the Persons of the Holy Trinity are impiously ridiculed, under the title, of "this One God, and that One God, and the other One God;" the mystery of our Redemption and Sanctification blasphemously derided, by describing them in a variety of propositions, which are reduced to nonsense, by suppressing the personal diversity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and ascribing their distinct acts to apparently the same Person. We state these faces without further comment; but we cannot but feel some embarrassment to discover, whether it be owing to the extraordinary ingenuity or singular good fortune of our opponents, that they so frequently succeed in blundering upon objections to their adversaries' opinions, which when turned against themselves demolish the crazy structure of their own systems. The first article in the Trinitarian's creed is rejected, because it is incomprehensible and mysterious; but have these sage reasoners never given themselves time to think, whether this objection does not equally affect the first article of the Creed of the Unitarian? For if the nature and attributes of the One God whom they worship be reducible within the bounds of comprehension, and the limits of a definition; what account are they prepared to give of his infinity? And if they are disposed to admit nothing as an article of faith, which they are unable to comprehend; how come they to comprehend this attribute, out of an infinity, equally in comprehensible; how, to acknowledge him as God while they deny it; for deny it they must, in consistence with their own principles, as they are unable to comprehend it? To such a length does this objection extend which is used to overthrow the orthodox doctrine; but which brings in Atheism by necessary consequence, levelling the Unitarian creed by the same stroke with which it overthrows the Trinitarian!

As a subject, however, which is not so utterly out of the range of the objector's skill and attainments, let us proceed, in order, to his observations upon the divinity of Christ; in which he exhibits the same felicity of argument and range of information. After some preliminary remarks, on the impropriety of addressing ourselves in Prayer to Christ, of which we shall give a good account, in due time; the Divine Author and Finisher of our Faith is commended to the notice of "children at scriptural schools," in the following respectful remark, dictated with a due regard for the religious and moral improvement of the rising generation.

"He did not know, probably, when the siege of Jerusalem was to take place, an event which occurred in a few years after the prediction which he delivered concerning it: nor certainly the day of judgment. Mark xiii. 32. The Maker and Lord of the Universe not know when he was again to visit in human shape this mere atom

Ortho

of his creation! God the judge and yet not so much as aware when he was to execute the office !!! O Fie! Fie! doxy!!!" P..v.

The decency which we have remarked in the first observation is even surpassed by the learning which is displayed in the latter. The foundation of the blasphemous aspersion thus cast upon Him whom we worship as God, lies in Matt. xxiv. 34. "this genėration shall not pass away till all be fufilled." And here we might feel some embarrassment at the potent objection; did it but reach the original ; Matt. ibid. & μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως äv návla vérntai. As yέvnlar, however is indefinite, it has unfortunately respect to present not perfect time*, which would be properly expressed by γέγονε, γεγονέναι ; the meaning of the disputed phrase consequently is," till all be passing;" or if we must retain the verb fuifil," till all be fulfilling." We should therefore counsel the authors of these remarks, before they make their objections again, to look to their lexicons.

With respect to the objection urged from St. Mark, the wise author seems to have been little aware, that the peculiar reading of this text, which gives a colour to the objection, has been charged, by St. Ambrose, as an interpolation of the Arians. But we do not insist much on this mode of evading a text, of which the orthodox have in no age manifested much apprehension §.

The

"Ex hisce exemp

* Passor. Lexic. Nov. Test. p. 166, 2. lis patet ivóv in indicativo et participio semper esse præteriti temporis in imperat. vero optat. et subjunctivo, præsentis: in infinitivo utriuslibet."

The past perfect action is properly expressed by the perfect, middle;" all this was done; Matt. i. 22. tuto öhov yέyovey, Conf. Matt. xix. 8. xxi 4. xxiv. 21, &c. The future imperfect, or passing action is properly expressed by the indefinite subjunctive: "till all be doing." Luc. xxi. 32. Ews av másla yévnlar; Conf. Matt. iv. 3. v. 45. vi. 10. x. 25. But the future perfect action is properly expressed by a different verb; that all things may be done, or fulfilled;" Luc, ibid. 22. λngw‡ñvaι пávтa: Conf. ibid. 24.

