attempted to explain, are, for the most part,

66

highly figurative, and peculiarly difficult to understand." Besides, "one unfavourable circumstance," he says, "occurs with respect to the right understanding of the Scriptures in this country, that the English translation of them was made at a time when the christian world was but just emerged from the darkness of popery, and while the belief of all those opinions which are combated in the 'Appeal,' (and which he repeatedly calls the most absurd and impious,) were almost universally retained. Our translators, therefore, having been educated in the belief of, and in a reverence for, those opinions, and not having had their minds sufficiently enlightened to call them in question, it is no wonder that without any ill design, they should, in many places of their version, have expressed their own sentiments, and not those of the Apostles." If this be really the case, the condition of the generality of people in this nation is truly deplorable. We are to receive the Bible as the word of God upon pain of damnation, and yet we are quite uncertain where it speaks

the language of inspiration, and where the sentiments of the translators; so that the gospel, which was intended, as this Author

speaks, "to be the solid foundation of the faith, hope, and joy of common people," is become, according to him, quite insufficient to any but those who understand the Greek and Hebrew languages, and the common people have yet a solid foundation of their faith to seek. I am far from thinking that the knowledge of the original language of Scripture is useless, or that our translation is not in some places capable of amendment; but I am persuaded, that there is not one doctrine of revelation destroyed by our translation, or which may not be made out by comparing one Scripture with another, without having recourse either to the Greek or Hebrew. I shall, therefore, continue to appeal only to the English Bible, and leave to the learned those criticisms upon the original languages which they may think needful.

2. I have already shown the consistency there is in sometimes speaking of Christ as inferior to the Father, and sometimes as equal with him. The Author of the "Illustration" has not discovered the impropriety of such language, and yet continues to make use of

the acknowledged inferiority of Christ, as Man and Mediator, to prove that he is in no sense equal with the Father. When several passages in the Revelations were brought to evince the divinity of Christ, because the incommunicable attributes of God are there ascribed to him, and he is there represented as receiving the same worship as the Father; the illustrator answers, "It is plain, the Author of that book considered Christ as a person subordinate to the Father, and the minister of his will, and therefore no single expression should be interpreted in such a manner as to make it imply the contrary," page 25, i. e. that Christ, as to his divine nature, is equal with the Father, for this is what he means by the contrary.* Now, let any man of common understanding judge, who it is that reasons inconclusively in this debate. We assert that Christ is God and man; the latter is allowed; we prove the former from the ascription of the divine attributes to him, &c. To this our Author replies; "Those Scriptures cannot mean what they seem to express; Christ cannot be God, because he is man." Surely they who could argue thus,

• Arguments of the same kind are used, page 29, 31, 35, 37, and 40.

should not think those who oppose them err, "because they will not make use of the rational faculties which God has given them." Had this Author made it appear that it is impossible the divine and human nature should be united in one person, his arguing would have been conclusive; but till then it is just as weighty as to say, that man cannot be endued with an immaterial soul, because he has a material body.

3. I have before taken notice of the misrepresentation which this Author makes of the doctrine of Christ's divinity;* and am sorry to find he still insinuates that we espouse the senseless notion of a plurality of Gods; whereas, he must very well know, that it is as much our belief there is one Supreme Being, as that there are three persons (as they are usually called) in the Godhead. The

Illustration" of texts relating to the divinity of Christ is introduced with this observation, "Nothing can be more evident, from the whole tenor of the New Testament, than that the person who is distinguished by the name of the Father, is the only true God, exclusive of the Son, or any other being what

See "Short Defence," page 10.

ever. Nevertheless, there are some single and unconnected passages, especially in our translation of the Bible, which seem to favour the contrary opinion, namely, that of the divinity of Christ." page 21. This opinion, that there are more beings than one who are supreme, is no less contrary to our doctrine, than it is to common sense; and therefore, ought not to be charged upon us. Whoever would prove that our doctrine is contrary to reason must show, that it is impossible the Divine Being can subsist in such a manner, as to make it proper that he should represent himself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which we, on account of the distinct agency ascribed to each in the Scriptures, call by the name of persons; hereby not pretending to explain the precise manner of this subsistence, but only using the fittest term, which human language will afford, to express this inexplicable mystery. It is not candid to misrepresent a doctrine which we oppose; but this is continually done by those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity. If they would oppose us by rational arguments, let them not go about to prove that the existence of three Gods (a doctrine we abhor) is contrary to reason, but that the existence of a triune God is so. If they are conscious that they cannot demon