not have supposed the Apostle to be amusing them with some Idle tale for which they had a parallel in their fables of the birth and sepulchre of Cretan Jove?

It is clearly demonstrable then from the records extant of the preaching of the Apostles, that they did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity to the Jews. It is equally demonstrable that they taught Unitarianism to the Gentiles-that faith which the eloquent reformers of the nineteenth century stigmatize as a “leprosy, and a soul-destroying heresy."

In the writings as well as the preaching of the Apostles, we find many passages strongly expressive of their belief in the divine unity not one in which the holders of that doctrine are censured, as they must inevitably have been, if their doctrine were erroneous. The Apostle John combats the errors of the Gnostics and condemns the Churches of Asia, for various lapses and defections from the truth. But no where is any condemnnation either direct or implied attached to Unitarianism. How should it? The inspired writers were all Unitarians, and knew no more of the tritheistic hypothesis than of the Pope's infallibility. The Apostle Paul spoke not only his own sentiments but those of his Brethren, when he affirmed that the "head of Christ is God." But of all the sacred authors John is the most copious in attesting the Supreme Deity of God, and shewing the derived existence, and derived miraculous powers of Christ. If one Apostle might claim pre-eminence above the rest, as the advocate of the divine unity, John would have a fair claim to be entitled the Apostle of Unitarianism.*

As the doctrine of the Trinity is no where taught in the Scriptures, it is inferred by Trinitarians; and some of its ablest advocates admit that it is altogether a doctrine of inference. They cannot find it in Matthew-nor in Mark-nor in Luke-nor in John nor in Paul-nor in Peter-nor in James—nor

in Jude-but they give us to understand that there are certain hints and expressions in the one and in the other, from a judicious combination of which it may be extracted, by a little knowledge of the dialectics of theology. The Scrip tures, we suppose, contain its elements as the alphabet contains the elements of the mysterious tetragrammaton! The picture is in the colours of the painter's pallet, and requires only to be transferred to the canvas! The statue which may chant the world," and claim its idolatry, lies in the marble block,

..

"en

See this most satisfactorily proved by the Rev. W. J. Fox, in his letter: to the Rev. Dr. Blomfield, now Bishop of London, entitled The Apostle John a Unitarian." The Bishop is to be commended for his prudence in not attempting an answer to so powerful and eloquent an antagonist. His silence may be deemed a sufficient concession, though it would be more magnanimous to declare himself vanquished.—See also "the Apostle Paul a Unitarian," by the Rev. B. Mardon.

spirit, he must be contemplated by the spiritual part of man; that being infinitely beneficient, he connived at their past ignorance, but now commanded them to repent, to depart from their idolatry, to worship and obey the great Jehovah alone. To give efficacy to his admonition, he then speaks of the great topics never neglected by the Apostles, resurrection, and judgmentdeclaring unto them that God had appointed a day in which he would "judge the world, in righteousness, by that MAN whom he had ordained," and that he had given the most incontestible proof of this truth, by having already raised him from the dead.* -Acts, xvii.

All this discourse was highly beautiful and instructive. It contained nothing but what "reason and common sense" could approve and adopt. The only circumstance about which his hearers felt distrust, was the resurrection. But what would have been their thoughts, had the Apostle, after having revealed to them the true God-brought them down from the elevation to which he had raised them, and alleged that the Almighty Creator, of whom he had just declared that "he dwelleth not in temples made with hands"-that he whom "the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain," was cradled in a manger, and after a life of suffering, was put to death upon a cross? Would they

*It is argued by Burgh who wrote, against Lindsey's Apology, a book which he was pleased to entitle a "Scriptural Confutation," that because Paul preached Jesus to the Athenians, they said, he seemed to be a setter. forth of strange Gods, Acts, xvii. 18. Here, upon a call to explain himself and answer the charge of setting forth strange Gods, in having preached Jesus, he avows that he whom he had preached was that God whom they knew not, (the unknown God) but worshipped ignorantly: but he had preached Jesus; therefore Jesus Christ was that God hitherto unknown to them, and one with the Father."

