1. The same observation holds here as on the preceding text-viz. that the argument which would exclude the "one Lord" from the claims of Deity, would equally exclude the "one Father" from the claims of Lordship.

2. The same things that are here said of the Father, are elsewhere said of the Son.-See John iii. 31. Rom. ix. 5. Rom. x. 12. Col. i. 17. Heb. i. 3. &c.

Of these two passages, (1 Cor. viii. 6. and Eph. iv. 4—6.) Mr. Yates says, "They require no comment. They de"clare the truth to be proved, viz. that the one God who “is above all, is the Father, in these very words. He, there"fore, who derides or denies this Unitarian doctrine, de"rides or denies the Scripture itself." (Page 61.)—The rcader, I trust, is satisfied, that a little comment is sometimes not amiss; and that it is possible to deny the Unitarian doctrine, (for as to derision we do not wish to deal in it) without denying the Scripture itself.

The third passage which Mr. Yates thus selects for particular notice, is John xvii. 3. "This is life eternal, that "they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus "Christ whom thou hast sent." This text he characterizes as "held deservedly dear by those who advo"cate the doctrine of the proper unity of God."—Unitarians, it seems, with all their outcry about prejudice, have their favourite texts, as well as their neighbours :-texts which they "hold dear" for their coincidence with their own opinions. They call themselves "advocates of the doctrine "of the proper unity of God." We cannot allow them the title. The proper unity of God, is the unity which really belongs to him; the unity which is ascribed to him in his own word. And, whether or not this is a unity

in which there subsists distinction, is precisely the question in debate. If the Scriptures affirm it to be so, then Trinitarians are the advocates of the proper, that is of the true, unity of God.-So dear, however, is the text under notice, that, in a recent Unitarian publication, the writer says: "The attention of every serious person should be directed "to this passage. It appears to me to be decisive of "the whole controversy. It is absolutely incapable of being "reconciled to the doctrine of the Trinity." -On this text, then, let the reader observe:

1st. When the Father is addressed as "the true God," and "the only true God," he is so denominated, in distinction from all false gods,-from the idols of the heathen ;-to the exclusion of those "quos falsa gentium persuasio intro“duxerat;” +—"whom the false persuasion of the Gentiles had

* "A Statement of the Principles of Unitarian Christianity, addressed to the In"habitants of Greenock and Port-Glasgow, and to the Friends of Free Inquiry "throughout Scotland.-By a Unitarian." Respecting this little work, I have only time to say, that a great proportion of it, especially what regards the unity of God, and the humanity of Jesus Christ, contains proofs of what nobody denies. Let those who, in the cant language of the party, are here denominated "the friends of free in"quiry," mark this unfair and illusive mode of arguing. We assert that in the unity of God there is a distinction of persons:-we are met by proofs of the unity of God. We assert that Jesus Christ was God as well as man :-we are encountered with multiplied evidences of his humanity. The true points of difference on these subjects (for into other subjects it is not my present business to enter) are thus completely evaded. What will "the friends of free inquiry" think of a book, which professes to guide them to Scriptural truth on these important topics, and yet never so much as adverts to any of those numerous passages of the word of God, on which the doctrines of the Trinity and the supreme Deity of Christ, are founded, any more than if no such passages had ever been adduced. It is not enough to say, that the work only professes to contain a Statement of Unitarian principles. The object of it is to show that these principles are scriptural; and it is addressed to the friends of free inquiry. But it is, from the nature of the case, impossible for a Unitarian to prove his principles on these subjects scriptural, except by proving that the principles of Trinitarians are unscriptural. It ought to be his business, instead of proving the Unity of God, to disprove the Trinity; instead of proving Christ's humanity, to disprove his divinity. If he can do this, he will have done every thing:—but till he has done this, he has done absolutely nothing, except having deceived his readers.

+ Grotius, as quoted by Whitby.

1. The same observation holds here as on the preceding text-viz. that the argument which would exclude the "one Lord" from the claims of Deity, would equally exclude the "one Father" from the claims of Lordship.

2. The same things that are here said of the Father, are elsewhere said of the Son.-See John iii. 31. Rom. ix. 5. Rom. x. 12. Col. i. 17. Heb. i. 3. &c.

66

Of these two passages, (1 Cor. viii. 6. and Eph. iv. 4-6.) Mr. Yates says, "They require no comment. They de"clare the truth to be proved, viz. that the one God who " is above all, is the Father, in these very words. He, therefore, who derides or denies this Unitarian doctrine, de"rides or denies the Scripture itself." (Page 61.)—The reader, I trust, is satisfied, that a little comment is sometimes not amiss; and that it is possible to deny the Unitarian doctrine, (for as to derision we do not wish to deal in it) without denying the Scripture itself.

