fuch forms of fpeaking, as G.d the Son, God the Holy Ghoft, are never ufed by any of the facred writers, in any part of the New Teftament.

From the whole we may conclude, that the general tenor of the Old and New Teftament teaches us, in the most pofitive terms, that there is but ONE GOD, that God is ONE PERSON, and that this Perfon is the FATHER. We object, therefore, to the doctrine of the trinity, because it contradicts this general tenor, and becaufe all the paffages, produced by the Trinitarians, will admit of a fair interpretation, on unitarian principles. (e)

CHAPTER

(e) The Trinitarians affert, that notwithstanding they believe a trinity of perfons in the divine effence, they preferve the unity. But it may be clearly de nonítrated they do not. The Father they maintain is God, the Son, God, and the Holy Ghoft, God They mainta n also, that they are three diftin&t perfons, that is, that one is not the other. On these principles it neceffarily follows, that the Father is God exclufively of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that the Son is God exclufively of the Father, and of the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghoft is God exclufively of the Father, and of the Son. In other words, it follows, that there must be three Gods,

Again, if the foregoing statement be juft, the three taken together must be more than any one of them taken separately. If, therefore, one be of himself God, the three taken together muft

CHAPTER III.

Of the Senfe in which Chrift is the Lord of David, and of the Meaning of the Phrafe, Son of God, as applied to Chrift.

MR.

R. Hawker observes in his first fermon, that the words of his text, Matt. xxii. 42, " are not a little demonftrative of the great point in queftion," (f) To me they appear to have nothing to do with it. It feems from the preceding verfes, that the Pharifees and Sadducees had been propofing a number of queftions to our faviour, for no other purpose than that of enfnaring him.

He

must be more than God. Or if the three taken together make but one God, one of them taken separately must be less than God.

The author cannot but observe in this place, that the reafon, the Unitarians reject the doctrine of the trinity, is not because it is a doctrine above their comprehension, but because of the contradictions involved in every explanation of it. An account of thele contradictions may be seen in Mr.Cooper's Summary of Unitarian Arguments, which may be purchased separately from his other Effays.

(f) P. 18.

He was well acquainted with their views, and, in order to put them to filence, afks, What think ye of the Chrift? whofe fon is he? They Jay unto him the fon of David. He faith unto them, How then doth David in fpirit call him Lord, faying, The LORD faid unto my Lord, fit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footflool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his fon? Mr. Hawker is of opinion, that, in this paffage, our bleffed Lord meant to infer, that fomewhat above the nature of a human being was appointed to distinguish the character of the Meffiah; that notwithstanding Chrift, according to the flesh, was to fpring from the feed of David, yet, at the same time, by his fuperior nature, he was to be David's Lord; and that it is highly probable a conviction of this kind was wrought in the minds of his hearers, because the evangelift adds, They were not able to answer him a word, neither durft any man, from that day forth, afk him any more questions. (g)

But this does not feem to be a juft interpretation. Are we not rather to fuppofe, that Jefus Chrift is the fon of David, by natural defcent, and that he is his Lord, in confequence of his office, being, as the Meffiah, not only the Lord of David, but the Lord of all mankind? We may account for the effect the question produced on the minds of the Jews, if we confider, that being totally ignorant

(g) P. 19. 20.

of

1

of the nature of the Meffiah's kingdom, it was impoffible for them to determine in what refpe&t he was the Lord of David.

Our faviour's own words confirm this explanation. David, he says, calls him Lord in fpirit, by which we are to understand the spirit of prophecy a certain proof that he was not his Lord at the time he wrote the prophecy, which he would have been had he then exifted as the Son of God. All he intended was, that the office of the Meffiah would be of fuch a nature, that he might properly be called the Lord of David, whenever he should be born into the world.

After this argument, on which Mr. Hawker profeffes to lay no stress, he proceeds to the confideration of the question, What think ye of Christ, whofe fon is he? (h) And here he afks, " Is he, according to the opinion of our modern Unitarians, fimply no other than a man, or, agreeable to the doctrine of the established church, is he the Son of God?" Now what will thofe of his readers, who are unacquainted with the principles of the Unitarians, conclude from this, but that we deny Jefus Chrift to be the Son of God? This I affure them is far from being the cafe. We as firmly believe

(h) Page 20.

lieve that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God as Mr. Hawker. We are not, however, with him of opinion, that because Jefus is called the Son of God, he poffeffes a divine nature. These are diftin&t points, which, throughout his obfervations on this part of the fubject, Mr. Hawker has overhaftily and unwarily confounded. To avoid obfcurity, I will ftate, in the first place, what appears to me to be the fcriptural fenfe of the phrafe, Son of God, as applied to Jefus Chrift; after which I will examine that part of the argument which may be fuppofed to prove that because he is fo ftiled, he must be of the fame nature with his Father.

In the first place, Jefus Chrift, in the New Teftament, is called the Son of God, on account of his miraculous conception and birth. Luke I. 35. And the angel anfwered and faid unto her, The Holy Ghoft fhall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest fhall overfhadow thee: therefore allo that holy thing, which fhall be born of thee, fhall be called the Son of God. Here, fays Mr, Hawker, is an express and positive reafon affigned why Jefus is called the Son of God. From the Holy Ghoft coming upon Mary, and the power of the Higheft over fhadowing her; by which our bleffed Lord deriving his exiftence in the flesh from a Divine Power, and without the intervention of an human father, he was truly and properly C called