.

niality with your sentiments, but of a Socinian." And adds “ that you have manifested (which does he is at a loss to discover how you no small honour) an equal they apply to the question about readiness to admit his replies. I which we are at issue." My shall be thankful to him if I re- questions are, in their very na ceive any further light from them; ture, a positive denial, put in and if he should, by sound scrip- forcible language, of the possibitural arguments, convince me of lity of any change in the Supreme any errors or mistakes, I will Being. They arise out of and are gladly acknowledge them. supported by the positive decla

66

The Clergyman animadverts rations of the Bible, that that first upon some questions I pro- Being is "Jehovah, who changpose on Isaiah ix. 6, 7, which he eth not; The Father of Lights, says are, Can the Divine Being with whom is no variableness, neibe the subject of prophecy? Can ther shadow of turning." To have it be foretold of the immutable answered them in the affirmative God, that he would change his would have been little short of mode of existence, cease to be blasphemy; it would have been what he is, and become an infant to rob the Supreme Being of all born of one of his creatures?" I his essential perfections; those proceed to ask, "Can it be fore- perfections which naturally assotold, that he would be at the dis- ciate themselves with all our conposal of some other being, a son ceptions of Deity, and which are given? That he would be ad- perpetually celebrated in the savanced to power? And that then cred writings. To have answered he would be called, that is, he them in the negative, would have would really be, The mighty been to have conceded to me all God, the everlasting Father? that I contend for. But the ClerAnd can it be said of him, the gyman is at a loss to discover how mighty God, as it is here said, they apply to the question at that he shall sit upon the throne issue. The question is, Does the of David, his Father?" These prophecy (Isaiah ix. 6,7) relate questions, except the two first, to the Supreme Being or to he thought it most prudent to man. The subject of that prosuppress. What answer does he phecy is, a child that was to be give to those he has cited? None born, a son that was to be given. at all. Interrogations are, not Let the reader compare the interunfrequently, very troublesome rogations with the prophecy, and things, and where they will not then judge whether they are per admit of an answer without ruin- tinent, or, as he says, 66 wholly ing the cause intended to be sup- irrelevant." The Clergyman, ported, the only resource is to however, has here shewn a conmisrepresent them. Accordingly, siderable degree of dexterity. he calls them "abstract ques- When he animadverts upon my tions about possibilities; questions questions, be carefully avoids any which would be strictly proper in allusion to the prophecy on which the mouth of a deistical infidel, but they are founded, and, in his rewhich seem to him to proceed with marks on the prophecy, he makes a very singular grace from that no sort of allusion to the questions.

Now

Having laid such a solid foun- sons have cach the names and atdation, let us now see what sort tributes of the Godhead ascribed of superstructure the Clergyman to them." I will venture to af builds upon it. "We must be firm, without fear of refutation, guided," he 66 says, not by what he, that this Clergyman never has (J..M.) may fancy either possible found, or ever will find, such a er impossible, but simply by declaration in the Bible. By three what the Bible says*." Here I different persons, having each the am ready to meet him. The names and attributes of the Godquestion then is, what does the head ascribed to them, he must, Bible say? To this we have the as a trinitarian, mean three divine Clergyman's answer in the follow- persons in the Godhead. ing words: " Now, upon reading where does the Bible declare that the Bible, we Trinitarians find it there are three such persons? declared, that there is only one Such a passage, cannot be proGod," So do we, Unitariaus. So duced. The Divine Being is unifar, then, we are agreed. "We formly spoken of in the scriptures further find," he adds, "that as an individual person. We find three different persons have each there expressly the person of God, the names and attributes of the but never the persons of God or Godhead ascribed to them. And in God. Job xiii. 7, 8. Heb. i. we lastly find, that one of these 1, 2, 3. They never represent persons is sometimes said to be God, the Holy Spirit as a person, much and equal with God, and sometimes less do they declare it to be a perto be man, and inferior to God, son in the Godheadt. But these But all these declarations rest three different persons, it seems, upon the same authority. Hence "have each the names and attri-.. we feel ourselves obliged to re- butes of the Godhead ascribed to ceive them all. This, according them." Never was phrase more to our views of scripture, neces- ambiguous than this. It is as sarily produces the doctrine of the unmeaning as it is unscriptural. unity in trinity, and the humano- We meet with the term Godhead divine nature of Christ." Such is three times in the New Testa.

the Clergyman's creed, aud he ment, but never with the phrase, tells us it is what the " Bible the names of the Godhead. What says.” We Unitarians ask, where those can be I have no concephas the Bible said this? He gives tion. I have always understood no answer. He offers no proof. that names were appellations given We say, he has none to offer: if to persons and things, but never be has, let him produce it. Let to abstract natures. Were I to us examine this creed a little more say, that certain persons had each particularly. "We find it de- of them the names of the manclared, that three different per- hood ascribed to them, would it

* Page 106.