The third passage which Mr. Yates thus selects for particular notice, is John xvii. 3. "This is life eternal, that "they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus "Christ whom thou hast sent." This text he characterizes as "held deservedly dear by those who advo"cate the doctrine of the proper unity of God.”—Unitarians, it seems, with all their outcry about prejudice, have their favourite texts, as well as their neighbours :-texts which they "hold dear" for their coincidence with their own opinions. They call themselves "advocates of the doctrine "of the proper unity of God." We cannot allow them the title. The proper unity of God, is the unity which really belongs to him; the unity which is ascribed to him in his own word. And, whether or not this is a unity

in which there subsists distinction, is precisely the question in debate. If the Scriptures affirm it to be so, then Trinitarians are the advocates of the proper, that is of the true, unity of God.-So dear, however, is the text under notice, that, in a recent Unitarian publication, the writer says: "The attention of every serious person should be directed "to this passage. It appears to me to be decisive of "the whole controversy. It is absolutely incapable of being "reconciled to the doctrine of the Trinity." *-On this text, then, let the reader observe:

1st. When the Father is addressed as "the true God," and "the only true God," he is so denominated, in distinction from all false gods,-from the idols of the heathen ;-to the exclusion of those "quos falsa gentium persuasio intro"duxerat;"+"whom the false persuasion of the Gentiles had

"A Statement of the Principles of Unitarian Christianity, addressed to the In"habitants of Greenock and Port-Glasgow, and to the Friends of Free Inquiry "throughout Scotland.-By a Unitarian." Respecting this little work, I have only time to say, that a great proportion of it, especially what regards the unity of God, and the humanity of Jesus Christ, contains proofs of what nobody denies. Let those who, in the cant language of the party, are here denominated "the friends of free in"quiry," mark this unfair and illusive mode of arguing. We assert that in the unity of God there is a distinction of persons:-we are met by proofs of the unity of God. We assert that Jesus Christ was God as well as man:-we are encountered with multiplied evidences of his humanity. The true points of difference on these subjects (for into other subjects it is not my present business to enter) are thus completely evaded. What will "the friends of free inquiry" think of a book, which professes to guide them to Scriptural truth on these important topics, and yet never so much as adverts to any of those numerous passages of the word of God, on which the doctrines of the Trinity and the supreme Deity of Christ, are founded, any more than if no such passages had ever been adduced. It is not enough to say, that the work only professes to contain a Statement of Unitarian principles. The object of it is to show that these principles are scriptural; and it is addressed to the friends of free inquiry. But it is, from the nature of the case, impossible for a Unitarian to prove his principles on these subjects scriptural, except by proving that the principles of Trinitarians are unscriptural. It ought to be his business, instead of proving the Unity of God, to disprove the Trinity; instead of proving Christ's humanity, to disprove his divinity. If he can do this, he will have done every thing:-but till he has done this, he has done absolutely nothing, except having deceived his readers.

+ Grotius, as quoted by Whitby.

"introduced." To confirm this, let the reader compare 2 Chron. xv. 3, 8. Jer. x. 10. 1 Thes. i. 9.

2dly. We have formerly seen that, by this very writer, the same title of "the true God," is expressly given to Jesus Christ; and with the same distinction too from idols. See 1 John v. 20, 21; compared with chap. i. 1, 2.; and "Dis"courses on the Socinian Controversy," pages 37-41; with pages 178-182 of this work.-We have seen too, the manner in which John speaks of "THE WORD" in chapter i. 1—3. as well as in other parts of his Gospel history. The Evangelist surely does not contradict himself; and, after having explicitly affirmed in one passage, "the Word was God," exclude him from all the claims of Deity in the other. If, therefore, there be any principle, by the application of which the language of John xvii. 3. may be explained in consistency with the language of John i. 1-3. and of all the other passages which assert the Divinity of Christ, more simply and easily than the language of John i, 1—3., and of all these other passages can be reconciled with the Unitarian interpretation of John xvii. 3.; that principle ought to be adopted. Such a principle, we are of opinion, is afforded by the official character of Jesus Christ. It is in this character that he here speaks of himself "Jesus Christ "whom thou hast sent." We have before shown, that there is no inconsistency between Jesus possessing Divine dignity, and his being sent, when he is considered as having voluntarily assumed the official character of Mediator.-Now, in this text, the Father is distinguished from all false deities, as "the only true God," and he is distinguished from Jesus Christ, as having "sent him :"-and the "knowledge" of the character of God, as the God of salvation, and of the person and work of Christ as the Saviour, the Mediator between God and men, is declared to be "eternal life."

--