"The whole creation join in one "To bless the sacred name "Of Him who sits upon the throne, we ask, with astonishment at those who would forbid us, Is this not a being whom we are warranted and bound to worship and adore?-Must we confine our adoration, our sacred acts of religious homage, to "Him that sitteth on the throne,' and exclude "the Lamb?" Or, if we may unite his name with that of the Father in our ascriptions of glory and honour, and blessing, and power, what is the kind, and what the measure, of homage, which we are to consider ourselves as paying to him? Has a book, of which one of the leading designs is to proscribe, and finally to abolish, all idolatry, represented the whole creation as uniting in one solemn act of adoration to God and to the Lamb; and, by this very representation, called upon us, who are a part of the creation' of God, to adore and honour the Lamb in the very same terms in which we adore and honour the Father; whilst at the same time it commands us to keep at an infinite distance from every approach to the worship of any creature, -enjoining us to "worship the Lord our God, and to serve him "only?" Unitarians, Mr. Yates tells us," are sometimes heard "in their churches on earth, to join the adoring throngs "above, in saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb "that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, ❝and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing:'" (P. 236.)—and sometimes, too, it is to be presumed, joining with the whole creation in saying "Blessing, and honour, and "glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth on the throne, "and to the Lamb for ever and ever!" Who the Unitarians are, who thus sometimes join the adoring throngs above, in themselves adoring the Lamb, Mr. Yates does not say. Does he mean all descriptions of Unitarians, according to his extended application of the term,-from the high Arian to the low Socinian?-Do they address their adorations To the Lamb, or do they only express their sentiments of him? -If they address their adorations to him, what is this adoration? It is not often, I presume, that such adoration of the Lamb is heard amongst them;-and when it is, there must surely be many inward fears and jealousies, and misgivings of mind, lest they should be ascribing to this fellowcreature a greater proportion of the devotion of their hearts than what is his due.-I have often, for my own part, admired the wisdom of the blessed God, as displayed in the scheme of redemption, in this respect amongst many others, that, while it is impossible, considering the vast extent of the obligations of sinners to the REDEEMER, by whose mediation it is that they are restored to the "life" that lies in "God's favour," and to all the blessings of everlasting salvation; while it is impossible, considering the incalculable magnitude of these blessings, so infinitely transcending all that they can ever be the instruments of conveying to one another, that they should not feel, if he to whom they were under these obligations were a mere fellow-creature, a danger of dividing their hearts between him and God;-that, in these circumstances, the constitution of his person should be such, as to allow full scope to all the glowing ardour of gratitude;-leaving us at liberty to " pour out our hearts before "him" with unrestrained emotion, without the hazard of any approximation to idolatrous feeling;-so that, with perfect freedom from every such perplexing and painful apprehension, we may "honour the Son even as we honour the Father." With regard to the other two passages afterwards quoted by Mr. Yates, viz. 1 Tim. vi. 21. "I charge thee before "God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, "that thou observe these things."-And 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 33." And David said to Abigail, Blessed be Jehovah God "of Israel, who sent thee this day to meet me; and blessed "be thy advice, and blessed be thou."-Mr. Yates's mode of reasoning is rather a curious one. He supposes a substitution, in the former, of " the Holy Spirit" for "the elect an"gels,” and, in the latter, of the "Son" and "the Holy Spirit" for "thy advice" and "thou;"—and then, with satirical irony, makes out of them, for the Trinitarians, two "capital and "convincing proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity."-It is very likely, that Trinitarians might have considered such passages as additional proofs of their doctrine; and they would have had good reason for doing so. Mr. Yates's argument stands thus:-There is just as much ground from the passages, as they actually stand, to conclude that "the elect angels" are God, and that David and David's advice are God, as there would have been ground, had they stood as Mr. Yates supposes them, to conclude from them that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. But, in order to render this fair, and to make the Trinitarians look as foolish as Mr. Yates intended they should, the following ought to have been the state of the case:-There should not only have been no other evidence besides these passages, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, equal with the Father; but, on the contrary, as much evidence that they are not God, as there is that angels, and David, and David's advice, are not God. We may be perfectly warranted to interpret a text in agreement with a multitude of others, while we should not be warranted to interpret it in opposition to all others.-But, after all, our argument is not founded on the mere connexion of "God and the "Lamb" in the same sentence, as Mr. Yates represents it, but on the peculiar circumstances of that connexion; and, if the M m reader wishes to know what these are, I have only to request of him to read over again the fifth chapter of the Revelation. Mr. Yates concludes this chapter, by endeavouring to illustrate the sense of the sacred writers, in uniting God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in their ascriptions of glory and praise, by "the manner in which Mahommedans" (to whom Unitarians have always shown a warm side,) “as"sociate their prophet with the Almighty." He quotes the following "lofty language of praise and supplication;”— "Praise be unto the Almighty God, and unto our Lord his "prophet Mahommed, whose protection and mercy we crave, "and resign ourselves to his holy will."-This language of the followers of the false prophet "proves," says Mr. Yates, "that a person may be conceived to be infinitely "inferior to God as his creature and his dependent, and yet, "in consideration of the power and glory to which God "has raised him, he may be praised, and even petitioned, ❝in connexion with his Creator and the Creator of all." No doubt the language proves, that this "may be conceived." But does it prove that they who so conceive, conceive rightly? Is it a right conception, that a person" infinitely inferior” in nature to the great God, and, with whatever power and glory invested, still infinitely inferior, should be associated with "his Creator and the Creator of all," as the object of the same praise and supplication? Because the votaries of the Koran have presumed thus impiously and inconsistently to associate the name of their false prophet with the name of the Almighty, in their acts of homage and devotion, must we impute the same impiety, and the same, or much greater inconsistency, to those "holy men of God who spake as they "were moved by the Holy Spirit;" on whom the gifts of inspiration were conferred, with the express design of exposing, and bearing down, and finally subverting, all idolatry-called so emphatically in Scripture "that abominable thing which "God hates?"-If I might venture a probable conjecture, as to the origin of the Mahometan practice, I should suppose it to have arisen from the very circumstance of the name of JESUS being so associated in the Holy Scriptures. Finding this the case, and assuming his being no more than a prophet, they have exalted their own prophet to the place which the Bible gives to Christ, impiously honouring him with the same high and sacred associations. CHAPTER IX. IN Chapter IX. Mr. Yates examines "the REMAINING " ARGUMENTS produced by Mr. Wardlaw, to prove the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ," that he "may do full jus"tice to the evidence of the Trinitarian doctrine, and omit "none of its prominent and palpable evidences.” (Page 240.) John x. 30. On this text see pages 136-145 of this volume. Phil. ii. 6. "Who, being in the form of God, thought "it not robbery to be equal with God." 66 Mr. Yates declares himself" satisfied, after attending "carefully to the ingenious argumentation by which Ham“mond, and a few others, have attempted to justify this "translation, that it cannot possibly be deduced out of the original words of St Paul;" and that "the literal translation "of them is, Who, being in the form of God, did not es"teem it a prey to be as God.""" Since," he adds, "there is "an evident necessity for some supplement in the last clause, "and the substantive verb (vo) "to be," is seldom used |