Such is a specimen of the miserable and contemptible sophistry of a man who thought he could confute Lindsey! He makes strange Gods (or foreign demons) and unknown God, relate to the same person, ignorant or forgetful that the word rendered Gods is day which, in general, if not in every other instance, in the common version of the Scriptures, is rendered Devils. The Athenians were so much addicted to the fear and worship of these Devils or Demons, that Paul charged them with being duvidaiμovecrepus too superstitious-more literally, too fearful of Demons. The foreign Demons of which "he seemed to be a setter-forth," were Jesus and Anastasis, i. e. Resurrection, and it would be as consistent to assert of Anastasis as of Jesus, that she was the unknown God. What analogy there is, either grammatical or physical, between "foreign Demons" plural, and the "unknown God" singular, such writers as Burgh may determine. This confuter of Lindsey says, "I thank God and my pious parents for it, that with my nurse's milk I did imbibe the doctrine (of the Trinity) which I now maintain; and at the same time, I imbibed a belief, that grass was green, that fire was hot, that snow was cold, and that two and two make four." Prodigious! What pity that he did not add to these liberal scientific attainments, the belief that one is one, and that three are three !

not have supposed the Apostle to be amusing them with some idle tale for which they had a parallel in their fables of the birth and sepulchre of Cretan Jove?

It is clearly demonstrable then from the records extant of the preaching of the Apostles, that they did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity to the Jews. It is equally demonstrable that they taught Unitarianism to the Gentiles-that faith which the eloquent reformers of the nineteenth century stigmatize as a "leprosy, and a soul-destroying heresy."

In the writings as well as the preaching of the Apostles, we find many passages strongly expressive of their belief in the divine unity not one in which the holders of that doctrine are censured, as they must inevitably have been, if their doctrine were erroneous. The Apostle John combats the errors of the Gnostics and condemns the Churches of Asia, for various lapses and defections from the truth. But no where is any condemnation either direct or implied attached to Unitarianism. How should it? The inspired writers were all Unitarians, and knew no more of the tritheistic hypothesis than of the Pope's infallibility. The Apostle Paul spoke not only his own sentiments but those of his Brethren, when he affirmed that the "head of Christ is God." But of all the sacred authors John is the most copious in attesting the Supreme Deity of God, and shewing the derived existence, and derived miraculous powers of Christ. If one Apostle might claim pre-eminence above the rest, as the advocate of the divine unity, John would have a fair claim to be entitled the Apostle of Unitarianism*

As the doctrine of the Trinity is no where taught in the Scriptures, it is inferred by Trinitarians; and some of its ablest advocates admit that it is altogether a doctrine of inference. They eannot find it in Matthew-nor in Mark-nor in Luke-nor in John-nor in Paul-nor in Peter-nor in James-nor in Jude-but they give us to understand that there are certain hints and expressions in the one and in the other, from a judicious combination of which it may be extracted, by a little knowledge of the dialectics of theology. The Scrip tures, we suppose, contain its elements as the alphabet con. tains the elements of the mysterious tetragrammaton! The picture is in the colours of the painter's pallet, and requires only to be transferred to the canvas! The statue which may chant the world," and claim its idolatry, lies in the marble block,

66 en

* See this most satisfactorily proved by the Rev. W. J. Fox, in his letter to the Rev. Dr. Blomfield, now Bishop of London, entitled The Apostle John a Unitarian." The Bishop is to be commended for his prudence in not attempting an answer to so powerful and eloquent an antagonist. His silence may be deemed a sufficient concession, though it would be more magnanimous to declare himself vanquished.-See also "the Apostle Paul a Unitarian," by the Rev. B. Mardon.

and asks but the chisel of some Phidias or Praxiteles to rescue it from concealment! The golden calf of Aaron had its component parts, its membra disjecta, in the ear-rings of the wives and of the sons and daughters of Israel. It required but the blast of the furnace, and the graving tool of the artist to fashion them into a four-footed idol. Thus, from a skilful amalgamation of heathentsh inventions and traditions, with certain garbled extracts from Scripture, do the advocates of Athanasianism form a triplicate object of worship, and with their predecessors in the wilderness of old, exclaim, "These be thy Gods, O Israel!"

