pointed, sanctified, inspired, anointed, given and sent by God, as receiving and executing a commission, as coming in the name of the Lord, as the servant of God. But he has never, either here or elsewhere, taken any notice, or attempted any refutation, of the general principle, stated in the paragraphs I have quoted, on which such passages are explained by Trinitarians. And, till he has done this, "I

66

am not careful to answer him" further. Let him spoil our key, or prove it a picklock, and then we shall acknowledge our error, and give up the use of it.

What Mr. Yates has written, in this chapter, on the meaning of the title Son of God, is altogether irrelevant to the point in debate. This is a title about which, in its application to Jesus Christ, there is considerable diversity of opinion, not only between Unitarians and Trinitarians, but amongst Trinitarians themselves.-It has been questioned, whether it relates to him in his Divine nature alone, or in his human nature alone, or in the constitution of his person as God and man, connected with his official character as Mediator. The last of these views I am myself inclined to prefer. But as the difference respects a name merely, any one of the views may be held, along with the firm conviction of the supreme divinity of Him who bears it. Mr. Yates reasons on the assumed principle, that this title plainly implies inferiority and subordination. But, if the title be considered as belonging to him on account of the peculiar constitution of his Mediatorial person, the idea of inferiority may be admitted, on the principles laid down in the preceding quotations; because, as Mediator, although uniting the Divine and human natures, he had assumed the form of a servant. And, even in opposition to those who consider the title Son of God as expressing the mode of personal distinction in

U u

the Divine essence, Mr. Yates may find it difficult to prove that sonship implies inferiority in nature; inasmuch as a son must be, in nature, essentially the same with his father. That the name or title "Son of God," is a mark of " blissful "and glorious distinction is evident," says Mr. Yates," from "the manner in which it is applied both to the disciples of "Christ, and to our Saviour himself." (Page 72.) ́ But it is no less evident, that the name is applied in an infinitely higher sense to the Saviour himself, than to his disciples. "The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews," as Mr. Yates afterwards notices, "proves the superiority of Christ to an"gels, by the evidence of passages in which he is called "by this designation." (P. 74.)-And-the connexion in which these proofs are introduced, sufficiently shows the sense in which he understood the designation-" Unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever."-When Jesus spoke of God as his Father, the Jews took up stones to stone him, because he made himself "equal with God." And, although nothing could have been more easy than distinctly to disavow the inference, and although such disavowal was required by every consideration of piety and truth, he never did disavow it. Mr. Yates has not disproved the justice of the interpretation put by the Jews on our Lord's words; -he has not disproved the propriety of any of the Trinitarian interpretations of the title; for he has neither proved that it implies inferiority in nature, nor that the inferiority and subordination which he affirms it does imply, cannot be the inferiority and subordination involved in his voluntary assumption of the human nature, and of the form of a ser

vant.

Till he has done both these, the title Son of God can avail him nothing, but rather, from the connexions in which it is sometimes given to Christ, is all against him.—It is in vain, therefore, that Mr Yates, in this, as in former instances,

adduces his proofs by fifties and sixties. It is in this way that he fulfils his engagement announced in the prospectus of his book, to establish the inferiority of Christ to the Father by "several hundred plain Scripture testimonies." Any person, acquainted with the controversy, might have anticipated what sort of proofs these were to be;-proofs of what nobody questions. Wherever Mr. Yates finds Jesus called the Son of God, or God called his Father, he finds a distinct proof that Jesus is not God. But he establishes no general principle on which these multiplied proofs can be made to tell upon his conclusion. He does not seem to think it at all incumbent upon him, to invalidate the principles of Trinitarian interpretation; but argues on, with all coolness, deliberation, and confidence, leaving the ignorant reader to wonder what Trinitarians make of these passages, or whether they have not overlooked them altogether. In a case of this kind, to dwell on each passage distinctly, would be an insult to the reader's understanding. They are all in the same predicament. The refutation of one is the refutation of the whole. They are like the Spectator's wooden library;— where, when you touch a single volume, down comes an entire shelf. Mr. Yates takes it for granted, that the title "Son of God" implies inferiority and subordination; and then, understanding this inferiority and subordination in the Unitarian way, he has a host of proofs at his call:-the reader has only to take it for granted on the other side, that the title "Son of God" implies the equality of Christ with the Father, and the case is immediately reversed: the army of arguments vanishes from the one side, and starts up in hostile array on the other.

On this part of the subject, I cannot but advert to the gratulations with which Mr. Yates has hailed me in another

part of his volume, in consequence of my having professed doubts respecting the ordinary doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, and the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, in the essence of Deity. He considers this candid avowal as "afford

ing a gratifying illustration of the progress of good sense "and liberality of sentiment in matters of religion;" and congratulates me on my freedom from the prison and the rack; as well as from the shackles of subscription to human articles. For both these species of liberty,-liberty from confinement and torture, and liberty from the trammels of subscription, I desire, along with Mr. Yates, to be duly thankful. The desirableness of the former will be felt and acknowledged alike by all; of the advantage of the latter, I think I have had the satisfactory proof of personal experience. But, in his sanguine hopes of my future progress, I fear Mr. Yates must lay his account with disappointment. The present publication has already, in all probability, lowered his expectations; and they are likely to sink still farther, when I assure him, that, instead of being connected, in its origin, with any doubt as to the doctrine of the Trinity, the principal source of my hesitation respecting the common opinion above mentioned, was a desire to clear that great and fundamental article of my faith from plausible objection. Whilst we ought never, in complaisance to the pride of human reason, either to give up, or to mitigate, those sublime mysteries, confessedly incomprehensible, but which form the very substance of the gospel; yet we should beware of adding to them any thing of our own; and especially when the addition, instead of illustrating and confirming, tends rather to obscure and invalidate, the truth which we are desirous to maintain. Such appeared to me to be the case with

regard to the doctrines of eternal generation and eternal procession; and, on examination, I could not find sufficient ground for them in the holy Scriptures. But into the discussion of these topics, I feel no inclination to enter. Although I consider the rejection of this explanation of the mode of the Divine subsistence as fitted to clear the great point of our blessed Lord's divinity from the most plausible of the objections and cavils of the adversary,-I am quite aware that others are of a contrary opinion; and from what I know of them, I dare not take it upon me to impute their opinion to mere prejudice. Differing, as I do, from such, about the precise import of the title Son of God, we both hold his supreme Divinity, and acknowledge him as the Eternal Word made flesh, to "put away sin. by the sacrifice of himself." I have no inclination to enter at present into any debate with these brethren, about the meaning of a name, but give them my hand and heart as fellow-disciples of the Divine Saviour.

I must still, therefore, I presume, be content to rank, in my opponent's list, amongst the professors of "pristine non"sense:" (for, under this appellation, I suppose, he will include the doctrine of the Trinity itself, as well as the Nicene and Athanasian explanations of it)--and I feel no desire to be honoured with a different place. In matters of religious sentiment, I take his scale by the rule of reverse; and make the lowest point of his graduation the highest of mine. His pristine nonsense is my ancient truth;-the foundation of my hopes, the source of my joys; to the defence of which, I trust, I shall ever be enabled to consecrate those " powers of "reasoning and persuasion," to which, as might have been expected, he has been pleased, on this occasion, to present a little of the incense of his praise. It is certainly my desire to "conform my belief not to popular opinions, or hu