Jehovah as an attribute. If this doctrine be admitted as orthodox, how then are the primitive Christians to be justified in condemning Sabellius on account of his maintaining the same doctrine? We find that, consistently with the same prophetical language, the inspired writer of Proverbs directs us to call wisdom a sister, and understanding kins-woman, (vii. 4,) instead of bestowing on her such epithets as, Jehovah, the everlasting God, that are insisted upon by the Editor as properly applied to Jesus. In fact, the book of Proverbs meant only to urge, in the usual poetical style of expression, the necessity of adhering to wisdom, both in religious and social life, strengthening the exhortation by pointing out that all the works of God are founded upon wisdom. If such poetical personifications as are found in the Prophets, as well as in profane Asiatic works in common circulation, were to be noticed, a separate voluminous work would, I am afraid, fail to contain them. And if the abstract attributes of God, such as wisdom, mercy, truth, benevolence, &c., are to be esteemed as separate deities, on account of their being sometimes personified, and declared eternal, and associating with God, this mode of literal interpretation would, I admit, be so far advantageous to the cause of the Editor as respects the refutation of the doctrine of the unity of God, but would not be precisely favourable to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it would certainly extend the number of personified deities much beyond three. Take, for

example, the following passages, which personify the attributes of God, and ascribe to them eternity, and association with God. Psalm cxxx. 7: "With the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption." lxxxv. 10: "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Numbers xvi. 46: "There is wrath gone out from the Lord." Here we have mercy, redemption, truth, and wrath, all spoken of as separate existences. Are we, therefore, to consider them as persons of the Godhead? As abstract qualities are often represented in the Scriptures, and in Asiatic writings generally, as persons and agents, to render ideas familiar to the understanding, so real existences are intended sometimes under the appellation of abstract qualities, for the sake of energy of expression. In 1 John iv. 8, God is declared to be mere love. John i. 1, Jesus is called word, or revelation. 1 Cor. i. 24, 30, Christ is represented as power and wisdom, &c. 2 Cor. v. 21, true Christians are declared to be wisdom in Christ; and Israel is said to be an astonishment in Deut. xxviii. 37, and curse in Zech. viii. 13; Abraham to be blessing in Gen. xii. 2; and Jehovah is declared to be glory in Zech. ii. 5. But every unprejudiced mind is convinced that these allegorical terms neither can alter the fact, nor can they change the nature of the unity of God, and of the dependence of his attributes.

After this no further remark seems necessary on the passages quoted by the Editor, from Matthew

and Lake, where, as in many other passages in which the word Wisdom is to be found, the sense neither requires, nor even admits, of our understanding Jesus to be meant under that appellation.

The Editor quotes Isaiah vi. 1, 10, relating to the Prophet's vision of God; he then comments, "As this glorious vision, wherein the Prophet received his commission, represented either the Father or the Son, we might have expected that it should be the Son, who had undertaken to redeem men." The Editor afterwards quotes John xii. 41, "These things, said Isaiah, when he saw his glory and spoke of him," and considers these words as decisive testimony of the opinion, that it was the Son who was seen by the Prophet in the vision.

Let us first impartially refer to the context of verse 41 of John. We find in the verse a personal pronoun used three times. The first, "he," in the phrase "when he saw," though understood in the Greek verb side; the second, "his," connected with the word "glory;" and the third, "of him," after the verb "spoke;" thus-" when he saw his glory and spoke of him." The first pronoun, "he," of course refers to Isaiah, mentioned just before it. The second and the third, "his" and "of him," can have no reference to Isaiah, for the words "when Isaiah saw Isaiah's glory, and spoke of Isaiah," could bear no sense whatever. These two last pronouns must, therefore, have reference to some pronoun or noun to be found in the immediately preceding part

of the passage. We accordingly find, from the preceding verse, (40,) that these pronouns refer to Jehovah, the God of hosts, mentioned twice in verse 38, whose glory Isaiah saw, and in whose behalf he spoke, without mention of the Son being once made between verses 38 and 41. The passage thus stands, (ver. 38,) He (Isaiah) spoke, "Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (39,) "Therefore they could not believe [because] that Isaiah said again,” (40,) "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart;" (41,)" These things, said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." Isaiah must have then seen the glory of him in whose behalf he spoke; a fact which neither party can dispute; and, as it is evident from the preceding verse, (40,) and from Isaiah vi., [10,] that he spoke of God, who blinded the eyes of the Jews and hardened their hearts, it necessarily follows, that he saw the glory of that very being spoken of by Isaiah. For further illustration of God's being often declared to have blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, I quote Rom. xi. 7, 8: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear,) unto this day." Isaiah lxiii. 17: “O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy

fear? Return, for thy servants' sake, the tribe of thy inheritance." From vers. 38-41, as already observed, is not a single noun or a pronoun that can have allusion to Jesus. But we find, in verse 42, the pronoun "him," implying the Son as absolutely required by the sense, in reference to verse 37, and in consistence with verse 44, in which the name of Jesus is found mentioned. As all the Pharisees believed in God, as well as in Isaiah, one of their prophets, the text could convey no meaning, if the phrase "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed in him" were admitted to bear reference either to God or Isaiah.

If it be insisted upon, in defiance of all the foregoing explanation, that the two last-mentioned pronouns, in verse 41, "When he saw his glory and spake of him," are applied to Jesus, the passage in the evangelist would be, in that case, more correctly explained by referring it to John viii. 56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day," which cannot be understood of ocular vision, but prophetic anticipation; whereas the glory seen in the vision of Isaiah, was that of God himself in the delivery of the command given to the prophet on that occasion, as I observed in the Second Appeal (page 286). With a view to invalidate this interpretation, the Editor inquires, (page 569,) "What has Abraham's day to do with Isaiah's vision ?" In answer to which I must allow, that Abraham's day had nothing to do with Isaiah's vision, except that as Abraham saw