Thursday, March 7, 2019

Saul and the Witch of Endor (1869 Article)


SAUL'S INTERVIEW WITH THE WITCH OF ENDOR, article in the Methodist Quarterly Review 1869
I SAMUEL XXVIII, 8-20.

See also The Occult Spirit World & the Bible - 170 Books on DVDrom

The practice of witchcraft and necromancy is of ancient origin. We trace it back through the mists of antiquity as far as to the patriarchal age, and even then its beginning reaches on into a remoter past. But whatever its origin, and whatever the real nature of its mysteries, it is every-where treated with sternest denunciation by the law of God. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exod. xxii, 18. "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them." Lev. xix, 31. "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." Deut. xviii, 10-12. In this last passage a necromancer is distinguished from a consulter with familiar spirits, but one person might practice many forms of witchcraft, so that a consulter with familiar spirits might also be a necromancer. Accordingly we find the Witch of Endor pretending to hold intercourse with the dead, though she is called a woman that had a familiar spirit. The primary sense of the Hebrew word (ni») translated familiar spirit is a skin-bottle, and is so rendered in Job xxxii, 19. The Septuagint renders it by "a ventriloquist", in reference, perhaps, to the manner in which persons of this craft uttered their responses. Hence Furst defines the word as "the hollow belly of conjurers, in which the conjuring spirit resides, and speaks hollow, as if out of the earth."

Saul's interview with the Witch of Endor has ever been regarded as a subject beset with peculiar difficulties. Justin Martyr and Origen held that, by the incantations of the Witch the spirit of Samuel actually appeared and conversed with Saul. Modern Spiritism has also affirmed that the Witch was a medium through whom the King of Israel received communications from the Prophet's spirit. But the majority of the older expositors, and some few moderns, believing it absurd to suppose that a holy prophet could be made to rise from the dead by the ministry of witchcraft, regard the supposed apparition as Satan personating Samuel. "It was not till the seventeenth century," says Keil, "that the opinion was expressed that the apparition of Samuel was merely a delusion produced
by the Witch, without any real background at all. After Reginald Scotus and Balthazar Bekker had given expression to this opinion, it was more fully elaborated by Antonius Van Dale, (1683;) and in the so-called age of enlightenment this was the prevailing opinion, so that Thenius still regards it as an established fact, not only that the woman was an impostor, but that the historian himself regarded the whole thing as an imposture." The prevailing opinion of modern divines is, that not by the magic arts of the Witch, but contrary to her expectations, and by the express permission and command of God, the Prophet Samuel actually appeared and spoke to Saul.

On the moral character of witchcraft there can be no controversy. It has ever been associated with venality and fraud, and bears the condemnation of God's holy law. We are driven, therefore, to adopt one of two conclusions. The mysteries of divination are certain psychological phenomena not yet fully explained by thorough scientific investigation, but of which Satan has taken advantage to deceive and lead captive the souls of men; or else, they are wrought by the immediate supernatural agency of Satan and his angels. This latter alternative we are slow to accept. We gather from the Holy Scriptures that the evil spirit is so limited to a certain definite sphere of operation that he is never allowed to use supernatural power to mislead where there is only human capacity to resist. Much more plausible, therefore, is the supposition that the marvelous feats of magic and witchcraft have a physiological and psychological basis in the human constitution.

Careful and continued investigations in Clairvoyance have, within the last century, shed much light on the mysteries of magic. We know that men have charmed serpents and serpents have charmed men. Why, then, should we doubt that man can charm man? We cannot doubt it, for the thing has often been done, and it has been shown beyond successful contradiction that, in accordance with certain laws of our being, one person can so fascinate another, and place himself in such electrical rapport with his soul, as to become sensible of what he feels or imagines. This power, however, exists in different degrees. Some persons it seems impossible to mesmerize at all, or at most only by long-continued efforts on the part of the operator; others are highly susceptible to mesmeric operations, and are easily thrown into a clairvoyant state. Others, again, have the rare power of spontaneously inducing upon themselves the clairvoyant state, and then seem to revel at pleasure amid the things that belong to the spiritual world. In this state some, with their eyes closed and bandaged, will accurately describe persons and places that are far away, and that could have been known to them at the time only by some inner sight. Now by coming in direct sensational contact with the soul of another, the superior clairvoyant becomes cognizant of the emotions that are agitating there. By the power of an inner vision he sees in that soul the images and impressions that are deeply wrought on the imagination and memory.

The limits and design of this dissertation preclude any attempt at a physiological and psychological explanation of clairvoyance. But the facts by which the above statements may be sustained are all but innumerable, and will not be questioned by those who have given the subject a proper examination. These facts cannot be without cause, and there must be some clue to the mystery that surrounds them. We believe that the only successful way to refute and put to silence the pretensions of witchcraft is, not by denying her well-authenticated facts, and in the spirit of Popish bigotry persecuting all attempts at their scientific investigation, but by showing that all her lying wonders in the past are traceable to a foul and unholy use of powers peculiar to certain constitutions, but which were not at the time understood. It fell not within the province of divine revelation to communicate scientific instruction on this or any other subject, and therefore we are not to look to the Bible for an exposition of any problem in nature which it is the proper province of science to explain. But between the revelations of the Bible and of science there can be no real antagonism, for they are both, offspring of the everlasting Father.

We understand that the Witch of Endor was a clairvoyant of extraordinary power; that she could spontaneously place herself in sensational intercourse with the souls of those who came to inquire of her; and that with this power she united the practice of lying and deceit as she found occasion to serve her own dark purposes. We hope to show by fair and worthy criticism, that, upon this hypothesis, the narrative before us is capable of a happy and consistent explanation; and at the proper places in the course of the discussion, we shall urge what we regard as insuperable objections to the commonly received interpretation, which assumes an actual appearance of Samuel.

A preliminary question, worthy of a passing notice, is, How did the writer of this book of Samuel become acquainted with the facts which he has here recorded? There are two supposable ways. He could have received his information by immediate revelation from the Holy Spirit, or from the testimony of eye-witnesses. There are things recorded in the holy Scriptures which could have been learned only by direct revelation from Heaven; but where the things recorded are of such a nature as not to need a miraculous revelation to communicate them, we have no sufficient reason to believe that such a revelation was given. We therefore conclude that our author received his information originally from the two men (verse 8) who accompanied Saul to Endor, and were undoubtedly eye and ear witnesses of all that happened to him there.

The sacred writer introduces the narrative by reminding his readers of a fact already recorded in the previous history, that Samuel was dead and buried. He also informs us of an act of Saul's reign not recorded elsewhere, by which all persons addicted to the divining art had been driven out of the land of Israel. This had been done in accordance with the law, (Exod. xxii, 18 ; Lev. xx, 27,) and perhaps by the advice of the Prophet Samuel at an early period of Saul's reign. The deadly persecution had caused all witches that could escape to flee from the land, or else hide themselves in dark places of the wilderness. One female necromancer had concealed herself in the caverns at Endor,* and her dark retreat was known to some of Saul's servants.

In order to appreciate the wretched and abandoned state of Saul at the time of his intercourse with the woman at Endor, we should glance back for a moment over the misfortunes which befell him after his first transgression at Gilgal. Chap, xiii. At that time the Prophet announced to him that his kingdom should not be established in his posterity, but be given to one who had a better heart than he. And yet in the war with Amalek another fair trial was given him, and again he showed himself stubborn and rebellious. Chap. xv. Then Samuel uttered against him the final oracles of judgment: "Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he also hath rejected thee from being king." And as the venerable Prophet turned to leave him, Saul, seized by sudden fear and trembling, violently grasped the skirt of his mantle, and it rent in his h ands. Using the imagery thus afforded, Samuel immediately said to Saul, "The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine that is better than thou." This was the last interview with Saul that Samuel ever had; (verse 35;) for though Saul afterward came into Samuel's presence at Ramah, (chap, xix, 24,) and prophesied f before him, they had no intercourse with each other.

From the time of Samuel's last interview with him the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul. Chap, xvi, 14. The divine influences of which he had been made a partaker at the beginning of his career, (see chap, x, 10; xi, 6,) were withdrawn from him, and God no longer inspired him to noble enterprises. Then "an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him." A demon, sent by command of the Almighty, like those so often mentioned in the New Testament, entered into him, and took possession of his soul. But while he thus became possessed by a supernatural evil power, it is very likely that a mental disease, bordering on insanity, was the substratum on which the evil spirit worked. After Samuel's last words of judgment the King could not be happy in his kingdom. The more he thought upon his doom the more it harrowed up his soul. It was, perhaps, his highest ambition to be the father of a race of kings, and to have this hope suddenly dashed from him was to have darkness settle over all his life. "The Hebrew mind," says Kitto, "so linked itself to the future by the contemplation of posterity, that it is scarcely possible to us, with our looser attachment to the time beyond ourselves, to apprehend in all its intensity the deep distress of mind with which any Hebrew, and much more a king, regarded the prospect that there would be

'No son of his succeeding.'"