S. Ambros. de Fid. Lib. V. cap. xvi. §. 193. col. 586. b. Scriptum est, inquiunt [Ariani]; "de die autem illo et hora nemo scit, neque Angeli cælorum, nec Filius, nisi solus Pater.” Pri mum veteres non habent codices Græci 'quia nec Filius scit:' sed non mirum si et hoc falsarunt, qui Scripturas interpolavere divinas." Conf. Lib. II. cap. xv. §. 135. col. 494. e.

The sentiments of the ancients, on this text, are collected by Suicer, Thesaur. Theol. Tom. II. col. 164. sqq. ed. Amst.

The humiliation of Christ was an inanition of that glory which, as the eternal Logos, he had before the world was, (Phil. ii. 7. John i. 1); and in his humiliation the child "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature," (Luke ii. 52); and as a man he admitted of different degrees of union and communion with the Divine Nature, (John xvii, 5.) We therefore see no greater objection to his divinity, in Mark xiii. 52, which supposes that, as a man, he wanted a knowledge of the day of judgment; than in Luke xxii. 43, 44, which supposes that he wanted that natural strength, which would enable him to sustain the terrors of approaching death, without preternatural succour. Had the humanity of Christ admitted of a perfect participation of his Divinity, on earth, he must have been impassible and immortal; and of course incapable of suffering for our redemption As we must thus admit the necessity, that some of the divine attributes should be withheld from a suffering Saviour; there can be no greater objection to his Divinity, by including omniscience in the number, than impassibility. It might have been necessary, to his mortal state, as a state of probation, that the knowledge of this event should be withheld from him, and so far his wanting the attribute of omniscience is reconcilable

to reason.

sion

66

These observations are but preliminary to a particular discusupon the terms Son of God;" as the title is applied to our Lord in Scripture. With a view to recover the ground, which had been betrayed by that blundering advocate Mr. Jones, in his interpretation of those terms, it is obvious to us the Introduction of the production before us was written. In support of the meaning which, in the profundity of his wisdom and information, he ascribed to those terms, the powers of heaven and hell are summoned; and the testimony of Satan, of our Lord, of the Almighty, and of the Apostles, is cited in order. We shall examine their testimony, as we find it; the first hearing being given by our opponents to their very good friend, the prince of darkness.

"Satan, or the devil, thought him [Christ] such a Son of God as might not only be prevailed but imposed upon. He gravely tells his Son of God-that Son of God with whom he supposes himself to have to do- that the kingdoms of the world were in his gift. Or was God the Son (did this all but omniscient being [the devil] as he is generally supposed to be think) so eminently peccable as to be seduced to the worship of his own creature, from the worship of God the Father? See Matt. iv. Luke iv." P. vi.

1682. Those of the moderns are collected by Wolfius, Cur. Philolog. Tom. I. p. 518. ed. Hamb. 1733. They do not differ from that inculcated above.

But

But how, we would gladly be informed, is the difficulty avoid ed, by supposing our Lord such a Son of God as is claimed by the objector; "one pre-eminently authorised, and emphatically charged with doing his will?" For was this a person likely to be influenced and misled by the father of lies; in asserting, that the kingdoms of the world were at his disposal? Let us, however, set the matter in its true light; and then beg of the sagacious objector to point out, to us, in what the difficulty consists. If thou be (the) Son of God," declares the tempter, "command that these stones be made bread." The bare question proposed inplies, that while Satan possessed no doubt of the exist ence of a Son of God, he doubted, whether he was incarnate in the anointed Jesus; and with this view proposed a question, which was calculated to prove what he doubted. In this light the scene of the temptation has been regarded by the primitive Church, which was immediately instructed by the Apostles *; the divine economy of man's redemption having been considered a mystery, withheld from the angels of light, much more from those of darkness †. And in this light every objection, not merely to the account of the temptation, but to the history of the angelical hierarchy, whose fall is otherwise involved in inexplicable difficulties, directly disappears.

