can never be proofs that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not essentially included in the Divinity so denominated :—and, on the other hand, instances of the designation the Father, used in express or implied distinction from the Son, may be proofs that the Father is God, but cannot be proofs that the Son is not God.

But I must go still a step further. While the hundred texts adduced, as they all belong to one class or description, all come under the same general observation;-there are some of them which, I think, my opponent has been particularly unfortunate for himself in bringing forward to notice. There is nothing I should more earnestly desire, than the reader's attentive perusal of Mr. Yates's hundred texts.-I shall select a few of the kind to which I refer.

The first on his list is Matt. xi. 27. with its parallel, Luke x. 22. "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and "no man (more properly no one) knoweth the Son but the "Father, neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son, "and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."-But, if Jesus was a mere human prophet, this is surely very singular and unaccountable language. The Father and the Son are here represented as having, reciprocally, a full and immediate knowledge of each other, of which no one else is possessed. The mode of expression leads us to conceive of the knowledge which the Father has of the Son, as being the same in kind and in degree with that which the Son has of the Father; no full and immediate knowledge of either being possessed by any other being." The meaning is," say the Editors of the improved Version, "that no one but the "Father can fully comprehend the object and extent of the "Son's commission; and no one but the Son comprehends "the counsels and designs of the Father with respect to the

"instruction and reformation of mankind."-But why is the knowledge of the Father to be interpreted as meaning the knowledge of a particular part of his counsels, and not the knowledge of HIMSELF? The latter is surely its most natural import, and it is supported by such parallel passages as John i. 18. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begot"ten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de"clared him:"-John vi. 46. « Not that any man hath seen "the Father, save he who is of God, he hath seen the "Father." * What was there, we may further ask, in the idea of a human prophet, commissioned to teach to mankind the certainty of a future state, and the necessity of a life of virtue to the attainment of happiness in that state, what was there in this idea that rendered it so peculiarly wonderful, so entirely above created conception;—as incomprehensible by

"To see the Father refers not to a perception of the divine presence and glory. "The external symbols and pledges of Jehovah's existence and favour were "afforded to his servants from the beginning of the world. In this way he was seen by the patriarchs, by Moses, by the prophets, and by all the people of Israel "in the wilderness at Sinai, &c.—Nor does the phrase to see the Father, relate to "the direct communications of the Divine mind and will to his servants. God, "had 'at sundry times, and in divers manners, spoken in time past to the fathers "by the prophets,' who were denominated Seers, on account of the discoveries with " which they were favoured by the Almighty. The infallible Spirit of inspiration "illuminated their minds; dictating to their faithful tongues and pens, as the living Oracles of God. In this sense, the apostles saw God, and revealed his mind, "more fully than their Divine Master did by his personal ministry, John xvi. 12— “15.—To see God must, therefore, here intend a contemplation of Deity in his own, "immediate proper nature:to see him in the direct mode of his infinite exist"ence, as the eternal I AM :-to view him, independently of any medium of times "place, or creatures. Neither man, nor angel, nor any finite intelligence, ever did or can thus see, i. e. comprehend the unlimited essence of Jehovah ; for 'who by searching can find out God? who can find out the Almighty unto perfection ?"The Son of God sees the Father, and the Father sees and knows himself. This

66

knowledge is essentially different from the knowledge of all creatures; and consequently must be the exclusive possession and prerogative of God. The Divine "Being, though incomprehensible to all others, perfectly knows himself; and the "Son claims reciprocal knowledge with the Father." See a paper signed ‘Fig'linus' in the Evangelical Magazine for May 1816,

any besides Jehovah, as the nature of Jehovah himself? The difficulty here does not consist merely in this prophet placing his knowledge of God on an equality with God's knowledge of him; but in his representing himself and the infinite Jehovah as reciprocally, and equally, the objects of knowledge to each other, in a sense that excludes all other beings, on both sides alike, from any participation in it.-Again: -the knowledge of the Son, ascribed to the Father, and the knowledge of the Father ascribed to the Son, are, by the comment of the improved Version, perfectly identified. To know "the counsels and designs of the Father respecting the "instruction and reformation of mankind," is the very same thing, (especially on Unitarian principles as to the work of Christ) with knowing "the object and extent of the Son's "commission."