This question is fully discussed in a little piece, entitled "The Impersonality of the Holy Ghost: an humble endeavour to refute the Opinion, that God and his Spirit are two distinct Persons." 2d edit. A piece which has never been attempt ed to be refuted, and probably never will. (This excellent little Tract is sold by Eaton, 187, High Holborn, price 6d. ED.]

VOL. III.

D

1

He

not be concluded that I was seized the Bible, that one of these perwith a fit of insanity? but if it sons is sometimes said to be God was understood, that I meant to and equal with God, and someprove by it, that those persons times to be man and inferior to were men, would it not appear God." Where this is declared in still more wild and extravagant? the Bible I am at a loss to conIf ascribing the peculiar names of jecture. The Clergyman offers God to different persons will prove no proof. He is speaking of pereach of them to be God, the sons in the Godhead, who have ascribing the names of the God- cach of them the names and attrihead to them (if there be any butes of it ascribed to them, and such names) will prove each of àre each of them equally God. them to be the Godhead; and, if How one of these divine persons three different persons are each can be at the same time both God. of them the Godhead, what will and equal with God, and man become of the doctrine, that and inferior to God, is to me there is only one God, which the an inconceivable mystery. Clergyman professes to believe? should have explained it, or at That doctrine proves very trou- least have told us where it is blesome to trinitarians; it seems expressly declared in the scrip often to stand in their way, and, tures. The only account he gives upon their principles, is inex- of it is, that this, (of which he plicable. Hence Hence we find the has offered no proof,) accordClergyman (page 412) first pro- ing to his views of scripture, nefessing to believe it, then flatly cessarily produces the doctrine denying it, and then representing of the humano-divine nature of it as something very mysterious Christ. Now if these three dif which he cannot comprehend. ferent persons be equally God, or But further," these three differ- if they be the one God, will it ent persons," we are told," are not follow that they must be of declared in the Bible, to have the the same nature? If then the attributes of the Godhead ascribed nature of one of them be humanoto them." This is also said with divine, must not that of the other out either explanation or proof. two also be humano-divine? Will The attributes of the Godhead it not also follow, that what is must necessarily be self-existence, affirmed of one of them, on the eternity, immutability, indepen- score of his being possessed of dence, &c. So far, then, are these such a nature, may with equal three different persons from pos- truth and propriety be also affirmsessing those attributes that one ed of the other two; that is, that of them expressly represents him- they are each of them God and self as a derived, dependant Being". equal with God, and man and Now a derived, dependant Being inferior to God? But if they are cannot possibly possess any unde- of different natures; if that of the rived attributes, such as all the one be humano-divine, and not attributes of the Godhead are.-- that of the other two; then they "Lastly we find," says the Cler- are not each of them equally God, gyman, that it is declared in much less the same God, * John v, 26. vi. 57.