Saul's future thus became full of ghostly images, and when, disengaged at times from the excitements of war and the cares of government, he sat down to think over his darkened fortunes, his mind and heart, forsaken of all divine influences from Jehovah, became an easy prey to foul suspicions and gloomy fears—a most inviting state for demoniacal possession. The evil spirit, entering and reveling amid these mental disorders, carried him at times to the wildest height of madness and derangement.

We need not linger to trace onward the successive misfortunes of the unhappy Saul. They thoroughly convinced him . that his own reign must soon terminate, and he knew that David would succeed him. Chap, xxiv, 20; xxv, 25; compare also xxiii, 17. When now he saw the mighty host of the Philistines assemble and encamp at Shunem, armed and equipped for a most desperate battle, there fastened upon his soul the dark presentiment that his end was nigh. Fearful indeed must have been his emotions as the darkness of that last night gathered around him on the heights of Gilboa. All the dark past comes up before him, and the last solemn words of the departed Samuel seem to ring again upon his ear. Again in memory he stands at Gilgal, and again the image of the aged Samuel, wrapped in his mantle, rises up before him. What shall he do to relieve his burdened spirit? His physical strength is departing from him, for all day and all night thus far he has taken no nourishment. He calls around him. the most distinguished of Samuel's school of prophets, but they can give no comfort, for neither by vision nor by dream (Num. xii, 6) has Jehovah given them any message for Saul. One more resort for him is to inquire by the urim on the ephod of the high priest, a priest whom he had probably himself appointed in the room of the slaughtered Ahimelech. Chap, xxii, 18, But how could he expect an answer from that source when the blood of eighty-five priests was on his soul? To him all holy oracles are dumb, and he realizes the awful truth that he is God-forsaken. "I am sore distressed," he cries. "The Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more." Whatever dim and visionary hopes he may have cherished hitherto, all now are crushed, and the foul spirit that had formerly been driven from him by the magic power of David's harp again hovers about him and fills his imagination with ghostly specters. What shall he do? With fell purpose, and that impulsive rashness which was ever his easily-besetting sin, he resolves to take counsel of one who pretends to hold communion with the dead. Swept down by the raging cataract of accumulating woes, he still, like a drowning man, grasps at a straw. Surely no necromancer ever wished for a better subject to impose upon than was Saul when he approached the Witch of Endor.

Saul so carefully disguised himself that the woman did not recognize him when he came into her presence. Nothing could have been further from her thoughts than that the King of Israel, at that dark hour of midnight, and when the Philistine army lay between his camp and Endor, was presenting himself to inquire of her. The King made known his errand in language such as one who inquired of a necromancer would naturally use: "Divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me up whom I shall name unto thee." Her suspicions were at once aroused, and she charged him with laying a snare for her life. But Saul sware unto her by Jehovah that no harm should befall her; and when she asked him whom he would consult, he said, "Bring me up Samuel." What magic arts or incantations she proceeded to make use of we are not told; but the next utterance we have from her is one of excitement and alarm: "Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul."

How did the woman learn so soon that her guest was Saul? To this question the advocates of the common interpretation have failed to give any satisfactory answer. Some say that she inferred it from the venerable appearance of Samuel. But how could this be? There is no evidence that she had ever seen Samuel before; and even if she had, we fail to see how his mere appearance on this occasion could have convinced the Witch that it was Saul who inquired of her. Others say that she learned it from something that Samuel said. But as yet Samuel had not spoken. Rabbi Abrabanel supposes that when Samuel appeared he reverently bowed to Saul, from which the woman inferred that her consulter could be no less a person than the King of Israel. This supposition, however, is too absurd to need any refutation. But understand that the woman was a clairvoyant, and the answer to this question becomes easy and simple. This is acknowledged by Keil, the recent commentator, though in his exposition of the passage he teaches that Samuel actually appeared. He says, "Her recognition of Saul when Samuel appeared may be easily explained if we assume that the woman had fallen into a state of clairvoyance, in which she recognized persons who, like Saul in his disguise, were unknown to her by face."

But the writer says, "The woman saw Samuel." Yes, we reply; the clairvoyant of real power (and our interpretation assumes that the woman of Endor was such) can place herself in such electrical or sensational rapport with another's soul as to become cognizant of what is imaged there, and in this way the woman of Endor not only learned who her distinguished consulter was, but she saw prominent among the images that were pictured on his excited imagination the venerable form of the mantled Samuel. She saw him just as he appeared to Saul the last time, and just as his stern and threatening form had haunted that monarch's soul for many years.

The mass of interpreters have strangely assumed that the woman's alarm and outcry must have been caused by the sudden and unexpected appearance of Samuel. She saw Samuel, indeed, and the manner in which she saw him in Saul's excited soul was one means of her recognizing Saul. But her own words most clearly show that her alarm was not at the sight of Samuel, but at finding that the very monarch of Israel had himself detected her in her sorceries. We understand that the alarm of the woman was so great at her recognizing Saul that she came out of her clairvoyant state. What she had now seen in that one vision of Saul's soul was a sufficient basis for her to devise and utter the responses which follow, and which pretend to come from Samuel.

The King was convinced that she had seen some marvelous sight, and after quieting her fears, he asked her what she saw. She replied, "I saw gods ascending out of the earth." The word "gods," is somewhat indefinite, and by it she may have meant one thing and he have understood another. But did she see gods? We must remember that these words are the sayings of a witch, and she alone, not the writer of them, nor the interpreter, is responsible for their truth. Whether true or false, we regard them as a part of the devices by which she sought to terrify and impose upon Saul and his servants. But we have every reason to believe that at the moment she became clairvoyant Saul's soul was full of ghostly fears. Dark specters haunted his imagination, and he expected every moment to see some strange apparition start up in horrid reality before him. As she looks in upon this disordered state of his soul, and sees these ghostly pictures pass like so many shadows, over his wild imagination, she aptly describes the sight as that of gods coming up out of the earth.

Then Saul asked, "What is his form?" He uses the singular "his form," though the Witch had spoken in the plural, of "gods." She probably alluded to the ghostly specters which she saw in his imagination, of which the image of Samuel was the most prominent; but he, expecting to see the dead Samuel arise, or hear him speak, conceived in his soul the image of that Prophet as he last appeared to him. The clairvoyant having seen that form altogether prominent in his imagination proceeds to describe the god. "An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle." The King could not conceive of Samuel except in connection with that mantle whose skirt he laid hold of and rent when the Prophet uttered against him the last bitter oracle of judgment. 1 Sam, xv, 27.

“And Saul perceived that it was Samuel.” Observe, it is not said that Saul saw Samuel. He formed his opinion entirely from the woman's words. She described the form of Samuel exactly as he appeared at Gilgal—an old man wearing a mantle—and from this description, not from actual sight, he "knew" that it was Samuel. So overpowering was the impression thus made upon his mind, and so awe-struck was he with the thought of the Prophet's presence, that “he stooped with his face to the ground and bowed himself.”

“And Samuel said to Saul.” Did, then, Samuel actually speak? We understand that as the Witch did all the seeing for Saul, so also she did all the speaking to him. She was the medium both of sight and sound. The Septuagint version calls her a ventriloquist, and she may have caused her voice to sound from some dark corner, so that Saul and his servants believed it to be the voice of Samuel. But it is not necessary to suppose this. Saul unquestionably believed that the woman was holding intercourse with the real Samuel, and reporting to him what Samuel said. And so any one, who sought unto the dead in this way, though he saw and heard the necromancer utter the communication with her own lips, if he believed that it came from the person sought would naturally speak of it in this way. So when Saul's servants afterward reported this interview they would naturally say, “Samuel said to Saul;” not “the woman said to Saul;” for they undoubtedly believed that the communication came from Samuel.

It should here be observed how perfectly non-committal the sacred historian is in recording this mysterious transaction. He records the whole matter precisely as it was reported to him by the two eye-witnesses, and these witnesses reported it precisely as it appeared to them. We believe that Saul's servants were imposed upon and deceived. They believed that Samuel had spoken to their King; but the sacred writer expresses no opinion in the case. He may have believed their report as they did, but he does not say so. And in this respect the sacred writers are all in striking harmony. They never commit themselves to any explanation of the mysteries which they record. They represent the magicians of Egypt as working miracles in opposition to Moses, but they make no attempt to indicate or explain the nature of those miracles. Nor need we suppose that they themselves had any settled opinions in the case. They recorded many things which they did not understand, and though they may have inquired and searched diligently into their nature, the Holy Spirit has signally preserved them from expressing their own conclusions.