From the testimony of the tempter, our authors descend, by an easy transition, to the testimony of the tempted,

"Why should our Saviour so invariably refer every thing to God, i. e. that Being whom he called his Father, if he were himself also God? Was it not of more moment that his auditory should be apprized of his own omnipotence, which they could know only by communication from him, than of his Father's, of which they were fully aware? Supposing him a man commissioned by God-authorized to assume the title of his Son, was not the language he uni

* S. Ignat. ad Ephes. cap. xviii. p. 15. O yag meds nuwe • Χρισὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας, κατ' οἰκονομίαν Θεᾶ-Καὶ ἔλαθε τὸν ἄρε χονία τῷ αἰῶνος τότε ἡ παρθηνία Μαρίας, καὶ ὁ τοκετος αὐτῆς, ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ θάνατος το Κυρίω, τρία μυςήρια κραυγῆς, ἅτινα ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ Θεῶ ἐπράχθη πῶς ἐν ἐφανερώθη τοῖς αἰῶσιν, ἀφὴς ἐν ἐρανῷ ἔλαμψεν κατον Conf. Matt. ii. iv. 3.

+ S. Chrysost. in 1 Tim. Tom. XI. p. 606. a. & ya içtıv mãoid. ἀνθρώποις [τὸ μυσήριον Θεῦ φανερωθένιος ἐν σαρκὶ] δῆλον, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐδὲ ἀγγέλοις ἦν δῆλον. πῶς γὰρ ὃ ἐφάνη διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας; διὰ τὸτό φησιν, • ὁμολογομένως μέγα ἐσί. καὶ γὰρ ὄντως μέγα. ἄνθρωπος γὰρ ἐγένετο ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ Θεὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, άνθρωπος ὤφθη ἀναμάρτητος, ἄνθρωπος ἀναλήφθη ἐκηρύχθη ἐν κόσμῳ μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν εἶδον αὐτὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, μυςήριον τοίνυν ἐσία Conf. Col. i, 26, 27.

formerly

formly held, the conduct he uniformly adopted, precisely the very language he would hold, the conduct he would adopt; but as Godman as precisely the reverse? Under the consciousness of the former character, would he not of course labour as the ne plus ultra he had to prove that he came from God-that he was sent by Godthat he could do nothing of himself; that if he honoured himself his honour was nothing, that the Father not himself did the works, that having seen him, they had seen the Father," &c. &c. P. vi.

Without delaying to insist on the dexterity with which the last text is nuzzled in, among its fellows; we shall merely bring a little information to the inquiry, and then put the question to the objector whether it will not shed a different light upon the subject. When it is therefore known, that even after our Lord's appearance in the flesh, and death upon the cross, his humanity was denied, and his body considered a phantom *: that, agreeably to the oriental theology, the maintainers of this opinion, asserted the existence of two Gods, one of a nature essentially good, the other of a nature addicted to evil+: that the Creator of the world was the evil God, and that Christ came, as the legate of the good God, to destroy his works, of the creation : the difficulties which embarrass the subject will not be quite as insuperable, as the learned objectors at present imagine. A suspicion will then probaly strike the wits of our opponents, that the peculiar care which is employed,--in proving Christ really a man; in asserting that he was sent by the one true God; and that he came to do the will of that God who was the maker and ruler of all things, not to counteract his providence, or destroy the works of his creation;-was employed, to contravene the prejudices of ancient sceptics, not to favour the errors of modern infidels. To those who take this information along with them, in appreciating the objection before us, it cannot require a specific refutation. On the hypothesis of the objector, it was not merely nugatory to employ any labour in proving the Messiah a man, as commissioned by God; but superlatively absurd, to prove it by asserting, “ that having seen him, they had seen the Father."

From the testimony of the Son, an appeal is next made to that of the Father.

"The immediate attestations from heaven to the character of Christ, point not to a physical and co-eternal Son of Jehovah, but

* S. Iren. Lib. I. cap. xxiv. §. 4. p. 101.

+ S. Iren. Ib. Lib. III. cap, xi. p. 188. Lib. I. сар. xxvii. P. 106. S. Epiphan. Hær. XLII. p. 304. a.

S. Iren. Ib. cap. xxvii. §. 2, p. 106. S. Epiphan. ib. p. 305, a.

of