passages he has collected, prove the Father to be the true God; but they do not at all prove that Jesus Christ is not the true God. So far from this, a number of them contain evidence of the contrary.

"The opinion of Unitarians upon this subject," adds Mr. Yates, "is further confirmed by all those passages which "represent the Father as the proper object of supreme worship." (P. 63.)-But who denies that "the Father is the proper "object of supreme worship?" The question-the sole question-is, Is he the only proper object of such worship? We have before proved the contrary; and, until the texts adduced in evidence of the worship of THE SON are better answered than they have yet been, we must continue to maintain the contrary. It is rather with a bad grace, indeed, that such a remark is introduced by Mr. Yates, considering the nature of so many of those very texts to which he had just been referring the reader. That "the man Christ Jesus" worshipped the Father, what Trinitarian questions? In this, as in every thing else imitable by us, he left us an example, "that we should follow his steps;" an example which Mr.

Yates, with great truth, represents the apostle Paul as imitating and recommending:-" In this respect, as in all others, "the apostle Paul was a follower of Christ. To give thanks "for all things to the Father was his practice, and his pre"cept." But when he adds, "Thus we are authorized by "the example and the commands of Jesus our Master, and of "the apostle Paul, to consider the Father as the only pro"per object of supreme adoration; whence we conclude

that he is the only God;"-he has forgotten his logic. By inserting the word "ONLY," he has thrown into his conclusion a great deal more than is contained in his premises. We have formerly seen, (pages 255-266.) how clear the ex

ample of Paul is for the worship of the Saviour; and that one of the instances of his practice Mr. Yates himself acknowledges he cannot explain to his own satisfaction.

But these hundred texts are preceded by two or three others, which are made to lead the van. They are centurions, -captains of the hundred; and they deserve to be so distinguished. Seriously, and without a figure, they rank amongst the most plausible of Unitarian evidences, and are entitled to some more particular consideration.

The first of them is 1 Cor. viii. 6. "To us there is but one God, the Father."-Mr. Yates quotes this little bit of the text, and satisfies himself with saying, "no language can "be more explicit."-Let us take the words in their connexion, and then consider what aspect they bear toward his system." As concerning, therefore, the eating of those "things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know "that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no "other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, "whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and "lords many,) yet to us there is but one God the Father, of "whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus "Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Ver. 4—6.

I cannot content myself with standing merely on the defensive with regard to this passage; for I am satisfied that it not only does not oppose the divinity of Christ, but is a strong testimony in its favour;-that the thrust aimed with this weapon may not only be parried-but the weapon itself wrested from the hand of the adversary, and its point fairly turned against himself. To show this, let the following series of observations be attended to.

1st. The subject of the apostle's reasoning is, the lawfulness of eating meats that had been offered in sacrifice to

idols. And on this subject, he first of all admits, in ver. 4th, the truth of what the abettors of the practice were dispos ed to urge in support of its lawfulness, that "an idol is no"thing in the world, and that there is no other God but one."

2dly. He goes on, in ver. 5th, to state this last proposition more at large. It is still the proposition" that there is "no other God but one," that he illustrates and affirms. In ver. 4th, he announces it in general terms; and then in verses 5th and 6th, proceeds to establish it.-How then does he do this?

3dly. When he says, in verse 5th, "though there be that are "called gods whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods "many, and lords many," it is obvious, that the gods many, and lords many, are both included in the more general and comprehensive phrase, those "called gods whether in hea"ven or in earth." The same beings, or supposed beings, which he first calls by the single appellation "gods," he distributes under the two appellations of gods and lords. The lords many, then, belonged to the number of the heathen deities, as well as the gods many. He uses both appellations, that he may include them all; for by these two appellations the Jews were accustomed, in general, to denominate the divinities of the Gentile nations.

4thly. If this be the case, then, unless we would deprive the apostle's argument of all consistency, we must not consider him as excluding from the claims and honours of deity "the one Lord Jesus Christ." The point to be proved was not, whether there were or were not various beings, of eminent power, in subordination to God; but whether there were any more than one only, that should receive divine homage and worship. He affirms that there is one only. But how does he affirm this? By opposing to the "gods many,

Rr

"and lords many" of the Gentiles-that is, as we have seen, to the deities of the Gentiles, to those "called gods, whether "in heaven or in earth,"-by opposing to these, not "one "God the Father" only, but "one God the Father, and one "Lord Jesus Christ." The proposition, therefore, “There " is no other God but one," (which is the proposition to be established) must be considered as identified in the reasoning, not with the simple proposition "to us there is but "one God the Father," but with the complex proposition, "to us there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus "Christ."-The " one Lord Jesus Christ" is as directly opposed to the idol deities of the heathen as the "one God "the Father," is.

5thly. When the apostle calls the Father, God, and Jesus Christ, Lord, he makes it, at the same instant, abundantly clear, that he did not mean to be understood, as if either Christ was not God, or the Father not Lord. For, in the very same exclusive terms in which he affirms there is "one "God the Father," he also affirms, there is "one Lord Jesus "Christ." The argument, therefore, which would exclude Jesus Christ from Deity, would equally exclude the Father from Lordship, or dominion. It would subject mankind, or Christians rather, to Jesus Christ alone, to the entire exclusion of the Father. There is no evading this consequence. It is vain to say, that Jesus Christ is Lord, in an inferior sense. This will not do. The affirmation that there is "one "Lord Jesus Christ," is just as explicit as the affirmation that there is one God the Father:-and, if it is alleged that the Father is the Supreme Lord, and Jesus Christ Lord by delegation, then it is not true that to us there is but ONE Lord.

6thly. This view is confirmed by the language here used respecting the "one Lord Jesus Christ."-"To us there

"is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and "we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are "all things, and we by him:"-all things which are of the Father, are, in their utmost latitude, here affirmed to be by the Lord Jesus Christ; and that in the very same terms in which, elsewhere, all things are said to be by the Father. -Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10, &c.

I conclude, therefore, in the words of an author before referred to, and from whom I have, in part, taken this argument: "Itaque hoc dictum divinitati Christi veræ non "adversatur; sed multo magis eam commendat et confirmat: "docetque simul, etsi dari debet, Patrem esse iva beòv, ež où ra 4 παντα, και ήμεις εις αυτον, et Jesum Christum esse ένα κυριον δι' σε ού τα παντα, και ήμεις δι' αυτού, unum tamen solummodo esse "Deum; qui non multiplicatur, quanquam divinitatis jus et "imperium his binis tribuitur." Royaard's Diatribe, &c. Page 182.-"This text, then, is not in opposition to the proper deity of Jesus Christ; but rather, greatly favours "and establishes it. Its doctrine is, that, admitting the "Father to be the one God, of whom are all things, and "we in him' (or rather, for him') and Jesus Christ to "be the one Lord, by whom are all things, and we by "him,' yet there is one God only; who is not multiplied, 66 although the claims and authority of Godhead are ascrib❝ed to both."

A due attention to the observations made on this passage will leave little difficulty as to the next, Eph. iv. 4-6. -where the apostle, in enumerating the bonds of Christian unity, says, amongst other things," there is one Lord," and "one God and Father of all, who is above all, and "through all, and in you all.”