Thus far, then, we find no evidence that Samuel actually appeared. The words "Samuel said to Saul" necessarily imply at most only that Saul and his two servants believed and reported that Samuel had actually spoken. Who can show that the words must necessarily mean more? The narrative also very clearly teaches that Saul himself saw nothing. He believed from the woman's representation of her vision that Samuel was there, but he saw him not. We have also observed that the woman's alarm was caused by her recognition of Saul, not by the appearance of Samuel. But while we find no evidence of an actual appearance of Samuel, there are several considerations which convince us that that holy Prophet had no personal connection at all with this affair at Endor. First, the manner of his appearance. He is represented as an old man, coming up out of the earth, and covered with a mantle. If now he really came from Paradise, it is passing strange that he should have appeared in this way. Can we well believe that a sainted prophet would return from the world of glory, bearing the marks of decrepitude and age, and wearing again the cast-off garments of his mortality? And is it not more natural to suppose that he would have appeared, not as coming up out of the earth, but as coming down from above? Another more weighty consideration is the time and occasion of his appearance—after Jehovah had refused to answer Saul by urim and by prophets, and apparently through the medium of a witch! It has often been said that Samuel appeared at the command of God, and not by any instrumentality of the Witch, but this statement is utterly destitute of support from the narrative. The woman herself confessed that her alarm was at recognizing Saul, not at seeing Samuel. We have also noticed that she did all the seeing. She saw the gods ascending; she saw the old man with the mantle; and it was only after she told her vision that Saul knew (not saw) that it was Samuel. Therefore, they who affirm that Samuel appeared to Saul, or that he came contrary to the woman's expectations, and not by her sorcery, have the whole narrative against them. Consider then the utter absurdity of maintaining that, after the law had uttered its heaviest execrations against all forms of witchcraft, and after Jehovah had refused to answer Saul by urim, by prophets, and by dreams, the Holy One then sent Samuel from heaven to answer him through the agency of a miserable witch!

Still another consideration at war with the supposition that Samuel actually appeared and spoke on this occasion, is the nature of the communication itself which pretends to come from him. A careful examination of his words will show that he uttered nothing worth calling a saint from heaven to tell, nothing which the woman might not, under the circumstances, and having the excited soul of Saul unvailed to her inner sense, have most naturally devised to awe and terrify the King, and perfect upon him her imposition. Let us examine the language.

The first utterance is unworthy of a holy prophet sent on a mission of God from the land of the blest: "Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up?" The Hiphil of the verb, in every place where it occurs, signifies to disturb, disquiet, or alarm. In Job xii, 6, it is rendered provoke. The common interpretation affirms that Samuel rose from the dead by special permission and express command of God. How, then, could the Prophet truthfully say that Saul had disturbed him? Can it be aught but a pleasure for any of the saints in light to obey Jehovah's orders? Or if the order be supposed to involve a, painful duty, would it not be rebellion for the servant to complain? How absurd, in the light of Christian truth, to imagine the sainted Samuel coming at the command of God from the world of spirits, and angrily complaining to Saul that he had disquieted him! Surely the question savors more of the theology of heathenism than of Holy Scripture, and is explicable only when regarded as a device of the witch to awe and subject to her own will the soul of Saul.

We pass to the next utterance: "Wherefore dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?" It required no prophet to rise from the dead to suggest this question to the God-forsaken King; and if we regard it as any thing more than another device of the woman to increase Saul's terror, we involve ourselves in the absurdity, already presented above, of supposing that after Jehovah had in his law condemned all seeking unto necromancers, and after he had refused to answer the King by urim and by prophets, he nevertheless disturbed a holy prophet from his rest in heaven, and suffered him to rise from the dead apparently as if forced up against his will by the arts of witchcraft!

If, now, the reader will turn to chapter xv, which contains the account of Samuel's last interview with Saul, he will find that the following words are in substance a repetition of verses 18, 26, and 28 of that chapter: "The Lord hath done for himself as he spake by me; for the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbor, even to David; because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day." Now we submit whether any expositor has ever shown or can show a worthy reason for Samuel's coming from Abraham's bosom to repeat these words to Saul, who already had them deeply imprinted on his memory. If Lazarus could not revisit the world to warn the living of their danger because they had Moses and the Prophets, (Luke xvi, 31,) still less can we suppose that a sainted prophet would be permitted to return and repeat to an incorrigible transgressor the very oracles of his earthly ministry.

Next follows the only utterance of all this pretended communication of Samuel that seems to indicate superhuman knowledge: "The Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines, and to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me; the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines." If there is any thing in the entire passage that looks like a communication from a supernatural source it is here. But where, in this prediction, is there involved any conceivable object of sufficient importance to Saul or to any one else to call Samuel from the spirit-world to tell? Dr. Clarke says that "Samuel did actually appear to Saul; and that he was sent by the especial mercy of God to warn this infatuated king of his approaching death, that he might have an opportunity to make his peace with his Maker." But there is no shadow of evidence that Samuel actually appeared to Saul at all; and if such an unusual effort had been made by the mercy of God to secure Saul's conversion before his death, is it not passing strange that no intimation either of its success or failure is anywhere given us in the word of God? Then we may observe that the words "thou and thy sons shall be with me" are somewhat open to suspicion. It is usually understood that the words with me refer to the state of the dead generally, and were spoken in accordance with the ideas of that age; but we submit whether a holy prophet, fresh from Paradise, who must have known that in that world there was a great and impassable gulf between the righteous and the wicked, (Luke xvi, 26,) would have expressed himself in this way. If Saul died in his sins, as we have every reason to suppose, how was he, a vile transgressor, to become at once associated with the sainted prophet? Jesus said to the dying thief, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise;" but we have evidence of the thiefs repentance and conversion, none whatever of Saul's. In 1 Chronicles x, 13, we read, "Saul died for his transgression ... and also for asking by a familiar spirit to inquire." How could this be according to Clarke's opinion? Punished with death for inquiring at a source whence he received revelations which enabled him "to make his peace with his Maker" before death, and attain to everlasting life!

Finally we ask, what is there in this prediction more wonderful than what many a second-rate fortune-teller of modern times, under the same circumstances, might have told? The woman saw all Saul's despair and terror. He himself had said in her presence, "I am sore distressed: for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more." She knew that the Philistines had every probability of victory on the morrow, and it is highly probable that Saul had the dark presentiment of his own death mirrored in his soul. This presentiment a clairvoyant might have seen. She might have discerned in the tendencies of Saul's emotional nature a settled purpose to commit suicide rather than fall a living prey into the hands of the uncircumcised Philistines. She might also have seen in that soul-picture the image of the monarch's sons. For them he trembled as well as for his kingdom, and the bitterest drop in his cup of sorrows was the prospect that his name and lineage would be cut off. Chap, xxiv, 21. She might have been persuaded that warriors like Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchi-shua were no more likely to survive defeat than their father. Look now at all these things which the woman had before her, and where is there aught exceedingly wonderful in this announcement? In such a crisis as was sure to come upon the morrow, Saul's own death could hardly be uncertain. This had possibly become a foregone conclusion in his own mind, and had driven him in such madness of despair to inquire of one that had a familiar spirit.

We conclude, then, that this pretended communication from Samuel contains nothing worth calling a sainted prophet from heaven to declare, and some parts of it are unworthy of such an origin. It contains nothing which the woman might not, under the circumstances, have told, and it is most easily explicable when regarded as a part of her devices to awe and terrify the King.

We need not linger to comment on the events that followed this interview, or on the overwhelming effect that it had on Saul. We have endeavored to give a more satisfactory solution of the difficulties of this portion of Scripture than the common interpretation affords us, and we apprehend opposition only from those who scoff at the words Clairvoyance and Mesmerism, and without proper examination deny all their alleged facts and wonders, and cry them down as delusion and deviltry. That there has been any amount of fraud practiced by the devotees of Mesmerism is a fact abundantly well known, but that there are also numberless facts, put beyond all question by hundreds of careful and most inquisitive witnesses—facts as mysterious and wonderful, if not as celebrated, as this interview of Saul with the Witch of Endor—no intelligent person, who has carefully examined the subject, can deny. Indeed, what a tremendous power have the mysteries of divination exerted over the human heart in all the ages past. How large a chapter of human history would it require to record them all! To affirm that these are all the immediate works of the devil, and not in any form to be meddled with by men, is in one sense to surrender to the Evil One and pay him reverence. If the mysteries in question lay beyond the sphere of human history and experience, the Christian might indeed be content to let them alone; but since they are interwoven with human experience in every age, it is exceedingly important that their real nature be shown. They who cry down all attempts to explain these mysterious phenomena are helping on the triumphs of the devil. They say, in effect, that here at least Satan has all the advantage, and we must sound a retreat before him. But if we show that these mysteries of witchcraft have their explanation in peculiar physiological and psychological phenomena of the human constitution, which have been hitherto misunderstood, we at once gain a noble triumph over our ancient foe, and drive the Prince of darkness from a throne of power over the human heart, where he has too long held undisputed empire.


For a list of all of my disks, with links, go to https://sites.google.com/site/gdixierose/ or click here

Monday, March 4, 2019

Is the Spirit a Person? by William Greenleaf Eliot 1853


Is the Spirit a Person? by William Greenleaf Eliot 1853

God is a Spirit- John iv. 24.

My subject this evening is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Last Sunday I attempted to show that the doctrine of the Divine Unity, unqualified and undivided, is taught by the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures; that God is our Father, and that the Father is the only true God, – the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the foundation on which we rest our faith.

