yield to the authority of thousands and tens of thousands of 66 passages, which teach that God is only one person, and un"derstand the three exceptions to the general language of the "Scriptures as phrases employed to denote the majesty of the "speaker; or whether he will, on the other hand, adhere to "the literal meaning of these three passages, and consequently "set at defiance those thousands and tens of thousands of other passages, which cannot, by any rules of grammar, or ca"nons of criticism, be reconciled to the orthodox doctrine "of a plurality of persons in the Godhead." (Page 143.)

66

This is, no doubt, "the language of majesty:" but it wants a quality infinitely better, the quality of "simplicity "and godly sincerity."-How often must Mr. Yates be reminded, that the Divine unity is as essential an article of the "orthodox" faith, as of its opposite? Forget what he may, he never forgets to forget this. The serious inquirer need not "set at defiance" the thousands of passages, which assert or imply the unity of God. God forbid that he should! The denial of that doctrine would be an error of still more alarm

ing magnitude, than the denial of the distinction of persons in the Godhead. According to the principles before laid down, he may hold both doctrines, as matters of Divine revelation, without pretending to comprehend the manner of their consistency. If our views of the Bible be just, the unity of God is not rightly held, unless it be held as a unity that consists with, and involves a threefold distinction; and, on the other hand, the doctrine of this distinction is essentially perverted, unless it be held in inseparable connexion with the Divine unity.

With regard to that remarkable text, Gen. iii. 22. which I cannot but consider as belonging to the same class with the other three, Mr. Yates disjoins it from them, and adopts a

different principle of solution for the difficulty which it presents to his system:

"Behold the man is become AS ONE OF US, to know good

" and evil,"

On this text, Mr. Yates thus writes: The expression "ONE OF US evidently alludes to more persons, or intelligent σε beings, than one. But to prove that they were persons in "the Godhead is impossible. The only attribute which they "are affirmed to possess is the knowledge of good and evil. "If, therefore, it be conceded, that there are any intelligent "beings, inferior to the supreme Deity, who resemble man "in the capacity of distinguishing between good and evil, to "them, we may reasonably suppose, the allusion was made. ❝ That there are such beings is evident, among other passages, "from the 5th verse of this chapter, which accords remarkably "with that under review, and directly points to its true inter"pretation; In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall "be opened, and ye shall be as Gods, (or angels) knowing good "and evil. The assertion, therefore, the man is become as "one of us,' signifies, not that the man was become like "one of the persons in the Godhead; but that he was be"come like one of the persons in the heavenly host, resembling ❝ them in the knowledge of good and evil." (Pages 143, 144.) On this singular passage I observe,

1st. It is here admitted (for how indeed could it be denied?) that these words imply the idea of plurality; and that they are incapable of being interpreted on the principle adopted for the three former texts, as being the language of majesty, used by one person.—

2dly. The introduction, in this way, of a different principle of interpretation, is arbitrary in the extreme.-The same persons who are represented as saying, "Let us make man,”

ought, on all reasonable principles of exposition, to be understood as also speaking here—" Behold the man is become as “one of us.”—If the Creator speaks in the plural at the formation of man, why not the Lawgiver and Governor at the fall of man? That system is surely suspicious, which obliges its supporters to have recourse to two different expedients, or grounds of solution, for the same phraseology, in the same context, and used by the same speaker.

3dly. I appeal to the common sense and to the piety of my readers, whether it be natural, or consistent with right impres sions of the majesty of the Divine Being, to suppose him thus placing himself on a footing with his creatures,-taking them in along with himself, as belonging to the same class or description of beings,-speaking to his angels, in terms of familiarity, as if he were only primus inter pares:-" as one of " US!"

4thly. While the circumstance of Mr. Yates adducing a proof from the context of the existence of angels, lets us into a secret of his creed, in which, I believe, he differs from some of his brethren,-I mean the belief that there are such spiritual beings;-not only is the proof itself invalid, but the text from which it is drawn, so far from supporting his views as to Jehovah's including these spirits with himself, by the plural pronoun, is decisive in favour of the opposite. The text is-"the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely "die: for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof "then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, "knowing good and evil." So our translation stands. But there seems to be no propriety in rendering the same word (the name of God) in the singular number, and in its supreme sense, in the former part of the verse, and in the plural number, and inferior sense, in the latter. In my mind it admits of no

doubt, that the true translation of the Devil's words is, "GOD "doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes ❝shall be opened, and ye shall be AS GOD, knowing good "and evil." This gives the temptation all its force, and all its malignity; and at the same time preserves the same word (and a leading word too) from shifting its meaning in the same short sentence:-a principle of grammar from which hardly any plea short of necessity can justify a deviation. Mr. Yates could not be ignorant that different critics and expositors had assigned this meaning to the word. I had given the translation myself, (although without any comment) in my first Discourse, within a few pages of the passage on which he was commenting. It is one which, I think, must commend itself to Mr. Yates's own judgment, if he allows his judgment its free and unbiased exercise. And if it be well founded, then we have only to compare the expression " ye shall be as "GOD, knowing good and evil," with the expression, “be"hold the man is become AS ONE OF US, to know good and ❝evil," to determine irrefragably the validity of the argument derived from the latter, for a plurality of persons in the Divine unity. The two expressions, occurring in the narrative of the same event, are correlatives;—and ought to be interpreted as having the same reference, and the same extent of meaning. According to the interpretation just given, this is strictly the case. According to the other interpretation, it is far from being so. The temptation itself is, "ye shall be as gods" (or angels); the supreme God not being at all included:-but in the record of the success and effect of the temptation, He is included. He does not then address his angels, and say, "the man is become as one of you;" which would have accorded with the language of the temptation, if Aleim meant angels; but he goes beyond the extent of the temptation,-by including Himself:-"the man is become as one of us."

CHAPTER III.

MR. YATES goes on, in Chapter III. of Part III. to examine the evidence for a TRINITY of persons in the Godhead.

The first thing that strikes us here is what I must, however reluctantly, call by its proper appellation, a piece of shameful imposition on the inattentive and simple reader, arrayed too in all the pomp, and impressed with all the emphasis, of capitals:" In order that we may judge," says Mr. Yates, "whether the Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the "Trinity is such as this case seems to demand, it will be "advisable to collect together into one view, all the pas"sages which are commonly supposed to contain it."Then follows:

"A LIST OF ALL THE PASSAGES OF THE OLD AND NEW "TESTAMENT, WHICH ASSERT, IN TERMS MORE OR LESS

DIRECT AND EXPRESS, THAT IN THE UNITY OF THE GOD"HEAD THERE ARE THREE DISTINCT SUBSISTENCES OR PER66 SONS, THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.” (Page 145.)

Subjoined to this title, which is, of course, intended to have, in the minds of the inconsiderate, all the effect of a pillory for the hapless Trinitarians, there are no fewer than seven texts! I have called this a shameful imposition. I should rather have called it an attempt at imposition: for he must be ignorant indeed of his Bible, and of the state of this controversy, with whom it can succeed. With every person possessed of the slightest knowledge of either, it must be utterly impotent.-Did Mr. Yates feel no "compunctious