the colour, and bear out the construction, he has even attributed to me the use of words which I did not employ. I do not, for a moment, imagine that Mr. Martineau has intentionally mis-stated my words; but, it is evident, he has misunderstood them. Whether the blame is to be attributed to obscurity on my part, readers must judge for themselves. If it be so, I humbly pray God to pardon the error, and prevent the evil. It might, however, under any circumstances, have been better had the objector waited for my Lecture in print; or, at least, confined himself to a report of a less positive character, rather than, trusting to a treacherous memory and hurried notes, have put into my mouth (with all the confidence of inverted commas) words which I did not use. I am represented as having generally "denied that the word (THE SON) can have any such meaning," (as the human and mediatorial character of our Lord). Here Mr. Martineau is guilty of the illogical process of drawing a general conclusion, from one particular statement: for whereas my words were applied to the particular passage then under notice, (Matt. xxxviii. 19,) Mr. Martineau has, by changing some expressions, and introducing others, converted the paragraph into a general explanation of the term "the Son," capable of universal application. Had Mr. Martineau's memory faithfully retained the expressions I made use of, he could not have drawn from them the general construction thus forced upon them. But having, as it seems, received a false impression in the first instance, his subsequent recollection of the passage has been attended with serious inaccuracy. The change, or the introduction, of but a few words, will frequently

give a new colour to the sentence of which they form a part. And so it is in this instance. I made the simple statement with reference to Matt. xxviii. 19, as given in the text to which this note belongs, "Our Saviour's words prevent such misapprehension," &c. ; but I am reported to have affirmed, "Our Saviour's words not only fail to sanction, but expressly exclude such a construction; for he does not say, the name of the Father, and of myself, but of THE SON, that is of THE ETERNAL WORD.-Mr. Bates's Lecture is not published; but he is aware that this statement is correct." To this last assertion I can only reply-The manuscript of my discourse is lying at the publishers, and if any one doubts the accuracy of the passage as it now appears in print, he has full permission to examine it. Mr. Martineau then proceeds" Since this name, 'the Son,' expressly excludes the mediatorial character, and must mean the Eternal Word, may we ask Mr. Bates how it is the Eternal Word did not know the day and the hour, and could do nothing of himself?" As this question is constructed upon a misapprehension of my meaning, and a mis-statement of my words, an answer can scarcely be expected. But I prefer giving one, as it may remove the erroneous impression to which this part of my sermon appears to have given rise.

It is evident to the attentive and unprejudiced reader of the Sacred Scriptures that our Lord Jesus Christ is THE SON OF MAN and THE SON of God. "Whom do men say that I THE SON of Man am?" and when the question was put to the disciples themselves, "Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, THE SON of the Living God."-Matt. xvi. 13. &c. Accordingly, the name "THE SON" is sometimes used to denote the Son of man, and sometimes the Son of God-as the context and parallel passages may determine it to be. For example :-John v. 21. "For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Our Lord here uses the name THE SON with reference to his divine nature, as is shown by the context, verse 25, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." But in Mark xiii. 32, the context and parallel passages show that the term THE SON is to be applied to our Lord's human nature, "the Son of man,"-" For of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Of what day, and what hour? The context tells us, verse 26, the day and the hour when "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory." See also Matt. xxiv. 44; xxv. 13, 14; Luke, xii. 40. THE SON knew not the time when he, the Son of man, should come. Considered abstractedly, the term “ THE SON" will apply to the divine nature, or to the human nature, of our Lord, according as the context determines. When, therefore, we learn from the context of Matt. xxviii. 19, that our Lord's words apply to the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism-an ordinance which has been shown to import the dedication of the baptized to the service of God-it is obvious that "the Son" refers to the divine nature, and denotes the co-essential, co-eternal, coequal Son of God. Had our Saviour intended us to be baptized into his name as Man-mediator, he would have given some such intimation as my name," my mediatorial name," might convey. But our Lord's words

prevent such misapprehension as that of supposing that baptism in the name of a creature is admissible; for he says not in my name, my mediatorial name," from which we might understand him to mean the name of the Son of man, but "in The Name of the THE FATHER, and of THE SON, and of THE HOLY GHOST."

D.

It is not to be supposed, that prayer can be addressed to one of the Persons of the ever-blessed Godhead, to the exclusion of the others. For while "by the confession of a true faith we acknowledge the glory of the Eternal Trinity, we do, at the same time, in the power of the Divine Majesty, worship the UNITY." Therefore, if the Holy Ghost be addressed in prayer, the Father and the Son must, from the Unity of the Godhead, be inclusively addressed also. But inasmuch as the several Persons in the Godhead, have each his peculiar office and work, whereby he makes himself known in the economy of the Gospel, accordingly, the prayers of believers have sometimes a more especial reference to one Person than to the Others. And if we do not, in Scripture, so frequently find prayer addressed especially to the Holy Spirit, as to the Father, and the Son, it is, because it is the Spirit's peculiar office to indite prayer. Rom. viii. 26, 27.