Those who impugn this doctrine, or who modify it by a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, attempt to prove that Christ, the Son of God, is equal with the Father, and, in some sense, the same with the Father; also, that the Spirit of God has a personality and attributes, separate from God the Father and God the Son. Having thus asserted these points separately, they join them together, under a modified doctrine of the Divine Unity, as a Trinity of persons in one God. The most important step in their argument is to prove the Deity of Christ, that is, his equality or identity with the Father, and it might naturally be expected that this would form the next subject of our inquiry. Such is the usual course; but I have two reasons for departing from it by taking the doctrine of the Holy Spirit first. In the first place, I think that sufficient prominence is not given to this doctrine in the Trinitarian controversy. It is too often taken for granted, or accepted with almost no proof. Trinitarians, if they can satisfy themselves of the Deity of Christ, consider that their whole work is done. Very few are aware upon what slender proof the separate personality of the Holy Spirit rests. Very few are aware of what is the fact, that this doctrine was not even asserted in the Christian Church, nor made a part of the creed, until the end of the fourth century, by the Council of Constantinople. I wish this to appear; both that the importance of the doctrine, and the difficulty of receiving it in any other way than that in which we receive it, may be known.

I wish it to appear that the Scripture language concerning the Holy Spirit confirms our view of the Unity; that no doctrine of the Holy Spirit can be found such as is necessary to establish the Trinity. If I can succeed in this, we shall then come to the consideration of Christ's nature, with a strong presumption that our view of him is correct; for I think that, if it plainly appears that a third person in the Trinity cannot be proved, very few persons will undertake to prove the second, and the doctrine of the Divine Unity will therefore become more impregnable.

I take this course also for another reason. There is no subject upon which Unitarians are more misrepresented than this of the Holy Spirit. Because we deny a separate personality, we are thought to deny the Holy Spirit itself, that is, to reject all belief in divine influences for the regeneration of the heart and guidance of the life. Many persons hold to the doctrine of the Trinity because they suppose that its denial would involve an error like this. They shrink from the Unitarian belief for the same reason. They feel the necessity of those heavenly influences which are the workings of the divine spirit, and from their faith in such influences their chief enjoyment in religion proceeds. Shall they give it up? Even if overthrown in argument, shall they yield all the blessedness of their religion? We say no. If such were the alternative, let the doctrine of the Trinity be adhered to, with or without proof. The necessity of the heavenly influence which the heart acknowledges would be proof enough.

But there is no such alternative. To deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, separate from that of the Father, is not to deny the Holy Spirit itself. So far as the doctrine is a practical one, or of any practical importance in the formation of the religious character, all Christians are agreed upon it. In God we live and move and have our being. He works within us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. He is more ready to give his Holy Spirit to those that ask him, than an earthly parent is to bestow good things upon his children. But all this is as true to the Unitarian as to the Trinitarian. Indeed, it seems to me more true; for we believe that the gift comes directly from a Father's love. There is no intermediate doctrine of a third person to confuse the thoughts. When we pray to the Heavenly Father, we feel that we are in living communion with him and he with us.

The Greek word translated Spirit in the New Testament is Pneuma, the literal meaning of which is wind or breath. The corresponding word in the Old Testament has the same meaning. Both words occur very frequently in this sense. When applied to God, or to any intelligent being, they are commonly translated Spirit, sometimes by the word Ghost, which, as you know, had exactly the same meaning at the time when the translation of the Bible was made. To give up the ghost is the parting of the spirit from the body, and the Holy Ghost is only another name for Holy Spirit. The Greek or Hebrew word is exactly the same in both cases. Now the question in controversy is, What does this term Holy Spirit mean according to Scripture usage? Is it a person in the Godhead separate from the Father, or is it intended to express as its general meaning the influences which proceed from the Father? This question must be decided by a careful examination of the Scripture.

There are three principal uses of the term Holy Spirit when applied to God in the Scripture which we must examine. 1. Sometimes it means God himself; 2. Sometimes the power, or some other attribute, of God; and 3. Sometimes (which is the most common use) the various influences which proceed from God.

First: It is sometimes used as another expression for God himself, just as the spirit of man is sometimes used for the man himself. Of this we have an instance in 1 Cor. ii. 11, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” As we should not think of saying that the spirit of man is here any thing but the man himself, so the Spirit of God is God himself. So it is said, Ps. cxxxix. 7, “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there”; where the phrase “thy Spirit” evidently means the same as thy presence, or thyself. Again, Isa. xl. 13, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?” where the Spirit of the Lord evidently means the Lord himself. This is in accordance with the words of our text, “God is a Spirit.”

The only intelligent idea that we can form of God the Father is of a spiritual being, or of an infinite mind, partly made manifest to us through his wonderful works. Just as our idea of a man is chiefly that of a spirit or soul, which for the present is joined to the body as the means of its development. In both cases the idea is indistinct and imperfect. We cannot perfectly apprehend the nature of spiritual existence, and in our efforts to do so we may easily become puzzled. But so far as we have any distinct conception of the being of God the Father, we think of him as an infinite, omnipresent Spirit. How much, then, is our difficulty increased, and how hopeless does the confusion of our minds become, when we try to think of a Spirit of God, having a personal existence separate from God the Father! For if the Father is himself a Spirit, it is to speak of the Spirit of a Spirit, and in fact conveys no idea to the mind. But if in such cases we take the Spirit of God as another expression for God himself, there is no difficulty.


The second use of the term “Spirit of God” is to express God's power, or some other attribute. When the Saviour said, Matt. xii. 28, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils,” he meant by the power of God; as we find in the corresponding passage by another Evangelist, Luke xi. 20, “If I by the finger of God cast out devils”; in both cases meaning exactly the same. So in Luke i. 35, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,” the exercise of the Divine power is intended.

Such modes of expression are quite common in the Bible. They are intended simply to express the exertion of God's power. Whatever God himself does, he is said to do by his spirit, or by his word, or by his hand, or by the breath of his mouth; all of which means substantially the same thing. See, for example, Job xxvi. 12, “He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud. By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.” Or in Ps. xxxiii. 6, “By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath or Spirit of his mouth; he spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast.” All such language is perfectly intelligible if we receive it as different modes of expressing the exercise of God’s power and wisdom; but if in such language we try to find evidence that the Spirit of God is a person separate from God the Father, it all becomes obscure. We might as well attribute personality to the Finger or the Hand of God. Here also, as before, the natural use of language leads us to the more intelligible doctrine.

There is one other principal use of the term Holy Spirit, to which I have referred. It is that which means the Holy Influence of the Deity on the minds of his servants, with the accompanying gifts and powers. This is by far the most common use of the term in the Bible, – perhaps in nine cases out of ten where it occurs. It is a use which confirms our view of the doctrine in dispute, and I think is inconsistent with any other. While I read a few of the passages, I would ask your close attention, that you may decide for yourselves upon this point, to which doctrine the language is most favorable. The Scripture says, that the Holy Spirit was “put within” Moses; that the spirit of the Lord was “put upon” the prophets, and other inspired persons; that the spirit of the Lord “fell upon” Ezekiel; that to the Apostles the Holy Spirit was “partially given,” but that to Christ it was “given without measure”; that they “received” the Holy Spirit; they were “baptized” with the Holy Spirit and with fire; they were “supplied” with the spirit of Christ, and were made “partakers” of it. The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, was “poured out” or “shed forth” both on Jews and Gentiles. Believers were “sealed” with the Holy Spirit of promise. Jesus “breathed on them,” and said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” In Luke xi. 13 it is said, “How much more shall the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him”; and in the parallel passage, Matt. vii. 11, the words are, “How much more shall your Heavenly Father give good things to them that ask him”; so that the Holy Spirit in this case is the same with the “good things,” or the spiritual blessings, promised. We are taught to “walk in” the spirit, and that the “fruit of the spirit” is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, and the like.

There are two instances in which the descent of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by a visible demonstration. Both of them are referred to as a proof of the personality of the Spirit of God, separate from the Father. They are undoubtedly the strongest instances to that effect which can be alleged. The first of them is at the baptism of Jesus, and the second at the day of Pentecost. In the former, it is said that “the Spirit of God descended like a dove, lighting upon Jesus, and a voice came from heaven saying, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” It was an outward token of God’s approbation; the visible appointment of Christ as the Messiah. It was to this that the Apostle referred when he said, speaking of this very incident, “That God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” Acts x, 38. Observe that expression, which is used as descriptive of Christ's baptism: “That God anointed him with the Holy Spirit.” Is it not perfectly inapplicable to the idea of separate personality?

The other instance is at the day of Pentecost, of which we find similar language used. The event is described by Peter as the pouring out of God's Spirit, and he declares that “Jesus, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, had shed forth that which was seen and heard.” And he exhorts his hearers to “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the promise of which had been made to them.” You will observe how strongly all this language confirms the view which we take of the doctrine, and how difficult to be reconciled with any other.

