that which is begotten is not self-existent, therefore not eternalthat which is eternal is self-existent, therefore not begotten. So little consistency is there in the creeds and articles of man's invention. So difficult it is to put a total extinguisher on the truth, that God is one!

Again, as reason and common sense tell us that a father must exist before a son can be begotten, so must he who commands be greater than he who obeys; the bestower is superior to the receiver; the sender to him who is sent; and he who prescribes a task, to him by whom it is executed. Now Christ is represented in the Scriptures as in all things subordinate to the Father. He declares his own inferiority, and so strongly and so frequently disclaims the ascription to himself of the attributes that belong to Jehovah alone, that it is really a matter of astonishment how any one can entertain a doubt on the question. He affirms the supremacy of the Father in terms the most explicit, undeniable, and unqualified.

"My Father is greater than all.”—John, x. 29.

Consequently greater than the Son-and that there may be no doubt of this, he says again,

"My Father is greater than I."--John, xiv. 28.

He declares that the same great being who is our God and Father, is also his God and Father.

"I ascend unto my Father and your Father: and to my God and your God."-Jolin, xx. 17.

He denies independant and underived existence when he says,

"I live by the Father."-John, vi. 57.

He denies that he is inherently and underivably possessed of any power whatsoever; and he does this with a solemn repeated

asseveration.

66

Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son CAN do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do."—John, v. 19.

"To sit on my right-hand and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."-Mat. xx. 23. He affirms that he is not omniscient

"Of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father.”—Mark, xiii. 32,*

* This is a most distressing text to Trinitarians. In vain have they tortured invention and falsified the meaning of the Greek text, to escape a conclusion which is fatal to their scheme. One informs us that the verb oday here signifies maketh known, though no instance of its having such a meaning occurs in the whole compass of Greek learning. Admit, it however, for a moment, and mark the consequence. "That day and that hour no man muketh known, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only maketh known." This is a direct contradiction of the Saviour's meaning, to avoid which, it is proposed by other expounders, to supply the words "in his official capacity," or "in his human nature,"

He refuses to be called good in the sense of infinitely benevolent.

"There is none good but ONE, that is God."-Mat. xix. 17.

He ascribes his mission and his works to his Father. "The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath SENT ME."-John, v. 36. He acknowledges that his power of exercising judgment is bestowed upon him by the Father.

"The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son."-John, v. 22.

46

He affirms that his doctrine did not originate with himself. My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”—John, vii. 16, 17.

He denies that he came of himself.

"Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true whom ye know not.”—John vii. 28.

He denies that he came to do his own will.

"I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."-John, v. 30.

Or, that he sought his own glory.

"I seek not mine own glory-there is one (viz: God) that seeketh and judgeth."-John, viii. 50.

Or, that he is himself the ultimate end and object of our faith. "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.”—John, xii. 44. i, e. not so much on me, as on him who sent me.

He makes it a less heinous offence to speak against himself than against the Holy Spirit, which is a clear acknowledgment of his inferiority.

"Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be for. given him."-Mat. xii. 32.

After his resurrection he says, that all his power is the gift of his Heavenly Father.

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."-Mat. xxviii. 18. The texts that speak a similar language are almost innumerable, and all so plain and intelligible, that their meaning is never disputed. How then avoid the conclusion to which they irresistibly compel? How maintain a doctrine by which that conclusion is utterly subverted? Certain creed-makers and In

for which addition, even if it did not convert solemn truth into impious folly, they have no more authority, than for writing a new gospel. But this is not all. Audi facinus majoris abollæ. In order to parallel and neutralize the force of this vexatious text, they have actually quoted Hosea viii. 4. 86 They have made princes, and I (Jehovah) knew it not:" as if this was an expression of ignorance and not of disapproval-and in their anxiety to secure a point, have been contented to rob Jehovah of his Omniscience!

fallible Churches will inform us. They have inventions of their own which could never be found out by minds uninitiated in their mysteries. They inform us, though Scripture does not, that Christ had two natures, a human and a divine; and that he speaks and acts sometimes in the one, and sometimes in the other nature. This, for a moment, being admitted, we naturally enquire, how is it to be ascertained when any of his discourses or actions are to be ascribed to him as God the Son, and when as the man Jesus? To a plain and unsophisticated reader this is a serious difficulty, dignus vindice nodus, a knot which can be untied only by the skill of the "Infallible Church."

By what rule Protestants are guided in this inquiry, or whether they have any rule, the writer must confess ignorance. The learned Rammohun Roy,* a name which there will be occasion often to mention in the sequel of this essay, has expressed a wish to be furnished with a list enumerating those expressions which are made in one and in the other capacity, with authorities for the distinction. What authorities should he expect but those of tradition and an Infallible Church? The list, perhaps, might be furnished, but it would scarcely yield the satisfaction which he seems to require-since one clause of the same text, as he has himself remarked and illustrated, would require to be spoken by the divine, and another by the human nature; and even the same clause might have to be understood as spoken sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other, as it chanced so suit the argument of the polemic or expounder. A principle of conformity to the creed which they have brought from the nursery or college, is the only rule, as far as the Unitarian can discover, which Trinitarians employ in making the distinction. This is the touchstone by which every text must be proved.