But why a triplicate object? Ah! there is a great mystery in the number three, and, as heathen mythology will teach us, it has many an ancient hereditary claim to respect. But on what particular passages of Scripture the doctrine of the Athanasian Trinity is founded, the reader who has nothing but revelation for his guide, cannot easily discover; for though it often speaks of the Holy One, and the Blessed One, it never speaks of the holy three, nor the blessed three. The advocates of the doctrine refer us to the Saviour's command, to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and after informing us that to baptize in the name of a person, is to ascribe Supreme Deity to that person, a statement which at once makes Moses the Supreme Deity, they ask in a tone of conscious triumph, "Is not the Father one-is not the Son one-and is not the Holy Ghost one-and are not three ones-three?" We answerunquestionably. And ask in return-three what?-Gods ?-No. That would be polytheism. Names of the same God? No. That would confound the persons and plunge us in what Athanasians would call the "damnable heresy" of Sabellianism-Persons? Yes. And the three persons are one God? Yes. Then is each person but the third part of the one God. This divides the essence and robs God of his simplicity. Again, we are referred to 1 John, v. 7-a text universally rejected as an interpolation by learned and honest critics. But, admitting it as genuine, it could give no more support than the former text, to the doctrine of three in one. The connexion would lead us to conclude, that the three witnesses were one only in testimony. Of essence it says nothing-it insinuates nothing. The same principles of inference which deduce a Trinity from these verses might deduce an Enneity, or nine in one, from Rev. i. 4, 5— and we might ask, is not "he which was, and which is, and which is to come,' one? And are not the "seven spirits before the throne," seven?-and is not "Jesus Christ the faithful witness," one? 1+7+ 19. This doctrine may be supported by 1 Tim. v. 21. "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Elect Angels." What angels? The

seven spirits of John, forsooth. Thus is the doctrine of John confirmed by that of Paul. It has the high sanction also of Burgh, who says, that he "may possibly surprise Mr. Lindsey, by an assurance that these seven spirits are God." It is, no doubt, a very surprising assurance! but, he continues, "this is a position very easily explained to the man who remembers that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.' The seven spirits are the eyes of the Lamb-(they were God just now,) and the Lamb is Jesus Christ himself." But Christ is God-and therefore he which was, and is, and is to come,--the seven spirits and Jesus Christ are one God! Thus is the doctrine of an Enneity proved by genuine orthodox inference. Let not the courteous reader object to the term Enneity, on account of its novelty. That of Trinity was as novel many years after the first dispensation of the gospel. The one word-the one doctrine, is as scriptural as the other; and the Enneity wants nothing but a little aid from tradition, the Infallible Church, and the Synod of Ulster, to fix it on as stable and permanent a foundation as the Trinity.

SECTION FOURTH.

The inferiority of Christ to the Father proved by his own declarations.

Mr. Pope has quoted the long list of texts usually employed in this controversy, to shew that Christ possessed all the attributes of the Supreme Deity. A similar task has been repeatedly executed by men whose erudition and critical ingenuity were fully equal to those of Mr. Pope, but with a success similar to that of the architects of the tower of Babel. Many of the texts quoted, are irrelevant and misunderstood. It would be a labour more tedious than difficult, to shew that none of them, when rightly interpreted, yields any support to the doctrine of three persons in one God. Mr. Maguire's assertion could be amply verified, that every text in support of the doctrine, could be confronted by another, till not a shred of argument remained. The New Testament is redundant in passages proving the supremacy of the Father, and the subordination of the Son. The very ideas of Father and Son imply superiority in the oneinferiority in the other. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, in fact, admit this, though it is denied by the "Article," which affirms that the three persons are of one substance, power, and eternity. They admit that Christ was begotten of the Father, and thus contradict the coeternity and coequality which the article asserts. The words of the second article of the Church of England "begotten from everlasting of the Father," are nonsense, for they involve two ideas which destroy each other