These, therefore, are the three meanings which belong to the “Holy Spirit,” according to Scripture usage: 1. It is sometimes only another expression for God himself, as the spirit of man is another expression, in some instances, for the man himself. 2. Sometimes it expresses the power of God, or some other attribute; as when we read, “By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens.” 3. Sometimes, which is the most common use, it means the spiritual blessings, or influences, or good things, which the Heavenly Father bestows upon those who ask him. We have no hesitation in asserting most positively, that there is no passage in the Bible in which the words may not be explained under one of these meanings. There is no passage in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a Self-existent, Almighty, or Omnipresent Person, distinct from the God and Father of Jesus Christ. But, on the contrary, the language is generally such that it cannot be spoken of a person at all, but must mean the influences which proceed from God the Father.

Upon what ground, then, are we required to renounce our belief in the Unity of God, or, at least, to modify it by the admission of a third person in the Godhead? The arguments are so few, that it will not take long to answer them.

I have already given the meaning of the words used in baptism, Matt. xxviii. 19, as expressing our belief in God as our Father, in Christ as our Redeemer, and in the Holy Spirit as the sanctifying influence which comes from God.

The only other text to which I need refer is found Rom. viii. 26: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth the mind of the Spirit, because it maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.” “It is surprising,” says Mr. Peabody, “that this text should ever have been quoted as favoring the idea of the supreme independent divinity of a Spirit, which intercedes, that is, offers prayer, of course to some superior being.” It is one of those texts which are difficult to explain, word for word, but of which the whole meaning is perfectly evident. The idea of the passage is, that “the devout soul, in all its infirmity and ignorance, will still be sustained, for it will still press to the mercy-seat; and that if it knows not what to ask for, and cannot shape its own supplications, God, knowing the earnestness and rectitude of its desires, will satisfy all its real wants.”

The principal argument for the separate personality of the Spirit is found in the four passages which I have read to you this evening from John xiv., xv., and xvi., in which the divine influences promised by Christ to his disciples are personified under the name of the Comforter. I think that if it can be shown that this personification does not, according to common Scripture usage, imply literal personality, very little argument will be left.

What is the Scripture usage in this respect? A brief examination will show us that no mode of expression is more common than that in which inanimate objects and qualities are spoken of as if they were living beings, having personal properties and performing personal actions. Thus, “the sea and the mountains are represented as having eyes; the earth as having ears; a song, a stone, an altar, water, and blood, the rust of gold and silver, are spoken of as witnesses. The sword and arm of Jehovah are addressed as individuals, capable of being roused from sleep. The ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteousness, and the blood of sprinkling, are exhibited as speakers; and destruction and death, as saying that they had heard with their ears. In the language of Holy Writ, the sun rejoiceth and knoweth his going down; the deep lifts up his hands, and utters his voice; the mountains skip like rams, the little hills like lambs; wisdom and understanding cry aloud, and put forth their voice; the heart and the flesh of the prophet cry out for the living God. The Scripture is a seer and preacher; the word of Jesus is a judge; nature, the heavens, the earth, are teachers. God's testimonies are counsellors, his rod and staff are comforters; the light and the truth, and the commandments of God, are leaders or guides. Sin is described as a master, and death as a king and an enemy. Flesh and the mind are treated of as having a will; fear and anger, mercy, light, and truth, the word and commandments of God, are exhibited as messengers. Charity is represented as in possession of all the graces and virtues of the Christian character.”” [Wilson's Illustrations.]

Such is the usage of Scripture. It is so common that I may almost call it universal. Some of the instances to which I have now referred are also much stronger as personifications than that in which the Holy Spirit is personified as the Comforter. For instance, if you will read the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, you will find that charity is spoken of as a living person, who “suffereth long and is kind, who envieth not, who seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” I refer you also particularly to the ninth chapter of the book of Proverbs.

It is evident, therefore, that personification is a very common figure of speech in the Scripture, and we are perfectly justified in this mode of interpreting those passages in which the influences of the Holy Spirit are called a Comforter. We can fully account for the language, without the necessity of supposing literal personality; and we are confirmed in this view, because we find that the Apostles regarded the “shedding abroad” of the divine influences at the day of Pentecost as a fulfilment of the Saviour's promise. (Acts ii. 33.) These influences were to them “the Comforter,” which brought all things to their remembrance, and qualified them to be the ministers of Christ.

It may perhaps still further confirm us in this view of the language, that, even if we should admit that the Comforter is a literal person, he is evidently not upon an equality with the Father or the Son; for he is given by the Father, he is sent by the Son, he is to speak only what he shall hear, he shall receive of Christ whatever he teaches; all of which expressions imply inferiority. And accordingly it is a fact in the history of the Church, that, for two hundred years after the personality of the Spirit was taught, his inferiority to the Father and to the Son was universally admitted. We feel justified, therefore, in rejecting the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit as a third Person in the Godhead. The Scriptures do not teach it, but just the contrary. We reject it as a human device, by which great confusion is introduced into our ideas concerning God, and which is of no practical utility. Let me again say, however, that we do not reject the true and Scriptural idea of the Holy Spirit. We believe in the reality and necessity of a Divine Influence in the soul, and upon it we place our chief dependence. Our prayer is, that the Spirit of God may guide us aright, so that our present seeking after the truth as it is in Jesus may be blessed to our eternal salvation.

Sunday, March 3, 2019

Unitarian History by John Hayward 1860


Those Christians who are usually designated by this name in the United States, and who are also called Liberal Christians, are mostly Congregationalists, and are found principally in New England.

They acknowledge no other rule of faith and practice than the holy Scriptures, which they consider it the duty of every man to search for himself, prayerfully, and with the best exercise of his understanding. They reject all creeds of human device, as generally unjust to the truth of God and the mind of man, tending to produce exclusiveness, bigotry, and divisions, and at best of doubtful value. They regard, however, with favor the earliest creed on record, commonly called the Apostles', as approaching nearest to the simplicity of the gospel, and as imbodying the grand points of the Christian faith.

They adopt the words of St. Paul, (1 Cor. 8:6,) “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” They make great account of the doctrine of God's paternal character and government, and continually set it forward as the richest source of consolation, and the most powerful motive to repentance and improvement.

Receiving and trusting in Christ as their Lord, Teacher, Mediator, Intercessor, Savior, they hold in less esteem than many other sects, nice theological questions and speculations concerning his precise rank, and the nature of his relation to God. They feel that by honoring him as the Son of God, they honor him as he desired to be honored; and that by obeying and imitating him, they in the best manner show their love.

They believe that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct person in the Godhead, but that power of God, that divine influence, by which Christianity was established through miraculous aids, and by which its spirit is still shed abroad in the hearts of men.

They advocate the most perfect toleration. They regard charity as the crowning Christian grace,—the end of the commandment of God. They consider a pure and lofty morality as not only inseparable from true religion, but the most acceptable service that man can render to his Maker, and the only indubitable evidence of a believing heart.

They believe that sin is its own punishment, and virtue its own rewarder; that the moral consequences of a man's good or evil conduct go with him into the future life, to afford him remorse or satisfaction; that God will be influenced in all his dealings with the soul by mercy and justice, punishing no more severely than the sinner deserves, and always for a benevolent end. Indeed, the greater part of the denomination are Restorationists.

Unitarians consider that, besides the Bible, all the Ante-Nicene fathers—that is, all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ—give testimony in their favor, against the modern popular doctrine of the Trinity. As for antiquity, it is their belief that it is really on their side.

In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which was written towards the close of the first century,—and the evidence for the genuineness of which is stronger than for that of any other of the productions attributed to the apostolical fathers,—the supremacy of the Father is asserted or implied throughout, and Jesus is spoken of in terms mostly borrowed from the Scriptures. He is once called the “sceptre of the majesty of God;” and this highly-figurative expression is the most exalted applied to him in the whole Epistle.

Justin Martyr, the most distinguished of the ancient fathers of the church, who flourished in the former part of the second century, and whose writings (with the exception of those attributed to the apostolic fathers) are the earliest Christian records next to the New Testament, expressly says, “We worship God, the Maker of the universe, offering up to him prayers and thanks. But, assigning to Jesus, who came to teach us these things, and for this end was born, the ‘second place’ after God, we not without reason honor him.”

The germ and origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Unitarians find in the speculations of those Christianized philosophers of the second century, whose minds were strongly tinctured with the Platonic philosophy, combined with the emanation system, as taught at Alexandria, and held by Philo. From this time they trace the gradual formation of the doctrine through successive ages down to Athanasius and Augustine; the former of whom, A. D. 362, was the first to insist upon the equality of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son; and the latter, about half a century afterwards, was the first to insist upon their numerical unity.

In all ages of the church, there have been many learned and pious men who have rejected the Trinity as unscriptural and irrational. The first attempt, at the council of Nice, to establish and make universal the Trinitarian creed, caused disturbances and dissensions in the church, which continued for ages, and produced results the most deplorable to every benevolent mind which exalts charity over faith.