His

An Indian Brahmin, who from a diligent perusal of the Sacred Scriptures, has become a convert to Christianity, and whose intimate and most accurately critical knowledge of oriental customs and languages eminently qualifies him both to understand and explain the inspired volume. work entitled "The precepts of Jesus, the guide to peace and happiness," with his first, second, and final appeal to the Christian public, in reply to Dr. Marshman of Serampore, should be in the hands of all lovers of truth. It might have been expected that such a convert would have been welcomed with delight by every disciple of Jesus; but his love of truth preventing him from embracing certain peculiar doctrines" which, with all his critical acumen, he could not find in the Bible; he became as much an object of obloquy to the "Orthodox," in the East, as his Unitarian brethren are in the West. His editor, at length, refused to publish his works, and he was under the necessity of purchasing types and a printing press, to have them printed beneath his own immediate inspection. Happily for the cause of genuine Christianity, they have reached the shores of Great Britain, and the Isle of Saints," and while paper, ink, and type, remain, they will not perish; though some ardent proselyters decry them, and say their author is no Christian. Thus did their Jewish brethren of old declare of Christ, that he was a Samaritan and had a devil!

They cover the pure gold of gospel truth with the base alloy of human invention, stamp it with the image and superscription of Athanasius or Calvin, and circulate it as the true evangelical coin. When our blessed Saviour says, "I live by the Father," they exclaim, this is spoken in his human nature! When he says, "My Father and I are one," though it is clear as the sun, that he means one in the Unitarian sense; they immediately call out, here is a proof of the coexistence, coeternity, and consubstantiality of God and Christ! Mr. Pope adopts this mode of explanation, and alleges that "those passages which affirm the son's inferiority were not spoken of him whole and entire, but refer to his human nature, and mediatorial character; and that this view of the subject alone, harmonizes the seemingly contradictory descriptions which the Scriptures give of the Messiah."

1

Such vague and unfounded notions as this may content those who can "prostrate the understanding;" but reason and common sense must protest against them. Can it be imagined that a distinction of such importance to the right interpretation of Scripture, should be sought for in them in vain? By admitting it as necessary to explain certain fancied contradictions, we are involved in ten-fold difficulties, from which we cannot be extricated, even by the power of an Infallible Church. While it aims, on the one hand, to exalt the Saviour to Supreme Deity, it degrades him, on the other, beneath the level of an honest and true man. It grants the Unitarian more than he either asks or will accept. It strips part of our Lord's declarations of their sacred influence, by representing them as spoken of himself in the nature of a common uninspired mortal; whereas the Unitarian receives them all as coming from the inspiration of the Almighty. Nor is this all. It involves more awful consequences. We should have supposed from reading the Scriptures, "without note or comment." that the Saviour's character presented to us one symmetrical and consistent whole. But this invention affirms that he was not one but two persons; and since he did not always speak and act as a whole and entire, he must sometimes have spoken and acted as a part and a fraction. What he was ignorant of as a man, he knew as God. Each character had its peculiar language and mode of acting; and that which was utterly false, as coming from the one, was demonstratively true as coming from the other. He is, and he is not, omnipotent, and omniscient. He tells a female petitioner, that what she asks is not his to give-and notwithstanding, it is his to give! He cannot do what is requested of him, and yet it is perfectly in his power! What havoc does such a fancy make of the character of him who was full of grace and truth; who always acted with such perfect candour, and who branded hypocrites with his severest indignation? Let those who advocate the doctrine abide the consequence.

Such, it seems, is the only way to harmonize the discordancies, of a system which has neither reason nor Scripture for its support. Were Unitarians to have recourse to any such miserable expedients what a clamour would be raised? What epithets of abuse-what charges of blasphemy would be reverberated through the synods and convocations of orthodoxy! The dread sounds of heretics-lepers-infidels-atheists-deniers of the God that bought them, would be thundered in their ears and all this for their adherence to the plain and unequivocal language of Scripture! We understand the Saviour's words in the sense which we believe they were intended to convey, and it would excite our special wonder, were we not accustomed to it, to witness the irreverence and disrespect with which they are treated by the upholders of Trinitarianism. These, seem to make it their uniform practise to contradict the plainest declarations of our Lord, as if they had taken part with the Scribes and Pharisees of old, and were determined to fix on him the very imputations which he repelled. When he says, "My Father is greater than I"they virtually tell him that he utters a falsehood, for they know well that he is equal to the Father in all respects. When he denies that he knows when the day of judg ment will arrive, they affirm that he knows it full well, and only imposes upon them by an equivocation. When he says, "It is not mine to give," they exclaim, this is only an ingenious mode of escaping from importunity, for though he cannot give in his assumed character, he can give all things in his real one! When he speaks of himself as of "a man who told the truth which he had heard of God," they say he is a man only in outward shew, but in reality the Omnipotent Jehovah! Thus, with the intention, as in charity we suppose, of exalting the Saviour, they heap upon him the greatest dishonour. They make him equivocate, dissemble, and falsify, and impute to him such a mode of speaking and acting, as they would be ashamed to impute to any man of common integrity.

These enormities Unitarians avoid, by adhering to the plain meaning of Scripture. They feel assured that the Saviour did not equivocate, nor practise any species of deception. They cannot find a single text which leads to such a horrible suspi cion; neither are they able to discover any such contradictory views of his character and conduct as would lay them under the necessity of having recourse to Platonic inventions to reconcile them. They cannot "entangle him in his talk"-nor refuse to him the testimony which was given by his enemies, "Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth; neither carest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of men."-Mat. xxii. 16. They contemplate our Lord not as a mysterious and ambiguous being, acting a double part, and paltering with language in a double sense, meaning one thing and expressing another-but as one being, sustaining one