ther, and as receiving honor and glory from the Father, the Trinitarians contend that he is represented as Messiah,-represented in an assumed character, and one inferior to his real character. And in consistency with their argument, they should not quote these passages at all. They overset their own hypothesis by doing so. For it is precisely these passages that are, in fact, the very strongest which they quote. And if these passages, which refer to Jesus as inferior to God, are the strongest, or as strong as any, how can they say that any prove him to be equal to God. Such are the following. "For by him were all things created that are in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." There is no stronger language than this. And yet, for all this, Jesus is represented as dependent on the good pleasure of God. "For"-it is added-"for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." I suppose this to be that moral creation, that creating anew of many souls, which Jesus by his doctrine has effected, together with that influence upon the visible kingdoms of the world, which his doctrine has unquestionably produced. Again; you read of Jesus Christ as being "far above principality and power, and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come;" and again, I say, there is no stronger language than this. But it is expressly said, that God SET him above all principality, &c. How directly are we led back from these passages, to our Saviour's principle of interpretation! Here he is evidently represented in all 3

VOL III.NO. I.

his transcendant glory, as the Messiah, as the sanctified and sent into the world. And say ye-I might address the question to Trinitarians,-say ye that he is made to be God, because he is spoken of in that lofty and glowing language, which does but correspond to the holy and heavenly, and more than heavenly distinction to which God has raised him?

The truth is, we are not to rely upon any mere insulated expressions to prove what any being is, but upon the general sense of a book. Trinitarians say, I know, that they rely upon the whole record. In a sense they do; but in that sense, I repeat, that I could prove Christians to be divine. They do not rely upon the general tenor of the book, to establish their doctrine. This may be shown from their own confessions. They say-they admit, that as Jesus appeared in an inferior character, he is commonly spoken of as inferior. And all that saves the doctrine is a theory, in violation of all the fair rules of interpretation, that Jesus was originally divine. If we could receive this theory, we could go along with the Trinitarian,-believing, to be sure, what to all human apprehension, would be utterly absurd, but believing that that might be truth to the divinity, which to our frail minds, was error-but the theory it is, that we hold to be utterly unsupported by all the just principles of the construction of language.

It is a theory, I repeat-an unsupported theory—a human theory. And we hear, in consequence, much language on this subject that is not to be found in the scriptures. The doctrine of the trinity, indeed, cannot be explicitly stated in the language of the Bible. And we continually hear from its advocates unscriptural ex

pressions, ascriptions, and doxologies. We hear it said,' that the mighty God gave his life and shed his blood. No such language is to be found in the Scriptures. The text, "feed the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood," is unquestionably in the material word, an interpolation; and should be read according to the earliest copies of the New Testament, "feed the church of the Lord." We hear it said and sung in doxology,

"To God the Father, God the Son,

And God the Spirit, three in one."

No such language is to be found in the Scriptures. We hear the ascriptions, "to the holy and blessed Trinity; to the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be equal and undivided honors and praises." No such language is to be found in Scriptures.

And yet those who pass upon us such unscriptural theories, as we think them, and are constantly swaying the public mind, by using such confessedly unscriptural language, are, at the same time perpetually charging us with rejecting the Bible, and relying on our presumptuous reasonings, and with leaning, and more than leaning to infidelity. Whence has infidelity most frequently come? I answer, from those very perversions of Christianity against which we contend. You will find infidels continually arguing against them. It is in that rubbish which has been thrown over the fair and beautiful foundations of true Christianity, that infidelity has found its most prolific soil, and shot up with frightful luxuriance. I say with alarming growth, for a considerable portion of the intelligent classes, in three quarters of

Christendom, I mean the Catholic part, are at this moment Infidels. I use plainness of speech on this subject. I doubt not that Trinitarians verily think that they are doing God service; but I am as fully persuaded, that they are doing a great and serious disservice to Christianity. And it is because I regard this religion as the best gift of heaven to us, that I feel bound to contend against their doctrine as not belonging to it.

I repeat once more, in close, that the question between us is a question of interpretation. It is a question of "what saith the Scripture?" It amounts to nothing in view of this question, to tell me, that for many centuries, the church has, in the body of it, believed this or that doctrine. The church, by the confession of us all, has believed many errors, for many centuries. It is worse yet, contemptuously or haughtily to say, that it is unlikely, any great or new truth in religion, is now to be found out. Such a principle would stop the progress of the age. Such a principle would have crushed the Reformation. Neither is our doctrine new, nor is it unhonored, so far as human testimony can confer honor. was the doctrine, as we firmly believe, of the primitive Church. It has been held by many good men ever since. And when you come upon English groundwhen you retrace the bright lineage of our English worthies, to whom do all eyes turn as the brightest in that line? whose names have become household words in all the dwellings of a reading and intelligent community? I answer, the names of Newton, and Locke, and Milton; and yet Newton, who not only read the stars, and Locke, who not only penetrated with patient study the secrets of

It

the mind, and Milton, who not only soared into the heaven of poetry, and "passed the sapphire blaze, and saw the living throne"-all of whom read their Bibles too, and wrote largely upon the scriptures, all these, after laborious investigation, concurred in rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. What these men believed, is not to be accounted of mushroom growth. They were men not of parts and genius only, but men of solid and transcendant acquisitions and ever-during fame. I would not name them in the spirit of vain and foolish boasting. But I do say-and I would urge this consideration particularly-I do say, that the extraordinary circumstance, that these three men have been as distinguished for their study of the Bible, as they have been otherwise distinguished among the great and learned men of England-that this circumstance should lead every man to pause before he rejects a doctrine which they believed. Much more, does it become men of inferior parts and little learning, to abstain from pouring out contempt and anathema, upon a doctrine which Newton, and Locke, and Milton believed.

It is to little purpose, indeed, to lift up warnings and denunciations, and to awaken prejudice and hostility against the great doctrine on which Unitarianism is built-the simple Unity of God, and the entire inferiority, yet glorious distinction, of Jesus, as his Son and Messenger. This doctrine professes to stand securely on the foundation of scripture. Argument, therefore, not passion, must supply the only effectual weapons against it. If this doctrine be wrong, may God. speedily show it. If it be right, he will defend the right! Concerning all improper opposition, we might say to its