Soon after the reformation, the Unitarian faith was avowed by Martin Cellarius, who was then finishing his studies at Wittenberg, where Luther was professor. In 1546, the Unitarian opinions made a considerable movement in Italy, and several persons of learning and eminence were put to death. In 1553, Michael Servetus was burned for this heresy, at Geneva. The elder Socinus made his escape from this persecution, and spread his views throughout several countries of Europe, more particularly in Poland, where a large part of the Reformed clergy embraced them, and were separated, in 1565, from the communion of the Calvinists and Lutherans.

In England, the number of Unitarians was considerable, according to Strype, as early as 1548; and in 1550, he represents the Unitarian doctrine as spreading so fast that the leading Churchmen were alarmed, and “thought it necessary to suppress its expression by rigid measures.” These “rigid measures,” such as imprisonment and burning, were successful for a time. But afterwards, the “heresy” gained new and able supporters, such as Biddle, Firmin, Dr. S. Clarke, Dr. Lardner, Whiston, Emlyn, Sir Isaac Newton, &c., and has been spreading to this day.

In the north of Ireland, the Unitarians compose several presbyteries. There are also congregations of Unitarians in Dublin, and in other southern cities of the kingdom.

In Scotland, there are chapels of this character in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other principal places.

In the United States, Unitarian opinions were not prevalent till towards the close of the last century. Since that time, however, they have advanced rapidly, and have been embraced by some of the wisest and best men in the land.

Of late years, the Congregational Unitarians have generally abstained from controversy, in the United States. They have, however, published and circulated extensively a large number of tracts, of a doctrinal and practical character. They have at the present time assumed a positive condition, gained a strong and permanent hold amongst the Christian sects, and are manifesting new signs of vitality and usefulness.

The following proof-texts are some of those upon which the Unitarians rest their belief in the inferiority of the Son to the Father:—John 8:17, 18. John 17:3. Acts 10:38 1 Tim. 2:5. 1 John 4:14. Rom. 8:34 1 Cor. 11:3. John 10:29. John 14:28. Matt. 19:17. John 17:21. John 20:17. 1 Cor. 8:5, 6. John 10:25; 7:16, 17, 8:28; 5:19, 20; 8:49, 50. Matt. 20:23. John 6:38, 57; 5:30. Mark 13:32. Luke 6:12. John 11:41, 42. Matt. 27:46. Acts 2:22-24. Phil. 2:11. Col. 1:15. Rev. 3:14. Heb. 3:3. Matt. 12:18. Luke 2:52.

Saturday, March 2, 2019

George Howard's "The Tetragram and the New Testament"


Someone has posted George Howard's article "The Tetragram and the New Testament" in the Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977) pgs. 63-83, at http://www.areopage.net/howard.pdf

Here is some of what he covers in the article:

He refers to several evidences that the Divine Name appeared in the earliest Septuagint manuscripts. For instance in the Papyrus Fouad 266 dating to the first or second century B.C. which included part of the Septuagint we see that YHWH was not translated as kyrios. Instead the Tetragrammaton itself—in square Aramaic letters—was written into the Greek text.

Greek fragments of Aquila translation of the OT show the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script written into the otherwise Greek text.

The Ambrosian Library of Milan has a manuscript containing parts of the Psalter to Origen's Hexapla (lacking the Hebrew column). All the columns show the Tetragrammaton written in square Aramaic script, although the texts are otherwise written in Greek.

Fragments of Psalm 22 from Origen's Hexapla show the Tetragrammaton written into the Greek columns of Aquila, Symmachus, and the Septuagint in the strange form of PIPI was used to represent with Greek letters what the Tetragrammaton looked like in the Hebrew.

Fragments from early in the first century C.E. of a scroll of the Twelve Prophets in Greek writes the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew in an\ otherwise Greek text.

At Qumran cave 4, a fragment (1 B.C.) of the Greek translation of Leviticus confirms that the divine name was preserved in the pre-Christian Septuagint. The Tetragrammaton is transliterated with the Greek letters IAO.

He then gives evidence that when later Christians translated the Tetragrammaton as either KYRIOS/KURIOS or THEOS/QEOS, they abbreviated these surrogates by writing only their first and last letters and by placing a line over them to denote a sacred name.

Howard says: "Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the Early church, it is reasonable to believe that the New Testament writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.

Somehow around beginning of the second century the use of surrogates must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments. In many passages where the persons of God and Christ were clearly distinguishable, the removal of the Tetragram must have created considerable ambiguity.

He argues that surrogates emerged shortly after the Apostolic age. And, since all extant manuscripts evidence is Post Apostolic. we should not expect to find the Divine name.

George Howard surmises, "This removal of the Tetragram, in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the 'Lord God' and the 'Lord Christ.'"

Friday, March 1, 2019

Trinitarianism Contradictory to Reason By J. S. Hyndman 1824


1 Timothy 2:5: "There is one God, and one mediator betnseen God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

TRINITARIANs do not deny that the unity of God is the doctrine of Scripture. They do deny, however, his personal unity, or that he is one intelligent being. They maintain that their sentiments are supported by positive assertions of Sacred Writ, and that the adoption of them is necessary to the salvation of mankind; and yet they themselves have engaged in the most violent disputes and entertained the most discordant opinions concerning the Trinity.

The Sabellians, whose doctrine received the sanction of the University of Oxford, maintain that in the Godhead there are not three distinct intelligent agents, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are only modes or relations of God to his creatures. Others who hold the subsistence of something different from unity in the Divine essence, yet maintain that it is impossible for us to comprehend what that something is. One thing they allow, that there cannot be absolutely three distinct persons in the Divine Being, taking these terms in any thing like their usual sense. Others with Bishop Burgess maintain, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are persons but not beings, while these three personal nonentities make one perfect being.

Some will have it, that the three persons of the Trinity are only parts of the Divine essence; while others, with Bishop Gastrell and Dr. Moysey, hold, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each individually includes the whole idea of God and something more, while all together they make up one complete God and nothing more. Some will have it, that the Son and Holy Spirit are absolutely eternal, unoriginated beings, while Dr. Horsley and his followers affirm, that the Father produced the Son by contemplating his own perfections; and creeds declare that the former is begotten from the Father, and that the latter proceeds from both. Dr. Watts and Bishop Burnett hold, that the Son and Holy Spirit are created beings, and are Gods only by the indwelling of the Father's Godhead.

Without attempting to travel through all these metaphysical labyrinths, which would be a task as impracticable as it would be useless, I shall refer only to the real Trinitarian system as contained in the Athanasian Creed, Now this doctrine, we maintain, implies contradictions and absurdities. It involves one of four different conclusions. First, that there are more Gods than one; or, second, that three beings and one being are identical; third, that there can exist more than one infinite being; or, fourth, that none of the persons of the Trinity is infinite. With respect to the first it may be observed, that when it is affirmed that "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God,” the term “God” used in the sentence must be understood in all its occurrences to express identically the same ideas. Here, then, in the most unequivocal manner it is stated that there are three Sovereigns of the universe, a doctrine which is directly inconsistent with the Christian system. Athanasius does indeed say that though each person in the Trinity is perfect God of himself, there is nevertheless but one God, But the assertion of Athanasius or any, one else cannot alter the intuitive perceptions of the human mind; and nothing certainly can be more evident to any one who attaches meaning to words, than that both propositions, cannot be true, that they are necessarily destructive the one of the other. There is no possible method of escaping from this dilemma without being involved in the second monstrous conclusion, viz. that three and one are identical terms.

For though it be affirmed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not more than one God, but are only persons in the one divine essence; yet it must be evident, that, unless the word ‘person' is used in some extraordinary sense, it follows from the statements of Trinitarians, that three persons constitute one person. A person, according to Locke and the apprehension of all mankind, is a thinking intelligent being, that can consider itself as itself. A divine person must consequently denote an intelligent being, possessed of all the attributes of Deity; and if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are each a person, the mathematical absurdity is produced-of three intelligent existences being one intelligent existence.

Nor does either the third, or the fourth conclusion less clearly and obviously flow from the statements of the Trinity given by its advocates. With respect to the former it may be observed, that if the Son, for example, the equal to the Father, he must separately and alone fill all space. Thus, we have not only the absurdity that there is a plurality of infinities, but also that the same space is filled and occupied by three beings in all respects the same, and equal each to each; or else we are necessitated to adopt the latter mentioned conclusion, that neither of these persons or beings is omnipresent; that they are each circumscribed in their existence, and severally occupy their own separate and proper portion of the measureless immensity of space.