John v. 23. "That all men should honour the Son, even as "they honour the Father." Already noticed, pages 277, 278.

John xiv. 8-10. "Philip saith unto him, Lord, show "us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto

him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast "thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath "seen the Father? and how sayest thou, then, Show us "the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, " and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you, "I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

66

The words that Christ spoke were not "of himself:" -that is, what he taught was not of his own mind, or his own authority only. A part of his doctrine related to himself:-as, for example, in this very passage. But his tesimony with regard to himself, it was obviously necessary, should have other attestations besides his own. Whatever he

was himself, he must not be the sole witness of it. Compare John v. 31-37.-To prove, accordingly, that the doctrine taught by him was not "of himself,” he appeals here, as he does in the passage just referred to, to his miracles, as wrought by the power of the Father-"The Father that dwelleth in me, HE doeth the works:"-that is, HE attests the doctrine to be his; and particularly, attests the truth of what Jesus, on this and on other occasions, affirms concerning himself. What, then, is it which he does affirm in this passage?—that, in knowing him, they knew the Father; that, in seeing him, they saw the Father. Knowing and seeing do not here mean, understanding what was taught concerning the Father. For Philip's request, "Show us the Father," did not express a desire to be taught what God was, but to be favoured with some peculiar manifestation of the divine glory, similar, perhaps, to those visions recorded in some parts of the Old Testament history. It is to this request, that Jesus answers, "He that hath seen ME hath seen THE "FATHER; and how sayest thou, then, Show us the Father?" -And does not this answer imply, that there was in his character, as seen by them, something altogether above what mere human nature had ever exhibited ?-an untainted purity, and a sublime elevation, such as ought to have impressed all their minds with the conviction of his being more than man? The language contains a reproof for their dulness of apprehension, and slowness of heart to believe. Of the character of Christ, I am satisfied, we can form but very inadequate conceptions. He was "the brightness of the Father's glory." The perfections of Deity were, in him, exhibited to the view of men--and especially of Philip and his fellow-disciples. And his character, according to the appeal which he here makes to them, bore upon it the impress of divinity in such a way,

as to render them without excuse if they did not perceive and acknowledge it. They "beheld his glory, the glory as of "the only begotten of the Father."-What he adds here, "Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in "me; or else believe me on account of the works themselves,"

is the same with what he said to the Jews, John x. 38. in repelling from himself the charge of blasphemy; and we have seen that it was interpreted, and rightly interpreted, by them, as the same in import with the saying on which the charge was founded, "I and my Father are one,”

Gal. i. 1. “Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, "but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him "from the dead."-Not more fortunate for Mr. Yates surely, than the texts already noticed:-for, while it is true that Jesus Christ is here distinguished from God the Father, it is no less true, that he is, in the same terms with God the Father, distinguished from men.

Gal. i. 3. Grace be unto you, and peace, from God "the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ"-is an instance of Christ being joined with the Father, as the object of supplication for spiritual blessings:-And of the same description are Eph, vi. 23. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 1 Cor, i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2, Eph. i. 2, Phil. i. 2. Col. i, 2. 1 Tim. i, 1, 2. Philem. 3. 1 Thes. i. 1. 1 Thes. iii, 11, 2 Thes. i. 1, 2. In the last two passages, not only are spiritual blessings desired from the Lord Jesus Christ conjointly with God the Father; but the church is addressed as "IN" the Son, as well as "IN" the Father.

Such are a specimen of Mr. Yates's hundred texts. Let the reader judge, whether they are fitted to "impress every "unprejudiced inquirer with the conviction that the Father "alone ought to be the God of Christians." (Page 63,)—The