"Vatabli) Diligo vos omnes propter Christum, vel quod Chris❝ti sitis. Qui sensus est planissimus et appositissimus. Quòd "si verbum sit subaudias, vix conveniens sententia elici inde

❝ poterit ; nisi dicimus, Paulum precare ut ament se mutuo "in Christo Jesu, ea charitate qua ipse præditus erat." * "But in those words my love be with you all in Christ "Jesus,' you must throw out from your interpretation the "verb be. For in the original text we read simply, my love

with you all in Christ Jesus' and it seems much more "likely that is should be supplied, than be, so as to make the "sense I love you all in Christ Jesus; that is, I love you all "for Christ's sake, or, because ye are Christ's; which is

a sense most simple and apposite. Whereas, if you supply "the verb be, it is not easy to make out a suitable meaning, "unless we suppose Paul to pray, that they might mutually "love one another, with the same affection wherewith he him"self was inspired."

I further refer the reader to what I have before written in my Discourses-pages 18, 19; 126; 146, 147; 301-303; 432, 433;—and then, let Mr. Yates's parallel have all the weight in his mind to which he may think it entitled.

Mr. Yates disposes of the next passage, Rev. i. 4, 5. with greater brevity, but, if possible, with still worse success.--I had said on this passage, that "the seven Spirits of God is evi❝dently an emblematical expression for the Holy Spirit.”Who the "many eminent Trinitarian critics" may be, who ❝are of a contrary opinion," I do not reckon it needful to inquire. But when Mr. Yates, on such an occasion, urges against me my own objection to many Unitarian interpreta

* De Jesu Christi Invocatione Disputatio, &c. &c. Secunda Editio Racovia 1626-page 53.

tions of Scripture; namely, that the language is, on this supposition, "unnatural and affected," there is a variety of considerations of which he seems entirely to lose sight:

1st. The Book of Revelation is full of emblematical representations ;-and, in a book expressly constructed on this principle, such language is so far from being unnatural, that we reasonably expect to find it, and should be sensible of a kind of incongruity were it otherwise.-The same consideration sufficiently accounts for the seven spirits being " before "the throne," which, without indicating inferiority of nature, does signify, that, in the economy of redemption, the Holy Spirit, in the exercise of all his various influences, proceeds from Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the Lamb.

2dly. Not only does the number seven frequently indicate fulness and perfection; but the correspondence between the seven churches, and the seven angels of these churches, with the seven Spirits of God, imparts (as I have observed on the passage in my Discourses, although Mr. Yates has not thought the circumstance worthy of notice) a peculiar beauty and interest to the emblem, as significant of the " fulness and sufficiency of his influences for the supply of the seven "churches, (and, by obviously intended inference, of all his "churches) with all needful grace.”

66

3dly. Whatever Mr. Yates makes of the "seven spirits," there must, at any rate, be a figurative or emblematical representation. That Divine influence should be denominated "the seven spirits before the throne," does not seem to be vast deal more simple and natural, than the sense which Mr. Yates rejects as unnatural and affected.

4thly. When Mr. Yates asks (p. 157) "If St. John meant "to express a wish of favour from the Holy Spirit, why does "he not say so," in plain terms?-we answer, If he did not

mean this, then what did he mean? He most certainly does express a wish (or a desire or prayer) in behalf of the churches,

grace and peace to them, from the seven spirits before "God's throne." What then are these seven spirits? are they, as usual, the Divine influence? If they be, then observe, in the first place, we have in the passage a wish or prayer for the same blessings, from a person, from an influence or influences, and from another person. This may seem natural enough to Mr. Yates. It does not seem so to me.—In the second place, this interpretation identifies the second part of the prayer with the first. According to Mr. Yates on a former text, "the communion of the Holy Spirit be with "you," means, "may you all share the gifts, and manifest the "dispositions, which arise from the extraordinary influence of "God upon the members of the Christian church." Now, if, in the passage before us, "the seven spirits before the throne" signify also the Divine influence, or "the extraordinary in"fluence of God upon the members of the Christian church," then we are tempted to ask, In what possible manner could 66 grace and peace be to them from Him who is, and who was, "and who is to come," that is, from God the eternal Father, otherwise than by his influence upon them? The second part of the prayer becomes, on this hypothesis, a mere repetition of the first. In the third place, the truth is, that this text is still more obviously conclusive in our favour than the former. In the former, the expressions were varied;-the grace of Christ, the love of God, the communion of the Spirit :-but in this, the same blessings of "grace and peace" are specified, and they are desired or prayed for, in the same form, from the Father, and from the Spirit, and from the Son.

5thly. Mr. Yates seems to have felt the difficulty of this passage. Unfortunately for his own consistency, while, in the

eighth chapter of his second part, he labours hard to prove, that whenever the phrase "Holy Spirit" is used in a personal acceptation, it means "the one true God, the Father;" and that, in its other occurrences, it signifies the Divine influence, either simply, or under the figure of personification ;-he appears to have been sensible that neither of these senses would do here, and yet that, after all, it must mean a person;-for he closes his brief comment on the text in these most unexpected, and, on his principles, unaccountable terms:-"Last"ly, allowing it to be as evident as Mr. Wardlaw asserts, "that the Holy Spirit is meant by the seven spirits before "the throne of God, a wish of favour from the Holy Spirit, " and from Jesus Christ, would only denote that they have "the power of bestowing that favour; a power, as we learn "from other parts of scripture, conferred upon them by God "the Father."-Here we find Mr. Yates "learning from "other parts of Scripture," that the Holy Spirit is, equally with Jesus Christ, a person, receiving from God the Father power to bestow certain favours and gifts. Truth will sometimes force a way for itself, and be out. Let Mr. Yates only "learn from the Scriptures," further, that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are, without inferiority of nature, represented as receiving such power officially, in the economy of grace, and he will be "not far from the kingdom of God."

Some of my readers may think that I have dwelt too long on these passages. My apology is, that as our faith on all such subjects must rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, I was desirous, once for all, of confirming my former exposition of them, and rescuing them from misinterpretation and sophistry.

CHAPTER IV.

I WISH to finish the consideration of Mr. Yates's replies, before going on to the more direct reasonings adduced by him in support of his system.-Pursuing this plan, I come now to his statement of the orthodox doctrine respecting the person of Christ.

"Before we begin," says he, (p. 159.) " to examine the ❝evidence for the orthodox opinion concerning the na❝ture of Christ, it is necessary to know what that opinion is. "Nothing could indicate greater irreverence for a ques❝tion of such vast importance, than to argue and dis"pute, without even understanding what we wish to prove. "It is, therefore, matter of no small satisfaction, that "Mr. Wardlaw's statements are clear and intelligible."They are clear and intelligible! Yet in the next page, Mr. Yates takes care most thoroughly to misunderstand them. I wish, from my heart, that this were all; but I have a heavier charge to bring against him, the charge of wilful and deliberate misrepresentation;-a charge, which he has not left, in this instance, to be made out by inference; but of which he has directly convicted himself. The charge, I admit, is a serious one. Now, then, for the proof of it :

66

"By the nature of any thing," says Mr. Yates, "we always mean its qualities. When, therefore, it is said "that Jesus Christ possesses both a Divine and a human "nature, it must be meant that he possesses both the qualities "of God, and the qualities of man. But if we consider " what these qualities are, we perceive them to be totally incom