miraculous circumstances attending St. Paul's conversion, in one narration, he states him to have been expressly chosen for the Apostles to the Gentiles, by Jesus; and in the other, that he was so chosen and for that purpose, by God; implying that they were one and the same. He tells us, moreover, that when Paul preached the doctrine of Jesus, and proved the truth of it by the fact of his resurrection, the philosophers and others of Athens accused him of being a "setter forth of strange Gods."

Again, the Defendants allege that three out of the four Evangelists, neither state nor prove Christ to have been the Creator of the world, and that St. Paul only speaks of the matter in four of his epistles. Now, as these Scriptures are, we affirm, the word of God, the single narration of an occurrence or truth has the same weight as if it were related a hundred times; yet we find St. John commencing his Gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the WORD....all things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made;" - having manifestly his eye fixed upon the same language in the opening chapter of Genesis; so that it is clear that the same unerring Spirit spoke both in Moses and the Evangelist. This declaration, of Christ being the Creator, is corroborated by St. Paul, who says, that "God created all things by Jesus Christ.... whom

R

He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom, also, He made the worlds.... for by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him; for he is before all things, and by him all things consist:"-so that, like St. Paul," through faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the WORD of God," not as the instrument of the Almighty Father, but as his equal; for, "without Him was not any thing made that was made." These passages are sufficient to convince us of the fact, that the universe and all that is in it was created by the Son of God; but Unitarians will not believe it, because all this is not "blazoned in every page of the New Testament." "No;" say they, "in the face of all you adduce from St. Paul or St. John we will not believe the doctrine, nor will we believe that a thought of it ever entered their minds; and, what is more than all this, we know the spirit of the holy writers well enough to say, that had it been proposed to them, they would have rejected it with horror!" Here the Socinian principle of believing only what can be understood, or what men are willing to receive, is clearly displayed; and this mode of trifling with what we regard as most sacred may be illustrated by a practice much too common, and which, evil as it is, has received the sanction of the De

fendants. In order to throw an air of absurdity and ridicule upon the doctrine of Christ being both God and man, they speak of him with an ironical usage of our language, so as to involve us in a species of blasphemy, calling him, the "crucified God;" implying that he suffered as God, whereas as Athanasius says, "The Scriptures never speak of Jesus suffering as God, but in his human nature; and when they mention the blood of God, it is only in reference to the flesh."1 With equal propriety of expression might these votaries of reason designate the Angels who visited Abraham, or those who rescued Lot from Sodom, as ethereal men; or call the mangled body of the martyr Stephen, a murdered soul.

The Defendants are so candid as to admit that here and there a few isolated passages have been adduced to show that Christ is represented as equal to God; and a few others, to prove that

1 So in Acts, xx. 28. On this point see Hey's Lectures, vol. ii. lib. 4. art. 1. sect. 18. p. 275.

In the same manner Hume speaks of Christ as a crucified God, and the Jews as being made murderers of God; and Gibbon, after Voltaire, speaks of" Christians having the same being as God and as Victim." Now, all this is wanton perversion; for it is well known that the Divine Nature cannot suffer, and it is equally well known that Christ did not suffer in his divine nature.

It is here quite necessary to bear in mind the reading of St. Luke, Διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

divine attributes were ascribed to him: but they add, “These, from being continually quoted, in process of time have been believed to be of very frequent occurrence; whereas it is a notorious fact, that not a shadow of the mysterious doctrine exists in many of the books where we (Unitarians) should expect the most to find it; and where any allusions do occur, they could not possibly be understood by the sacred writers in the sense you believe them it is not probable! it is not natural! it is not reasonable!" To what purpose, then, let me ask, did the sacred penmen write, guided by that Holy Spirit which was "to lead them to all truth, and to bring to their remembrance" whatever was necessary to be known or believed of their master?

"That is all very true, for aught we know," say the Defendants; "but we can account for the introduction of these things in a variety of ways: perhaps the writer did not write himself, but procured an amanuensis; and, as he dictated to him, these things were accidental slips of the Apostle's tongue; perhaps the amanuensis mistook; perhaps some very early transcriber copied incorrectly; perhaps this may be only one of various readings; perhaps the words might be intended in a very different sense from what they are usually put; it is possible that the Apostle might have sent off his epistle in such a hurry that he did not study perfect correctness; (and this supposes that the Spirit

was in haste, and in error also.) In short, it is probable that there were many other reasons, which cannot now be discovered, why all these mistakes occurred. But if Trinitarians will be so bigoted, so irrational, as to believe these things, we will give up the texts as altogether inexplicable, sooner than we will believe that the Apostle intended, in this casual incidental manner, to teach a doctrine so new and so incredible, and of such high importance, and which is so little countenanced by the general strain of his discourses and epistles, and so repugnant to the whole tenor of the Christian Scriptures; and, what is more than this, we will not submit to be bullied by the witnesses, in a matter where our conscience and religion are concerned, into what they and the learned call the critical interpretation' of Scripture; for we declare, once for all, that we hold the niceties of grammatical construction, and the force of the Greek particles and Hebrew idioms, in perfect contempt." I

1

Gentlemen, This is the style of language, and these the expressions, of the defence, made with a view to convince you that the Defendants, in all these particulars, have not libelled the Christian Religion, by denouncing as false the great and saving doctrines of the Scripture; and by frittering away the plain and obvious sense of every

Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 83. and p. 81,