The Clergyman proceeds (page with equal propriety, have been 407) to animadvert on what I rendered from of old. The word have advanced on the passages is the same in both. That kedem produced by him to prove the is rightly rendered of old, will apdivinity of Christ. The first of pear from the meaning of the these is Micah v. 2. I observed word, and from the numerous on this prophecy that, in it," the passages where it is so rendered*. whole description is that of a pro- It imports precedency, priority, per man, like other men, who or antiquity; it is rendered forwas to be born of the tribe of merly, to come before, former Judah, and advanced to the throne estate, and frequently, the east. of Israel, and I adduced some As to the other word, olam, the arguments to prove that the sub- Clergyman himself admits in the ject of the prophecy could not be next page, that it does not neany more than a man. This he cessarily convey the idea of elerhas passed over without the least nity. Neither of the words, notice. On the latter clause of therefore, nor both of them togethe verse, he says, "the obvious ther, necessarily convey the idea meaning of the passage 'secins to of eternity. The incongruity of me to be that which is given by uniting days with eternity, probaMr. Lowth. The words do natu- bly induced the translators to rally import an original, distinct leave the word mime untranslated. from the birth of Christ, men. The true rendering of the passage tioned in the foregoing sentence, I conceive to be, whose goings which is here declared to be from forth, (or, according to the Chalall eternity. For so the words dee paraphrast, whose name has Mikkedem (translated here from been foretold,) from of old, from of old, but rendered from ever- ancient days. Upon the Clertasting, Habak. i. 12,) and mime gyman's sense of this passage, I Olam, from the days of eternity, put some questions which I ob do plainly signify." But although, serve, upon that hypothesis are Mr. Lowth says "It imports an impossible to be answered." These original from all eternity," he he has also passed over without immediately contradicts that sense the least notice. "In short," of the words by adding, (as before says he, "the passage, when uncited by me and unnoticed by the tortured by Socinian criticism, seta Clergyman,)" if we expound it forth what divinces have termed with the Chaldee paraphrast, the eternal gencration of the son." whose name was foretold of old, It is a little singular that a mo. the expression contains a plain dern clergyman should revive a description of the Messias." That tenet which has been so long and the word Mikkedem ever means so justly exploded. That it has eternity no where appears. Who- any foundation in scripture canever compares Habak. i. 12, with not be pretended. If by cternal Psa. lv. 19, will see that it might, generation be meant that the first

See Psa. xliv. 1. lv. 19. lxviii. 33. xxiv. 2. 12. lxxvii. 5. 11. Ixxviii. 9. cxix. 152. Neh. xii. 46.

The word eternity occurs once in the English Bible, lea. lvii. 15, and three ames as a narginal reading.

person in the trinity has been cides it. But he says, "let him from eternity, and will be to eter- prove that Christ is not Jehovah.” nity, generating the second per. It does not lie with me to prove a son, will it not follow, that the negative. It is enough for me to son never had, or ever will have deny that he is Jehovah, till some any real, distinct, personal ex- direct evidence be produced to istence? If by it be meant that the contrary. Let him prove the the son, the second person, was positive; he would no doubt have begotten and brought forth from done so, had it been in his power. eternity, then that begetting and J. M." the Clergyman adds, bringing forth must be either by "dogmatically asserts, that the necessity of nature, or by an scriptures know no such comact of the divine will. If by a pound being as the God-man Jenecessity of nature, then the di- sus Christ. Let him prove his vine nature, which is immutable, assertion." Here I am again

must produce divine persons in called upon to prove a negative. the Godhead ad infinitum. If by If the scriptures have any where a voluntary act, then the second so represented Jesus Christ, why person cannot be co-existent and has he not referred to the pasco equal with the first, but de- sages? Where do they contain rived from him and dependent such phrases as the following: upon him. It would be a labori- the divinity of Christ, the ha"ous task to point out all the ab- manity of Christ, the God-man, surdities involved in this doctrine. the humano-divine nature, hypoI would only ask, can the words stutical union, persons in the trigoings forth, in the passage un- nity, &c. &c. &c. All this may der consideration, mean genera- be safely called senseless jargon, tion? Surely it will require the consistently with the highest ve-, I most violent torture to extract neration for the holy scriptures, such a meaning from them. Let however it may irritate bigots, the reader, then, judge to whom into whose creed it essentially enthe charge of torturing scripture ters. But does the Clergyman ir most applicable, whether to make any attempt to prove that trinitarians or to unitarians. I Jesus Christ is such a compound had said, that "the person men being? Yes, in the following tioned in the prophecy was to words; "the very same scriptures come forth to Jehovah, and that speak of the man Jesus therefore was not Jehovah." Christ, speak likewise of the word Here," says the Clergyman," is being with God, and being God, a curious instance of his begging and that by this word is meant the question." If the subject of Jesus Christ, J. M. does not dethe prophecy was to come forth to Jehovah, to be ruler over Israel, the conclusion that he could not be that Jehovah is so self-evi dent that it will approve itself to the common sense of every man, and is so far from "begging the question," that it completely de

ny." What then? Will this prove Jesus Christ to be a compound being, God-man? If it will, it will equally prove Moses, angels, and magistrates, to be so ; for the very same scriptures that speak of "the man Moses," say also that he was elohim, God.