I said it is impossible that inspired men, who made it their special object to destroy idolatry and promote the worship of Jehovah, should have used such language in such a case. For if they remembered that they were writing for the benefit of those who were surrounded by idolatrous practices, they must have felt the importance of using the most guarded expressions, especially when speaking on a subject in which the divine unity was concerned. They must have made it their care not to give the remotest occasion for supposing, that they themselves worshipped as God, any being beside Jehovah, or that they countenanced others in doing this. They certainly did make this their care. They opposed idolatry in every form. They employed various methods to expose the absurdity and wickedness of worshipping any being not truly divine. Now is it possible, that men divinely inspired, men so alive to the honor of Jehovah, men who made it their special object to destroy idolatry and promote the worship of the one true God, should have used the language, cited above, concerning a being, whom they meant to exclude from any share in the honors of the Godhead.

Such language is manifestly suited to lead those, who feel a proper reverence for the word of God, to ascribe divine honor to Christ. It is very manifestly suited to do this; because the inspired writers, though so jealous for the honor of Jehovah, and so earnest in their cautions against substituting any one in his place, never give any direction not to deify Christ; never say any thing to caution us either directly or indirectly, against honoring him too highly. There is not the least appearance of their ever having thought, that the glory of the one true God was in danger of being obscured by ascribing divine glory to the Saviour. When they speak of him as God, Lord of all, over all God blessed forever, there is not the least appearance of its having occur red to them as a probable or possible event that men would mistake their meaning, and give too high a sense to their expressions. On the contrary, they seem to have laid out all their powers to find the sublimest and strongest expressions, for the very purpose of elevating our ideas of Christ to the highest degree, and per

suading us to honor him even as we honor the Father. On the supposition that it was their avowed design to teach that Christ has true and proper divinity, what stronger or more unequivocal language could they have used? What forms of expression can be imagined, which would more clearly and satisfactorily make known the Godhead of Christ? What expressions could be less capable of being turned, by a subtle criticism, to another signification? Review these texts again and again, and you must I think be satisfied, that the inspired writers could not have used language stronger, more elevated, or more unequivocal, admitting it to have been their real design to teach the proper Deity of Christ. Even if the Scripture representations of Christ were not so strong, not so elevated and unequivocal, as they are; they would still be fitted, considering the circumstances of the case, to excite religious adoration in all Christians. For the Lord Jesus Christ is preeminently their Friend, their Benefactor, their Deliverer. He has bestowed upon them the most essential benefits, and stands in the most endearing relation to them. In such a case, how easily might they be betrayed into an excessive veneration, if any degree of veneration could be excessive! If Christ be not divine, the circumstances of the case evidently expose his disciples to a most dangerous mistake, and render a double guard necessary to keep them from giving to another the things which are God's. Crellius a distinguished Socinian was sensible of this danger; and he supposes that the sacred writers do effectually guard against it. With a strange mixture of palpable truth and palpable mistake he says: "By how much Christ is esteemed by the sacred writers to be greater than all other divinities, the Father excepted; so much the more cautious have they been not to give him expressly the name of God, lest he should be taken for that Supreme God, who only is the Father." Christ," he says, "even while on earth, like the Almighty God himself, gov erned creatures by a single word. So that if he had been expressly called God by the sacred writers, and not always contradistinguished from God, the sacred writers would have furnished an occasion for inconsiderate men to put him in the place of the

66

Supreme God." Now is there, in truth, the least appearance of such cautions as this writer supposes, and as the case would plainly require? If Christians carefully read the texts which declare the glory of their Saviour, feeling at the same time that implicit confidence in revelation which God requires them to feel; will they not most certainly be led to ascribe to him divine perfection and honor? The language which the inspired writers employ would be adapted to produce such an effect in any case; but most of all in this case. Now is it possible, that those holy men, under the direction of infinite wisdom, should have employed language which naturally has this tendency, and has actually produced this effect, had they meant to be understood as excluding Christ from being God? "If a writer," says Priestly, “ expresses himself with clearness, and really means to be understood, he cannot fail to be understood with respect to every thing of consequence."

66

Here then you may see to what difficulty and perplexity we should be reduced by embracing the scheme of Unitarians. The inspired writers teach that there is one and only one God, meaning to exclude, as Unitarians would have it, not only the idols of the heathen, but the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet those same inspired writers, under the infallible guidance of the Spirit, use such expressions concerning Christ, as naturally lead us to regard him as God. And they use these expressions, without the least appearance of wishing to limit the sense, or to guard Christians against carrying their esteem for their Saviour to the highest point of reverence. Yea, they use these expressions with a manifest design to elevate our minds to the most adoring views of his character, seeming to be never able to find terms strong enough to express their own religious veneration for him, or to excite proper veneration in others. They speak familiarly in this manner respecting Christ, when it is perfectly apparent, that those who feel the greatest reverence for the Scriptures, will be the most likely to mistake their meaning, and to worship him whom they intended that no man should worship.

This is a fair statement of the difficulties to which the Socinian scheme would reduce us.

You perceive that they who hold this scheme, make no account whatever of those texts, which give the highest representations of the glory of Christ. Their belief is just what it would be, if all those texts were struck out of the Bible. Though the Bible declares in the most unequivocal manner, that Christ is God, the first and the last, the Creator and upholder of all things; such declarations give not the least information to Unitarians; they produce no effect upon their opinions, and are of no consideration with them in explaining other parts of the sacred volume which relate to the same subject. To the texts which declare the unity of God, they give the very same sense which they would give, if those texts constituted the whole Bible. They hold the same opinions of Christ which they would hold, if the Scriptures contained nothing but those texts, which represent him as a man.

This is the spirit of Unitarianism. And this is the mode of handling Scripture on which it depends.

LECTURE XX.

IMPORTANCE OF DERIVING OUR OPINIONS FROM THE WHOLE OF WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES.

HAVING, in preceding Lectures, considered in a general way the subject of the divine unity in its relation to the Trinity, we proceed now to a more particular consideration of what the Scriptures reveal respecting this peculiar mode of the divine existence. The subject of the Trinity admits of being treated in two ways. The first way is, to cite the texts which exhibit the three together, as the form of Baptism and one of the Benedictions; and then to add those texts which indicate a plurality, and which, with the help of the more explicit texts before referred to, must be considered as implying the doctrine of Trinity. The other way is, to take into view what the Scriptures teach in relation to each of the three; first, in relation to the Father; secondly, to the Son; and thirdly, to the Holy Spirit; and then to consider the three in connection with the divine unity. I propose to avail myself of the benefit of both the methods. But as I attach special importance to the last method, I shall dwell upon it more particularly and fully.

Now all Christians agree that the Father is truly God, possessed of all the perfections of divinity. This then need not be particularly argued, but may be taken as a settled point. No one doubts that the Father is very God. And no one, but a Pantheist, doubts his personality. We proceed then to what the Scriptures reveal respecting the Son. And here, on account of the long continued. controversy in Christendom, we shall find it necessary to devote much time to the momentous subject, and to investigate it patiently and earnestly. This for the present is to be our theme. We are