A consequence of the same absurd notion necessarily follows from the statements of the orthodox with respect to the power of God. We ascribe infinite power to the Deity, because the very reasons which prove that such a being must exist, demonstrate with equal force that he must possess inherently in his constitution energies of irresistible might, adequate to the production of every possible effect. Now Trinitarianism, by affirming that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are each almighty, not only maintain the existence of what is unnecessary as well as impossible, but by affirming of the Father that he could not save his erring children from endless misery without the assistance of the Son to atone for their guilt— by affirming of the Son that he could not complete by his vicarious sacrifice the work of their salvation without the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost—and of the Holy Ghost, that his sanctifying influence could not have availed for the salvation of men without the interposition of the Son to turn aside by his meritorious death the vengeance-teeming hand of the incensed and inexorable Father— the conclusion is necessarily implied that there was something in the case of each of these persons which they could not do, something to which their powers were not competent. Neither of them, on this scheme, is almighty; and if the persons of the Trinity are not separately, almighty, the Godhead which they form when united cannot be almighty; for it were absurd to suppose that one infinitely powerful being could be formed by three beings whose respective and separate powers are finite, and limited.

Trinitarianism also involves the inconsistency of two persons besides the Father being infinite in existence, uncreated, and absolutely eternal, or else it derogates from the perfection and dignity of the Divine Being. And that it does the latter especially, Unitarians conceive to be very evidents indeed. Every notion of God which in any way excludes the self-existence of his being, is defective, and, withholds from him one of his highest and most distinguishing excellencies. Now the attribute of self-existence is indeed claimed for one of the persons of the Trinity, the Father; but it has generally been admitted by those whose notions have placed them highest on the scale of reputed orthodoxy that the Son is in some way indebted to the Father for his existence, it having been maintained by them in language wholly unintelligible to common minds and clearly self-contradictory, that he is begotten of the Father from everlasting; whilst the Holy Ghost is said to have derived his being from the Father, or from the Father and the Son, having proceeded from both, according to the received creeds of the churches of the west. Now whatever sense is to be put upon the expressions begotten and proceeding, if the words in their theological application have a meaning at all analagous to that which in the ordinary use of them they are understood to convey, they must import a derivation of being. They necessarily annihilate the idea of self-existence so far as relates to the two persons who are said respectively to have been begotten and to have proceeded. For whatever the Athanasian Creed may say to the contrary as to ‘none of the persons being afore or after the other,’ the intuitive perception of every mind will repel the sophistry, and will recognise as incontrovertible the principle, that the being who is generated and the being who proceeds must be subsequent in the order of time to the being by whom the one is generated and from whom the other proceeds. The attribute of self-existence cannot then in the nature of things belong to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Consequently the Godhead of which these two persons, who are confessedly dependant and derived, are essential parts, cannot upon the Trinitarian hypothesis be as a whole self-existent. [See “ Objections to the Doctrine of the Trinity," by Thomas Rees, LL. D. F. A. S. London, 1823.]

Can you, my brethren, think it quite right to admit into your creed the notion of a begotten God; a derived infinite essence; the identity of a Father and a Son; the possibility of the former not preceding the latter in point of time, and not being superior in dignity to him; one producing a part of himself, or rather himself absolutely— becoming cause and effect too, and so the copy giving being to the original; a father being the son of himself, and a son the father of himself? Can you, I say, give credence to a system that so obviously involves consequences so extravagant and absurd? Such a system carries on its front the motto of Plato's philosophy; and to those who prefer unintelligible and contradictory jargon to the simplicity of the Apostle's creed, I would only say, leave Unitarians to enjoy their own opinions without molestation, and excuse the weakness of their understandings, which not being able to attach distinct ideas to the terms of orthodox propositions, cannot consequently believe them.

The doctrine of the Trinity, observes a celebrated writer, confounds reason and prompts it to revolt. If there be any visible difficulties, they are those which are contained in that mystery, that three persons really distinct have one and the same essence, and that this essence being the same thing in each person, all the relations that distinguish them may be communicated without the communication of the relations which distinguish the persons. If human reason consults herself, she will rise up against these inconceivable statements; if she pretends to make use of her own light to penetrate them, it will furnish her with arms to overthrow them. Wherefore in order to believe them she ought to bind herself to stifle all her powers of investigation, and to depress and sink herself under the weight of spiritual authority.

We now proceed to examine another branch of orthodoxy intimately connected with the Trinity, which is the hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity with the man Christ Jesus. The opponents of anti-trinitarianism cannot deny that Jesus is frequently spoken of in Scripture as a man, and as distinct from and inferior to the Being who is usually spoken of under the name of "God." But they maintain also that the names and titles, the attributes, the works, and the worship of the Father are also given to the Son. Hence they are led to suppose that he was constituted of a nature both human and divine, which constitution of his person took place at his birth of the Virgin Mary, by his taking the manhood into the Godhead, or by his taking the human nature into union with his Deity.

Now we maintain that the hypostatical union involves in it palpable contradictions. It necessarily supposes that the Deity was actually changed in the mode of his subsistence; thus destroying the Divine immutability. But as whatever principles militate against any of the acknowledged perfections of God, must be false, this must certainly be so.

The hypostatic union is directly inconsistent with the Divine immensity. For if the presence of God is infinite, if indeed there is no point of space in the universe where God is not, how, without contradiction, can it be supposed that he was really in unity of subsistence with the human soul of Jesus? The consequence that God was more especially present with Christ Jesus than with any other intelligence; that a universally extended being was confined within the boundaries of man's system of intellect; that the Deity was contracted, bounded, circumscribed, necessarily flows from the hypostatical union; and as thus destroying the immensity of God, we reject the doctrine.

Alas! that ever a system was formed which subverts the adorable attributes of the Godhead, while its professed object is to display them!—that the ingenuity of man ever employed itself in clouding the glory of infinite perfections, and with the view of magnifying them has stamped mutation on Jehovah's being, and struck out limits to his presence!

The hypostatic union is destructive of the spirituality of God. It holds out to us a being who is ‘without body, parts, or passions,' becoming incarnate, uniting himself to and becoming one person with the man Christ Jesus. Even on these grounds alone, we should think ourselves warranted to reject the doctrine of the hypostatical union. There are, however, other considerations tending to shew the falsity of the doctrine, arising from its very nature; to these therefore we advert.

Now by the _nature_ of a thing we mean its _qualities_. To say therefore that Christ possesses both a divine and a human nature, is to say that he possesses both the qualities of God and the qualities of man; that the same mind consequently is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both changeable and unchangeable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and incapable of it, both able to do all things and not able, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them. Here is one of the persons of the Trinity united to the person of the man; here there is a person or mind both finite and infinite. Now, to use the words of another in expressing my own sentiments, if it be not certain that such a doctrine as this is false, there is no certainty on any subject. It is in vain to call it a mystery; it is an absurdity—it is an impossibility. According to my ideas of propriety and duty, by assenting to it I should culpably abuse those faculties of understanding which God has given me to distinguish between right and wrong, truth and error.


But the hypostatic union, not content with making one mind both human and divine, makes one person of two persons—the one infinite person of the Trinity and the person of the man Jesus strictly and literally only one subsistence; thus producing the absurdity, that finite may be identified with infinite. The only conceivable method of escaping the absurdity of the first, is to say that Christ's person consisted of more minds than one. This, however, Trinitarians themselves cannot admit. And the only method of removing the inconsistency of the other is to adopt the opinion of the Council of Chalcedon, which was rejected by that of Ephesus, viz. that Christ consisted of two persons. But neither will Trinitarians adopt this plan of averting the absurd consequences of this part of their system; and though they should, it would defeat the purpose which the doctrine of the hypostatic union is intended to answer, viz. to serve as a principle of interpretation of what they conceive to be apparently discordant passages of Scripture. How inconsistent are Trinitarians, not only with Scripture but with themselves. While the statements of their doctrine respecting the Trinity imply that three persons constitute but one nature, in the hypostatic union we find _two natures constituting but one person._

And with respect to this most strange and confused hypothesis, I now proceed to remark, in the first place, that it is invented. It is not stated in any part of Scripture that in the one person of Christ there is a nature both human and divine, though from the difficulty, apparent contradiction, singularity, and importance of the doctrine, we should have expected clearness, precision, and repetition of statement respecting it. This wonderful key is not to be found in all the sacred premises. But did not ‘the Word become flesh?' the Trinitarian will say. Not precisely _become_ so, I reply; but according to the translation of _ginomai_ in three of its occurrences in the first chapter of John, and according to the general translation of it in John's Gospel, the sentence should run, ‘the Word nas flesh.' Moreover, who is meant by the Word? I ask. Is it certain Christ is spoken of? Several eminent defenders of orthodoxy have themselves said not, and have understood the Word to mean, either the eternal reason of the Almighty, or the active commanding power of God displayed in its creating energy. And even though Jesus is meant by the Logos, I cannot see how the passage could prove even his pre-existence, far less his having united himself to the human nature or his having taken the manhood into the Godhead. First, because, as I have already noticed, “nas flesh” is the most natural rendering of the original. Secondly, because whether _egeneto_ be rendered was made or became, the sentence would not convey more than is implied in the words of David when he says with respect to mankind in general, that ‘man was made a little lower than the angels;' or in the words of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who speaks of mankind as ‘partakers of flesh and blood,' an expression which, like the assertion 'the Word became flesh,' seems to convey the notion of voluntary incarnation, but at the same time does not
really express that idea.