The passages referred to, are among the instances of prayer addressed especially to the Holy Spirit. That Acts iv. 25, 30, is so, appears evident from the following considerations.-First: The Lord God, to whom the Church thus applied for help, is especially addressed as God, "who, by the mouth of thy servant David hast said," &c.; from Mark xii. 36; Acts i. 16; Heb. iii. 7; we gather that it was the HOLY GHOST, who spake by the mouth of David, in the Psalms.-Secondly: These first Christians intreat the Lord, whom they address, to grant "that with all boldness they may speak thy word." But their Divine Master had instructed many among them," It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost," consequently, the aid they sought was the aid of the Holy Ghost.-Thirdly: They pray, "that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy Holy Child, Jesus ;" and we learn from St. Paul, Rom. xv. 19, that it was by "the power of the SPIRIT of God" that mighty signs and wonders were performed. Nor does the expression "the Holy child Jesus”—ñaîdá σov 'Inσoûv-limit the address to the Father; inasmuch as πais, child, does not necessarily denote the relation of Son.It is frequently rendered "servant." So Matt. xii. 11. Ἰδοὺ, ὁ παῖς μου, &c. quoted from Isaiah xlii. 1. "Behold, my servant, whom I uphold," &c. And in this very passage, "by the mouth of thy servant David," διὰ στόματος Δαβὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου ειπών. These considerations lead to the conclusion, that the Holy Ghost was especially addressed in this prayer, though the Father and the Son were unquestionably included.

1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. "The LORD make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you to the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before GOD, EVEN OUR FATHER, at the coming of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, with all his saints."

2 Thess. iii. 5. "The LORD direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for CHRIST."

In these passages the Three Persons are distinguished. The LORD, to whom the prayer is in both instances directed; GOD, even our Father; and our Lord Jesus CHRIST. That the LORD, thus distinguished from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and addressed in prayer, is the HOLY GHOST, is evident from the analogy of Scripture, which teaches that sanctification, for which the Apostle prays, is the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost.

The other passage referred to, is Rev. i. 4, in which St. John prays for grace and peace, from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the Seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ. By the SEVEN SPIRITS, a person, or persons, must be meant; for to imagine that the Apostle prays to seven powers, or desires grace and peace from seven powers, is absurd. Persons-one or more-must be intended. If one person, it must be the Holy Spirit: if more than one, it must be seven angels, or angelic spirits. That this expression the Seven Spirits cannot mean seven angels, is evident; because the worshipping of angels is expressly forbidden, Col. ii. 18; besides which, angels before the throne could neither hear prayer made on earth, nor if they heard could they grant grace and peace; consequently this prayer can be made to none other than the "God of all grace," the Father, the Son, and that "ONE AND THE SELF-SAME SPIRIT who divideth to every man severally as he will.” It is well known that, in the usage of the ancient Jewish Church, the number seven was a symbolical number, denoting perfection and variety. And the Book of Revelations being replete with symbolical language, no wonder that we find the expression "the Seven Spirits," in connection with a symbolical designation of the Father,) employed to denote that ONE great and glorious SPIRIT, who is the divine Dispenser of all the varied and perfect gifts with which the seven churches of Asia were endowed.* It is thought not improbable that the number seven has also reference to Isaiah xi. 2, where the Spirit, who rests upon the Rod of Jesse, is described under seven characters, signifying One SPIRIT dispensing his seven-fold-his perfect and varied gifts.†

Objection has been raised against the testimony of this passage to the Deity of the Holy Ghost, on the ground that "the Seven Spirits" are said to be "before the throne," and not (as equal with the Father) " upon the throne." But in Isaiah's vision, the LORD, who, from Acts xxviii. 25, 26, is shown to be the HOLY GHOST, is represented as sitting "upon a throne, high and lifted up." The position "before the throne" does not imply inferiority; it is rather a symbolical representation of the gracious office of the Holy Ghost; who, by his operations on the hearts of men, conveys to the Church the blessings, which flow from the throne of God. Wherefore, this passage (Rev. i. 4,) exhibits the Holy Ghost as the Object of Divine

* See Burnett on the Articles; Art. I. p. 45; edit. 1833.

† See Lightfoot's Harmony of the New Testament, on Rev. i.-i. Also, Bishop Reynold's on 110th Psalm, p. 161; edit. 1826.

The reader will find the objections to the application of this passage to the Holy Ghost stated at length, and answered, in Poli Synopsis Criticorum; vol. V. p 1674.