butes: it being absolutely impossible that the supreme God should have any thing given him by any being whatever. For, according to the unanswerable declaration of the apostle Paul: Who hath first GIVEN to him (viz. God), and it shall be recompensed to him? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things; to whom be glory for ever. (Rom. ii. 35, 36.) From whence it follows, with demonstrative evidence, that Christ, who was given by Almighty God, who received his all from God, is a person, in his most exalted state, inferior to the one supreme God and Father of all. And the argument holds still stronger with regard to the holy spirit; which was bestowed and sent from heaven, according to Christ's promise, and the commission he had received from his God and Father, to furnish the apostles with extraordinary gifts, and to render them qualified for their important work.

Add to this, that there are, in the New Testament, about two hundred and forty passages, wherein Christ is declared to be inferior to almighty God. The expressions relating to this point are plain and clear, incapable of any other sense, without violence and distortion. On the other hand, there is only the sound of one text, which seems to set forth Christ's equality with the Father, and the sound is entirely owing to a false translation: (viz. Philip. ii. 6.) Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; the words should be rendered thus, who being in the form of God (i. e. endowed with divine pow

ers), was not eagerly desirous to be like unto God (i. e. to display those powers). Be pleased to read the eleventh verse, and then determine, by the principles of common sense, whether a person equal to the supreme God can be raised to higher dignity

than he was before.

Again; what demonstrates the falsehood of the athanasian doctrine, beyond a possibility of doubt, is, that there are about forty passages, wherein the three persons of the trinity are mentioned together, who are sometimes styled the Father, son, and holy spirit; or, the Father, the son, and the spirit; the living God, Christ, the spirit; God, the son of God, the holy spirit; God, the lord, the spirit but not one passage appears, where the Father, the son, and the holy spirit, are said to be the one God, as determined by the athanasian creed. On the other hand, the Father is called God, the living God, and sometimes the one God, expressly distinguished from the son and holy spirit. You must, in this place, either give up the plain declarations of scripture, or the athanasian doctrine, they being, when fairly compared together, absolutely inconsistent with each other.

I will conclude with a plain scripture fact, relating to the character of the supreme God. There are in the New Testament four hundred and forty one passages, wherein God, the Father, is styled the one, or only God, or God absolutely by way of eminence and supremacy; or God with some peculiar high titles, epithets, or attributes. Upon the whole, the sacred writers have

taken all imaginable care to maintain the supremacy of the one God, and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all; it proceeding entirely from his boundless love and mercy, that our lord was appointed to teach his mind and will, and that he bestowed his spirit, or extraordinary power, upon him for that purpose.

Athanasian. I heartily thank you, my good friend, for the pains you have taken to set me right on this important point. I cannot help acknowledging that you proceed in a rational way, and that your arguments seem justly drawn from scripture, interpreted by reason. If there be such a number of texts in the New Testament, clearly setting forth the sense you have contended for, under the three last heads of your discourse, the athanasian cause is certainly demolished. Surely it must have cost you a vast deal of time and labour to collect such a number of texts, and range them in proper order. I am determined to give the New Testament a serious review, and to take particular notice of all those passages that refer to God the father, the son, and the holy spirit. And if, upon such impartial examination as I shall be able to make, I find your facts truly represented, and your reasoning conclusive, I shall think it my duty to profess my conviction, though it should contradict the practice and sentiments of wise and learned men, whose authority, I own, has hitherto had too much influence on my mind.

Unitarian. My dear christian friend, your resolution is wise and good. Nothing is of greater

N

consequence, in the grand business of religion, than that every person, to whom God has given common sense and reason, should judge and determine for himself, in all points, wherein his duty is concerned. I have the particular satisfaction to reflect, that the more carefully you examine the subject of our debate, the stronger conviction you will receive of the truth of the scripture facts I have faithfully set forth. And, as to the reasoning part, it is certainly founded on the principles of common sense, which is the best method of interpreting scripture; or for what end was our reason given to us? or how can it be better employed than in exploring the revelation of God?

With respect to the authority of wise and learned men, and the argument drawn from the established liturgy, I find, upon inquiry, that many wise, learned, and good men, and some whose judgment, upon any question, is of more value than that of thousands, have embraced the unitarian doctrine; and, what deserves particular notice, some of them, who had been educated in the usual athanasian scheme, afterwards professed the right opinion of God, and his holy worship, in opposition to their worldly interest; and even, since the reformation, suffered imprisonment, banishment, and death.

The memory of our first reformers ought, without doubt, to be held in very high esteem, upon account of what they did and suffered, in the glorious work of freeing religion from the foul corruptions of popery: but certain it is, that they did

not sufficiently examine the gross opinion of three persons in one God. They too readily took for granted, what had been settled and determined by the fathers and councils of the fourth and fifth centuries after the time of Christ; when persons, acquainted with church history, assure us, the unity of God, in the plain and literal sense, was first corrupted; and that a superstitious veneration of relics, and the invocation of saints, immediately followed the corruption.

To speak my mind freely, it is certainly matter of serious lamentation, that such a gross corruption in the pure religion of the holy Jesus, and which laid the foundation of the grand apostacy, has not been long ago banished from the church of England, which, in the most solemn manner, professeth the scripture as the only rule of faith and practice, and that nothing should be imposed on the consciences of men but what is warranted by the word of God. It is well known that this very subject was recommended to the consideration of the most eminent persons in church and state, about eighty years ago, by two very learned and very eminent divines, viz. Mr. Whiston, in his Primitive Christianity Revived, and Dr. Clarke, in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. The latter I procured, and was there completely furnished with all the texts relating to the doctrine of the trinity, reduced under proper heads how any christian can withstand the evidence arising from such a number of texts (viz. twelve hundred and fifty-one) is to me astonishing. Again:

and