And supposing the expression did prove Christ's having voluntarily assumed a human body, and consequently his pre-existence; what then? Would this be a proof of his two natures? Not at all, but the reverse. For supposing _egeneto_ to be properly rendered was made, this would imply that he was not uncreated in the strictest sense. And whether the word be rendered 'was made’ or ‘became,' the clause would afford no ground for the idea of incarnation, which clearly signifies entering into the flesh, or being in it. The expression would affirm that he was flesh altogether; and if the clause translated either way be understood in the sense of having existed before as one substance, and having subsequently become or been made another, this would convey no other idea than that of transmutation, like that of water being made wine, or stones, bread; and not at all that of entering into and being in another unchanged, which is proper incarnation. And indeed the supposed assumption of the manhood into the Godhead is the reverse of the incarnation, which supposes the entering of the divine nature into the human, and remaining there incarnate. The words of John give no support to either notion. Upon what weak and fanciful grounds does the whole superstructure of orthodoxy rest!

Let us now proceed to inquire how far the invention of a hypothesis as a key of interpretation to the Scriptures is consistent with the character of God as our teacher, and with the nature and design of a revelation. In the first place, then, I remark that the giving to mankind a book, which, like the secret despatches of a diplomatist, is full of enigma and obscurity, without the use of a key known only to those who are versed in the art of deciphering, is not in consonance with the veracity of God, because there being no formal intimation in the book itself that the use of the key is necessary to the right understanding of its meaning, the reader is led to suppose that the mode to he adopted in order to comprehend its statements is similar to that employed in the study of other books.

Thus at the very commencement of his inquiries and investigations, he is necessarily misled and deceived, and there is nothing that can present itself in his subsequent study of the volume to guide him aright and direct his course of examination; for the constitution of the book is different from that of any other, and he has no means of ascertaining this. There is no other book to the study of which we proceed upon the idea that we must find out its meaning by trying whether it will accord with this or that hypothesis. All that we think necessary is to understand the language in which it is written, and then to open it and read it. In the same manner we must enter upon the study of the New Testament, presuming, till some good reason is assigned for believing the contrary, that its principal doctrines lie upon its surface, and will be obvious to every unprejudiced reader.

The character of God as a teacher is further involved in giving us a book of such singularity, inasmuch as the book claims for itself the character of plainness and simplicity; it professes also to be a revelation, which implies the giving of light, and by its demanding faith in its contents, it naturally leads one to believe the practicability of at once understanding what those contents are. Thus the hypothesis of any subtle principle of interpretation being necessary, makes the Scripture belie itself and deceive those who read it.

The adopting of such a principle can never indeed lead to truth. It fills the mind with a theory which must prevent it from attaining the truth, should the truth be contrary to the theory. It must uniformly and as a matter of course bring the text to the system, and not the system to the text. It cannot say, what does the scripture state on this point or that—what the precise import of these terms—what the scope of this argument—what the object of this series of observation—what should I think if I had never heard of systems, this ism or that? But how can this passage be reconciled with the hypothesis—how may the key be introduced to move along the wards of this intricate lock without a touch of interruption? Thus it places a hypothesis, previously assumed, above the revelation it affects to explain. Every man will necessarily be led in the choice of his hypothesis by his particular prejudice and likings. These will lead him to find his favourite dogmas where no trace of them exists.

Again, the necessity of a previously assumed hypothesis as a principle of interpreting Scripture is inconsistent with the goodness of God as our teacher. 1. Because truth must always be more conducive to happiness than error, from which, under the guidance of such a principle, we can never be guarded. 2. Because the examination of the Scripture by the guidance of such a principle must necessarily be attended with doubt and perplexity, and certainly freedom from these on a subject like religion, which concerns our present and future happiness, is essential to our peace and comfort. 3. Because, if according to Trinitarians the belief of certain articles be necessary to salvation, and this principle be essential to the right understanding of what those articles are, God has left our salvation at great, hazard, we being placed in circumstances in which there are no certain means of arriving at essential truth. Finally, the supposition that the doctrines of Scripture can only be ascertained by the use of a particular hypothesis as a key of interpretation, is contrary to the very nature and design of revelation, which is a gift of light, and cannot, therefore, multiply our perplexities; which is intended to supersede the use of our judgments so far as the discovery of truths is concerned; which has for its object the making known of something; not the bewildering of the human mind.

I now proceed to remark, that, supposing the adoption of a previously assumed hypothesis as a principle of interpretation to be in certain cases in itself admissible, it can find no place with respect to the passages connected with the present subject that it is used to explain, because it is unnecessary. By appealing to the sources and rules of just criticism, the Unitarian is able to shew that the few passages which seem at variance with the obvious and prominent doctrines of Scripture are perfectly consistent with them. Even with regard to the few passages the Trinitarian adduces to confound him, he only wishes to have them correctly translated from a correct text, and he receives even them in their obvious and simple meaning, which truly is widely different indeed from the case of Trinitarians. We maintain indeed that the greater number of those passages which they adduce as the foundation of their system are actually inconsistent with that system, and tend directly to support the contrary side of the question. Once more, we have seen that the hypothesis assumed, viz. the constitution of Christ's person by two distinct natures is absolutely absurd. Supposing then that there are some passages of Scripture that teach inconsistent doctrines, a thing we positively deny, how can they ever be reconciled by what is in itself irreconcilable? Can they be helped by a contradiction? Or for the purpose of reconciling a few scattered passages, which a just criticism can explain, must we invent a hypothesis inconceivably difficult and involving gross absurdity? Must we find our way out of a supposed labyrinth by a path that conducts us into mazes wholly inextricable?

Moreover, there arises this important question: Would the application of this singular hypothesis as a principle of interpretation, after all, answer its purpose, supposing it to be necessary and just, and in all respects admissible? I confidently say it would not. I found my assertion, in the first place, upon these plain principles. 1. That a nature is a mere abstraction, of which nothing active can be predicated. I have already said that by the nature of a thing we mean its qualities. To affirm then, for example, that when it is said of Christ that he prayed to his Heavenly Father, we are to understand that his human nature only supplicated Heaven, &c. is to speak downright nonsense, it being to say that the qualities of a being, instead of the being himself, did this or that. 2. That different and inconsistent things cannot be predicated of the same existence at the same time. For instance, we find Jesus asserting, that of the day and hour of final judgment no one knew, “no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father”. Now unless Jesus had actually two minds, which no one admits, how could he be acquainted with an event and ignorant of it at the same time? 3. The supposition of the divine nature is unnecessary, because it answered no purpose. We read, for example, that an angel strengthened Christ in the garden of Gethsemane. But had he possessed divinity in conjunction with humanity, such assistance would have been wholly unnecessary. 4. Because Christ is spoken of as inferior to and distinct from God, and as a man even when he is spoken of confessedly in his highest character, and in reference to what Trinitarians suppose to be applicable to his divine nature, or to his divine nature and his human together. Take, for example, one of the passages adduced, “of that day, &c.” Here Jesus is spoken of in that character in which he ranked above the angels in heaven, which was certainly his highest, and also in the capacity of the Son of God, which is supposed to denote his divine nature, and yet he was not omniscient.

5. Because, granting his pre-existence, the passages understood to prove it plainly state or imply that before he had any human nature or sustained the office of mediator, he was distinct from and inferior to God. For instance, Jesus is usually understood to assert his pre-existence in these words of John xvii. 5. “Glorify me, &c.” But we have only to consult ver, 22. in order to be convinced that supposing he had glory really before the world began, that glory was even then given him. The phrases “I came out from thee, I proceeded forth and came from God,” and such like, supposing they prove the pre-existence of Christ, prove him also to have been in his pre-existent state an inferior being. The word 'God’ is applied to one person. There being but one God, he who came out from the one God, cannot himself be that being to whom in the sentence the appellation 'God’ is exclusively given, And to ‘come out’ from a place (for heaven is supposed) is not the act of a being who is every where equally present. 6. Because in those passages where he is spoken of as an inferior being, personal pronouns are used in relation to him. Thus, “My Father is greater than I" implies that Christ is speaking of himself as a person. The pronoun I implies this. Now whether Christ had two natures or ten, he confessedly formed but one person. Therefore the assertion before us is this, that the Father is greater than the Son considered in his whole person.

7. Because the sense and connexion of many of the texts which state his inferiority, and the correlation of the propositions contained in them to others in which personality is confessedly implied, shew undeniably that Jesus is spoken of and considered as a whole person. Take, for example, 1 Cor. xv. “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father— then shall the Son also himself be subject to him who hath put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” Here the Father meaning a person, the Son must be spoken of considered as a person also. Personal actions are attributed to him also. The term “God’ is restricted to one being in distinction from “the Son of God,” and there being but one Jehovah, he who is afterwards spoken of cannot be God also.

And finally I remark, that although these considerations did not manifest the inutility of the assumed hypothesis as a principle of interpretation, nevertheless, it could serve no purpose, because to none of the grand branches of the evidence of Unitarianism can it possibly apply, as I shall soon have occasion to shew,