the rule of the Father: Contrary to their doctrine on this subject.

Finally, If the Son is to deliver up the kingdom to the three persons jointly considered, then he must deliver up the kingdom to himself, he being one of these persons.

The Apostle, it is evident, was no Trinitarian. We know indeed our opponents pretend, that the "Father" sometimes means the Son and the Holy Ghost: So that, when the Apostle says, the Son is to deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, he means the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Thus will they have terms, even explanatory terms, to mean any thing and every thing, just as their scheme may require. But, with us, the plain declaration of the inspired Apostle is sufficient authority.

Thus evident is it, that both Christ and the Apostles declare the superiority of the Father, in such manner as to render it plain, that Christ is a distinct and dependent being.

SECTION VI.

THE scriptures speak of another Being, as THE GOD OF JESUS CHRIST; not the God of a part of him, but of HIS WHOLE PERSON. They make this representation, in unqualified language, just as they speak of the God of Paul and of others. "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me ?”* "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God." The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed forever more, knoweth that I lie not." "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." "I cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom." "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed, thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."§ "And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God."** “Lo I come to do thy will, O my God."†† "Him that

overcometh says Christ, will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which cometh down out of heaven from my God."‡‡

It is hence evident, that prophets, and Apostles, and Christ himself, all declare God to be HIS GOD. In no instance do they represent, that God is the God of a part of him only,of a supposed impersonal nature. We never hear them declaring, that he is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ as to the flesh; or any thing of the kind, by which it can be inferred, that he is God over him only in a partic*Mat. xxvii. 46.- + John, xx. 17.- II Cor. xi. 31.- Eph. i. 3. 17. Heb. i. 9. ** Micah, v. 4.--This passage is a complete refutation of the argument, generally deduced from the declaration, that God will not give his glory to another. It is here declared, that he allows another to stand and feed both in the strength of Jehovah, and in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.

++ Psalms, xl. 8.-‡‡ Rev. iii. 12.

ular view. But they evidently assert, in plain and unqualified language, that the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. They assert this precisely in the same manner, as they do that he is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of facob. Yea they assert, that he is the God of Christ as OUR LORD. And what can be more decisive proof, that Christ himself is not the supreme God? Is Christ the God of Christ! Or is God the God of himself! Or are there two supreme, selfexistent, and independent Gods, one of whom is the God of the other!

The idea of a supreme God above us is, that he is our Creator, Preserver, the Author of all that we are, and of all that we possess. The inspired scriptures, by declaring that the supreme Father IS THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, affirm, in the most striking and pointed manner, that Jesus Christ is not a selfexistent, independent being; that he is not the supreme God. In what manner is it possible, that his supreme and independent divinity should be, more fully and definitely,

denied?

.

SECTION VII.

THE doctrine, that Christ is, literally, THE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MÊN, as is held by our opponents, is wholly against the idea of his being the only living and true God.

In a controversy, there are always two opposing parties. A mediator, is one who steps in, and undertakes to produce a reconciliation between them. He is not himself one of the parties, but a distinct impartial being, who will be a righteous umpire in the cause. The idea, that the Mediator is one of the contending parties, is as absurd, as that there is a controversy where there is but one being. A mediator is always a third man, who stands between the opponents. If therefore Christ be, literally speaking, a Mediator in the controversy between God and sinful men, as our opponents contend, he can neither be one of those sinners, who are engaged in the controversy; nor that God, between whom and sinful men he undertakes to mediate. But the absurdity of their doctrine on this head, will, if possible, be more fully manifest, when we consider their scheme of the covenant of redemption,

SECTION VIII.

THE commonly received doctrine, of three literal persons in the Godhead, IS WITHOUT FOUNDA. TION IN SCRIPTURE; and is, moreover, A DEMONSTRABLE ABSURDITY.

The doctrine is as follows. There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, strictly and literally capable of acting distinct or separate parts of covenanting and contracting; of assuming different offices; accomplishing different transactions; coequal and coeternal; the Father is not the Word, nor either of these the Holy Ghost; and yet there is, numerically, but one God, one being, one consciousness, one infinite intelligence, will, power, wisdom, &c.

That the scriptures, by each of the terms Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, spirit or spirit of God, designate the only living and true God, we do not hesitate to acknowledge, but firmly believe. That they teach, however, a trinity of persons in this God, as stated above, we deny. Our reasons are,

1. This doctrine is inconceivable by the human mind, not merely as to the mode, but as to the fact. The human mind cannot think of distinct literal persons, and, at the same time, maintain in its conception or idea, that these persons are, numerically, but one single being.There is nothing within the compass of nature, experience, or observation, which illustrates the doctrine, or by which it can be illustrated. There is, therefore, no possible ground of its conception by the human mind; all its ideas being derived from the sources mentioned. This is certainly the case, if the word, person, when applied to the Trinity has the same meaning, as when applied to any other than God. If it have not this meaning, but something which cannot be defined or pointed out, then also the proposition, which contains the doctrine, must